I think we would all agree that our current system for administering to those sentenced to the death penalty in the US is rather flawed. Both cost to the taxpayer and time from conviction to execution are exorbitant.
I suggested in the origin post Sexual Assault, that anyone convicted of murder, rape, molestation or kidnapping should be put to death, after a brief time for a secondary investigation. I'd like to add to that list attempted murder and armed robbery.
Borrowing liberally from Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers I would love to see prisons abolished and all crimes punishable by either death, public whipping or a fine.
As a deterrent, the death penalty seems great to me, although some other posters disagree rather vehemently. As a way to ensure no second transgression, I don't think it's even arguable as being 100% effective (assuming that no guards were killed or prisoner escapes).
I do want to be clear about one thing. Not all cases of homicide are murder, nor should all cases of statutory rape be considered molestation.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I do want to be clear about one thing. Not all cases of homicide are murder, nor should all cases of statutory rape be considered molestation.
I guess you really can't always get what you want.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
From original discussion:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: To work 'unquestioningly' as the best deterrant, it has to provide a boost in deterrance which justifies its operating overhead. Otherwise, it's not the best, it's just the most exhaustively prohibitive and expensive.
By a nuanced analysis, you can show that the death penalty is a not-significant quantity of additional deterrance provided for an exorbitant increase in the costs to the system (and by extension, to taxpayers). This is both to the repeat offenders themselves (look at the rates of escape for high security lifers versus total prison populations) and to others who are supposedly dissuaded by capital punishment (since it has consistently been shown that the death penalty does not provide significant deterrance above other penal options).
Not that much of this discussion matters. You may not be cognizant of why, but the whole "I think that anyone who kills, rapes, molests or kidnaps another human being should be killed" idea will be soundly rejected as immoral — for good reasons — and wouldn't pass constitutional review, to boot. You're proposing something which is firmly (and thankfully) in the realm of fantasy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I guess you really can't always get what you want.
Thank you Mick Jagger! Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Since we're borrowing punishments from books that have no relevance to the way our current society is structured or ideologically inclined, can't we just break criminals wands and send them to Azkaban?
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Since we're borrowing punishments from books that have no relevance to the way our current society is structured or ideologically inclined, can't we just break criminals wands and send them to Azkaban?
I read a study about this system. From what I recall, I thought they showed it to be a less than perfect judicial system where criminals ran free and jailors were more than happy to bend to corrupt influences. Surely you do not support such a flawed system, do you?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Getting rid of island fortress prisons guarded by soul-sucking demons just because of a few breakouts really is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What the death penalty is is a way for politicians to look tough on crime, and that sells electability like nobody's business not only because it makes the politician saying it look badass, but because it makes the person speaking against it looking like a candyass. You're not going to find any evidence beyond the emotional, 'it makes sense' arguments that suggest the death penalty is an actual deterrent to violent crime, Stone_Wolf. I mean, it's been tried, but I think you'll find that when you start looking around a theme will start cropping up: "The reason the data is inconclusive (that's when they don't admit the rates of homicide are lower in non-death penalty states) is because the death penalty isn't applied enough."
That's the argument. "The death penalty is a deterrent, we're just not doing it enough." But in that statement, you've introduced an admission that you're (general you) just [i]guessing it's a deterrent, because that idea seems to make sense. It doesn't, really, in part because it relies on the idea that criminals seriously include the idea that they're gonna get caught when they commit their crime.
I don't think that's a major factor in decision-making to commit most crimes. Note that's a big factor in the decision on whether or not to commit crimes, but not a factor in the crimes that actually get committed.
quote:I think we would all agree that our current system for administering to those sentenced to the death penalty in the US is rather flawed. Both cost to the taxpayer and time from conviction to execution are exorbitant.
Well, no, the cost to the taxpayer isn't 'exorbitant' at all. We could afford many, many times more than what we're spending on the death penalty right now and to spare. Is it expensive? Sure, but we're really, really, really loaded as a country. That's not an argument to say, "Whee! Don't matter how much money we spend!" but just a pointing-out that if we're going to put this in economic terms, well, hey-lookit actual exorbitant wastes such as incarceration over treatment for non-violent drug-related offenses.
And the cost-to-taxpayer is actually pretty low on reasons why there are problems with the death penalty, from a justice perspective. There's also the problem of the disproportionate ratio in which poor people and minorities are executed.
quote: As a deterrent, the death penalty seems great to me, although some other posters disagree rather vehemently. As a way to ensure no second transgression, I don't think it's even arguable as being 100% effective (assuming that no guards were killed or prisoner escapes).
Actually, it is: sometimes we execute the wrong people. Completely ineffective in that case. Which brings me to your pretty reprehensible answer to the problem of the wrongfully executed, "Hey, they died in a good cause." That's just...well, morally pretty indefensible. For that to be valid you'd first have to show that the cause was actually really, really good. And you haven't done that. That would be step one.
Then you'd have to try to remember that, hey, we're supposed to be at least concerned with individual rights in this country.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I can't help but wonder how many innocent people would be quickly put to death under Stone Wolf's proposal.
I would have no problem with the death penalty for serious crimes if we could be 100% accurate on investigating and prosecuting those crimes. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near that.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
This reminds me of The Jigsaw Man by Larry Niven.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: I can't help but wonder how many innocent people would be quickly put to death under Stone Wolf's proposal.
I would have no problem with the death penalty for serious crimes if we could be 100% accurate on investigating and prosecuting those crimes. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near that.
Yeah, no kidding.
This guy would be long dead under the proposed system (he almost died under our actual system):
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Getting rid of island fortress prisons guarded by soul-sucking demons just because of a few breakouts really is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Perhaps we should combine the two and replace "public whipping or fine" with a stint in Azkaban. At least this way the more serious offenders are dead and can't escape. Certainly would have made sure that nasty Sirius Black wasn't running around killing more people.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: You're not going to find any evidence beyond the emotional, 'it makes sense' arguments that suggest the death penalty is an actual deterrent to violent crime...
Regardless of statistics (even with some supporting my side, I still don't trust them, chaos theory and all, nothing is simple and straight forward and statistics rarely prove anything) we have no stats for if there was a universal enforcement.
Twelve states do not have the death penalty at all...some that do rarely use it. What if it was universal. Rape a girl, you are found guilty, three months later after another investigation, you are dead. Kill someone in a robbery, found guilty, 3 months, dead.
If it was consistent and universal, it would have impact.
Right now the average jail time for a rape is 5.5 years. Now I agree that criminals don't plan on getting caught, but it seems unrealistic to say they don't consider it.
And if they were looking down the barrel of the U.S. of A. they might think twice.
quote:...the death penalty is is a way for politicians to look tough on crime...
I could care less dude, seriously. Politicians are (taken as a whole) evil, self serving, lying sacks of steaming donkey crap and I don't care what they say. There are two types of politicians, the ones who use their position to better their own lives and those who pave the road to hell with their good intentions (and maybe two or three that actually help, but I'm sure heroin is a great drug for two or three people). Let's just say I'm not a big fan.
quote:...actual exorbitant wastes such as incarceration over treatment for non-violent drug-related offenses.
As to non-violent drug crime, let them go...and while you are at it, legalize all drugs, and suicide and all "victimless crime". As to should there be some reform to the capital punishment system, I understand you are saying that the huge amounts of money are going to ensure that the innocent are not unjustly killed, but seriously, at some point all the multiple appeals seem to be just a delaying tacit and have nothing to do with innocence.
quote:There's also the problem of the disproportionate ratio in which poor people and minorities are executed.
If they did the crime, then they deserve the punishment. I'm not a heartless bastard, and believe that those who have less opportunity should receive help, but on the prevention and education side, not the lenient on crime side.
quote:Actually, it is: sometimes we execute the wrong people. Completely ineffective in that case.
So true. And that is exactly why I have always said that a secondary investigation should be built into the system. All reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that no innocent people are killed by the state. Heck, extraordinary measures should be taken.
quote:I would have no problem with the death penalty for serious crimes if we could be 100% accurate on investigating and prosecuting those crimes. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near that.
I can't really disagree here. But let's say for the sake of argument that it's 99.99%? Is that good enough. I think I would be satisfied. How about 99.0%? How about 90%? Anyone know what the batting average for our actual system is? Where is the line?
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
So you believe every possible doubt of guilt in every circumstance can be resolved by a secondary investigation with extraordinary measures?
I personally don't, and wouldn't want to risk it killing an innocent person. What do I know, though? Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Yeah, no kidding.
This guy would be long dead under the proposed system (he almost died under our actual system):
This guy would have been released 14 years earlier under the proposed system.
Let me be clear, that when I say "secondary" investigation, I mean independent.
After all evidence would be turned over, the secondary team would have published the very same findings that exonerated the author of this article, but a decade and a half sooner.
I'm rather outraged that the prosecutors on this case are not facing criminal charges.
quote:So you believe every possible doubt of guilt in every circumstance can be resolved by a secondary investigation with extraordinary measures?
Every possible...sounds unrealistic for anyone ever.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Regardless of statistics (even with some supporting my side, I still don't trust them, chaos theory and all, nothing is simple and straight forward and statistics rarely prove anything) we have no stats for if there was a universal enforcement.
So again, we come back to the fact that your argument really relies not on any sort of evidence, but in that you really, really think it would work. That's why we should amp up the frequency of the death penalty in this country: because you're really sure it would work. You don't have any evidence for it aside from gut feelings - because the means of gathering evidence aren't to be relied upon (after all, 'chaos theory').
That's just not a persuasive argument. You need a better reason than that to start killing people, even scumbags. Next argument? I'm being terse because that is the heart of your argument here, Stone_Wolf. I realize it's persuasive to you, but your own utter certainty is not actually a sign of some sort of intrinsic rightness.
quote: Twelve states do not have the death penalty at all...some that do rarely use it. What if it was universal. Rape a girl, you are found guilty, three months later after another investigation, you are dead. Kill someone in a robbery, found guilty, 3 months, dead.
Nothing here serves as a persuasive argument in favor of using the death penalty more often-nothing.
quote:If it was consistent and universal, it would have impact.
Oh, personally I don't much doubt that it would have an impact. If the only goal of our criminal justice system was to reduce crime, then there are a whole host of things we could do to achieve that goal. I sort of thought we had more than one goal at hand, and more than one method to achieve it besides killing people. And hell, I can even credit an argument for the death penalty in the case of murder, attempted murder-but armed robbery? Now we'll kill you for stealing? What is this, the Old West?
Except...wait, that's what they did in the Old West, too-and yet plenty of stuff was stolen there, as well.
quote:And if they were looking down the barrel of the U.S. of A. they might think twice.
It's macho chest-thumping rhetoric like this that, quite frankly, makes you sound a lot more like you're interested in vengeance than any sort of justice. Or we could...lock `em up in prison for life, with nigh-on absolute certainty they won't be escaping? And then in the off chance that it turns out they're innocent, or that someone in a position of authority did something illegal to get a conviction, we can address that besides a, "Whoops! Well, ya died in a good cause, mister!"
Because it will happen. Happens now even with all these appeals, this secondary and tertiary and ^8 power investigations and appeals that you object to so strongly. It is frankly ridiculous that you think two investigations are going to be enough when sometimes several investigations aren't enough.
quote:I could care less dude, seriously. Politicians are (taken as a whole) evil, self serving, lying sacks of steaming donkey crap and I don't care what they say. There are two types of politicians, the ones who use their position to better their own lives and those who pave the road to hell with their good intentions (and maybe two or three that actually help, but I'm sure heroin is a great drug for two or three people). Let's just say I'm not a big fan.
This is a cop-out. Politicians aren't some magic troll that somehow obtains a position of power over us. They're elected. We put `em there. This whole, "Our politicians are garbage," rhetoric that comes so often from the American public is frankly pretty laughable given it's a public that generally is ill-informed at best and doesn't vote.
quote:As to non-violent drug crime, let them go...and while you are at it, legalize all drugs, and suicide and all "victimless crime". As to should there be some reform to the capital punishment system, I understand you are saying that the huge amounts of money are going to ensure that the innocent are not unjustly killed, but seriously, at some point all the multiple appeals seem to be just a delaying tacit and have nothing to do with innocence.
To someone who proposes 'two investigations, then kill `em' I can see how the appeals system might appear to be just a delaying tactic, and having nothing to do with innocence. And in the case of some specific appeals, sure, it doesn't. So what? What it has to do with is the fact that we can't un-kill someone, so it's pretty important, given that killing is pretty serious business (remember, you're angry about killing, right?) to make sure that when we do it, we're doing it absolutely right. (Whatever that means.)
Basically, we don't want to half-ass it. If we have to go over some forms in triplicate, so be it. Our wallets can stretch it easily (I note you seem to have dropped this objection, along with your notion of using actual evidence in support of death penalty deterrence), and there just isn't some victim right to a speedy execution that is sovereign to our civil demand to make sure we execute the right people, if we're going to execute people at all.
quote:If they did the crime, then they deserve the punishment. I'm not a heartless bastard, and believe that those who have less opportunity should receive help, but on the prevention and education side, not the lenient on crime side.
So they deserve the punishment even if their rich white co-citizens aren't getting the same punishment in similar proportions, huh? They deserve to die just as much? Yeah, that's a very sensible position, Stone_Wolf-certainly founded in a clear-minded passion for justice, not a macho eagerness for vengeance.
Anyway, I think our Constitution says something about equal protection under the law-and that becomes a bit problematic when minority poor are being killed by our government in distinctly greater numbers than rich white people. But, hey, you can't believe statistics.
quote:So true. And that is exactly why I have always said that a secondary investigation should be built into the system. All reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that no innocent people are killed by the state. Heck, extraordinary measures should be taken.
There's only one reasonable step to ensure no innocent person is killed by the state. And I wonder what on Earth standard involves 'extraordinary' meaning 'OK, one investigation-then we have another one'. When I use the word extraordinary, I don't just mean 'redo'.
quote: I can't really disagree here. But let's say for the sake of argument that it's 99.99%? Is that good enough. I think I would be satisfied. How about 99.0%? How about 90%? Anyone know what the batting average for our actual system is? Where is the line?
So, let's see if I follow along here. You would be satisfied with a 99.99% certainty rate in the case of death penalties. But not, say, in reliability of incarceration of violent offenders. (The utterly ridiculous justification you used in the last argument, that the violence they do to each other counts too, doesn't hold water, because you want to kill them in much greater numbers.)
This doesn't make much sense at all. But for the sake of argument, what statistics on death penalty reliability would you believe? Chaos theory!
ETA: What proposed system? You've just said 'secondary investigation'. Now you've said 'independent'. Where are you going to find these secondary, independent experienced criminal investigators?
I'm guessing very likely from the exact same places you find the primary, state-funded criminal investigators-except maybe retired.
Also, nice out-of-context quoting right there in the front.
------------
I'm coming off pretty heated here, and I wanted to apologize for that. I really don't mean it personally, if you can believe that-it's rather that the ideas you're expressing appear, to me, to be, "This will work, I'm sure of it, so we should do it," and the idea you're talking about is killing a lot more people.
When we've got some pretty good evidence that it doesn't actually work at all, or at the very least that it's not a slam-dunk. When we can look at other societies where it's not done and murder rates aren't noticeably higher. And we can look to our past when capital punishment was much more common, and yet somehow violent crime wasn't unheard of. And...none of this is really trivia or anything. It's not rare knowledge. So I just don't understand why people think the death penalty will be such a great deterrent after having really thought about it-or rather think that it's a slam-dunk. I can certainly credit thinking it might work. Thinking that there's room for argument. But to take it as a given? To reference Starship Troopers? To say that we can't actually look to statistics...because of chaos theory? What does that even mean in this context?
I'm confused, and I'm tired, and I probably shouldn't have posted at all-but by the time I was done I was pretty sure it had already been read, probably by Stone_Wolf at least-so I left it up there. Reads more personally harsh than I intend, and I'm sorry for that. The exasperation and bafflement are for the ideas expressed, and i should've expressed that better.
[ April 13, 2011, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I can't really disagree here. But let's say for the sake of argument that it's 99.99%? Is that good enough. I think I would be satisfied. How about 99.0%? How about 90%? Anyone know what the batting average for our actual system is? Where is the line?
There is no line. Give me absolute certainty or nothing.
Even with 99.99% accuracy, that's a lot of innocent people being killed when you think about how many violent crimes are committed each year.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Particularly when you consider that the evidence in support of deterrence is, at best, inconclusive and possibly not there at all-and that we can very reliably and within our means lock `em up for life if we want to prevent re-offense forever.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Yeah, the starship troopers references are funny since I prefer The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. In that one, the moon was a polite and peaceful place more for the LACK of law than for it. If someone offended you, you could toss them out of an airlock and nobody cared, except maybe for his friends and family who could do the same to you in revenge. While that sounds like capital punishment, there really wasn't any law or procedures involved.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
quote: Every possible...sounds unrealistic for anyone ever.
Agreed.
Edit: Everything everyone else said sounds better. Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith:
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Getting rid of island fortress prisons guarded by soul-sucking demons just because of a few breakouts really is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Perhaps we should combine the two and replace "public whipping or fine" with a stint in Azkaban. At least this way the more serious offenders are dead and can't escape. Certainly would have made sure that nasty Sirius Black wasn't running around killing more people.
Let no man say I'm not willing to compromise. We can call it Death or Dementia as a buzzword to sell it to the people.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: I would have no problem with the death penalty for serious crimes if we could be 100% accurate on investigating and prosecuting those crimes. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near that.
This. I support the idea of the death penalty, in general. However, race, wealth, mental status factor in to verdicts and punishments.
Our justice system is just too broken for the death penalty.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The problem with the death penalty as a deterrent is that, by and large, the class of people whom it is applied to have really poor "considering the consequences of my actions" skills.
If we want it to be effective at deterring crime, I think we should move it into the world of white collar crime. Corruption of public officials is one I've advocated for before. If you seriously violate your oath of office, shouldn't capital punishment at least be a possibility.
Massive financial fraud is another area where I think we'd actually benefit from having it on the table. Bernie Madof did more damage to society that anyone on death row and he did it while fully considering the consequences of his actions. If we're going to have the death penalty at all, why shouldn't it be considered in these sorts of cases?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Look Rakeesh, I appreciate your edit, but I seriously am trying to have a discussion here and not a debate where every single point must be discussed at length. There are no points or judges and if I choose to not specifically address something you said, you are just going to have to ask again nicely. And unless you can keep civil (like everyone else has) I will ignore your posts.
quote:You don't have any evidence for it aside from gut feelings...
You have made at least four little comments about this...I posted a link to some stats, I really don't know how you missed it. Please cut out the snarky, disdainful, and again, ultimately inaccurate comments about how your facts are facts and mine are feelings.
quote:The utterly ridiculous justification you used in the last argument, that the violence they do to each other counts too, doesn't hold water, because you want to kill them in much greater numbers.
Some of the people in jail are not murderers/rapests/etc, and while you may flippantly question my compassion for extreme offenders all you like, someone severing a year for unpaid parking tickets doesn't deserve to be raped and killed in prison. Crimes done in prison still count. The justice system still charges inmates with new crimes all the time.
As to my suggestion of a secondary/independent investigation I will elaborate: Bob Badguy gets arrested for murder by the city of Townsvile police department. The county of Countyvile tries him and finds him guilty of murder, and he is sentenced to death by my proposed system. For the next three months a highly specialized and experienced investigation team from the FBI, a group of criminal lawyers, and any other needed experts pour over the case, the evidence, the hearing, . The day before the execution is to take place, the agents report directly to a federal judge as to the validity of verdict.
quote:I prefer The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
I would as well, for a small moon colony, on the frontier where danger is so prevalent and a small mistake could cause a lot of people to die. Here on earth, I doubt the system would work.
quote:There is no line. Give me absolute certainty or nothing.
Without a Pastwatch machine, we are never going to achieve that certainty. So are you suggesting that the death penalty should just be removed as an option?
quote:Our justice system is just too broken for the death penalty.
I am hard pressed to disagree with you. Since I'm rewriting the system in my head, I've made other changes as well. I do agree that sweeping reforms to the judicial system would be required to give over that much power to the government.
quote:...I think we should move it (the death penalty) into the world of white collar crime. (and) Corruption of public officials...
I had never considered massive financial fraud, but I like it. As to corruption of public officials, I simply forgot to mention it and agree completely. The people of this country have put their trust into their elected officials to represent their voices in our government, and anyone who breaks that trust is guilty of treason and should be punished accordingly.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Look Rakeesh, I appreciate your edit, but I seriously am trying to have a discussion here and not a debate where every single point must be discussed at length. There are no points or judges and if I choose to not specifically address something you said, you are just going to have to ask again nicely. And unless you can keep civil (like everyone else has) I will ignore your posts.
What does "discussion" even mean? People just post a few random ideas and then not worry about whether they're right or not? What are you hoping to get out of this?
There is nothing uncivil about fact checking a point.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
RA: A sharing of ideas. You guys will help me smooth the edges of my ideas, point out flaws I hadn't thought of, expand, refine etc. Maybe I get to plant a few ideas too. And we get to enjoy the process.
Rakeesh is taking this to a very adversarial place where the enjoyment of discussing and sharing ideas of how the world works or should work is lost.
In other words, dude, that guy is bringing me down.
I don't mind if people disagree, in fact I enjoy it, as it tends to bring more points of interest to light. But the way he is disagreeing is caustic and plain rude and I am not enjoying conversing with him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Look Rakeesh, I appreciate your edit, but I seriously am trying to have a discussion here and not a debate where every single point must be discussed at length. There are no points or judges and if I choose to not specifically address something you said, you are just going to have to ask again nicely. And unless you can keep civil (like everyone else has) I will ignore your posts.
Stone Wolf, I believe you think you're trying to have a discussion here, but some of the things you're saying - and I don't actually mean your opinions on capital punishment, either - well, they don't sound like someone who's committed to having much of a discussion.
Because you basically said, "We can't trust statistics on this because they rarely prove anything and chaos theory." Well, how else are we going to know where the evidence leads if we don't use things like statistics?
The rest of your post explains how: gut feelings. That's your evidence. Now, I'm sorry you don't like me pointing that out-but that is what you've said. I don't even know why you posted a link to some stats, since they don't prove anything anyway. If I didn't believe you were a well-meaning participant in this topic, I would think the most straightforward possibility: that you dismissed the relevance of statistics because the majority of statistics is pretty unfavorable to your point of view. But to be clear, I don't believe that-I do think you're a well-meaning participant in the discussion.
I think your execution (no pun intended) is pretty bad, though-such as 'we can't use evidence here, it doesn't work.'
quote:You have made at least four little comments about this...I posted a link to some stats, I really don't know how you missed it. Please cut out the snarky, disdainful, and again, ultimately inaccurate comments about how your facts are facts and mine are feelings.
I didn't miss it, I specifically mentioned it. And you've got an ongoing habit now of quoting out of context and not addressing things. I know it's not a point-for-point discussion, but really.
quote:Some of the people in jail are not murderers/rapests/etc, and while you may flippantly question my compassion for extreme offenders all you like, someone severing a year for unpaid parking tickets doesn't deserve to be raped and killed in prison. Crimes done in prison still count. The justice system still charges inmates with new crimes all the time.
It's not flippant at all when you say things like, "Well if they had to stare down the barrel of the US of A!" and, "If we kill the wrong people, well, hey, they died in a good cause." That shows a frankly flippant attitude towards execution on your part, not mine.
Anyway, you're absolutely right that someone serving time for unpaid parking tickets (though you won't see someone in prison very often at all just for this) to be raped and killed in prison. (Do you think an armed robber deserves to be raped and killed in prison? Obviously you think they deserve to be killed in prison.) But the solution is pretty simple: segregated prisons based on the level of violence of offenders. Easy.
A helluva lot simpler than 'kill the violent ones really fast.'
quote:
As to my suggestion of a secondary/independent investigation I will elaborate: Bob Badguy gets arrested for murder by the city of Townsvile police department. The county of Countyvile tries him and finds him guilty of murder, and he is sentenced to death by my proposed system. For the next three months a highly specialized and experienced investigation team from the FBI, a group of criminal lawyers, and any other needed experts pour over the case, the evidence, the hearing, . The day before the execution is to take place, the agents report directly to a federal judge as to the validity of verdict.
You said independent-the FBI isn't independent, they're law-enforcement. Law-enforcement paid by the government to apprehend criminals. How is that supposed to be an independent, impartial organization to review investigations, just for starters? And three months? That's it? It's really so critical that we kill `em quick? Why? Why is it so important? The nebulous deterrence value? Justice for the fallen? Salving for the victim's families?
I mean, it's not so important for deterrence value-I know you claim it is, but since your reasoning on that is, "If we just did it, it'd work," I think we can safely dismiss that as sound reasoning. And protecting society at large isn't very compelling, since of course we can, very reliably, lock up these offenders and throw away the key where they'll never bother society again. And it's not to protect other, non-violent criminals from them either, because we can build different prisons for them-cheaper to run prisons, I might add, where they won't be harmed by these violent criminals.
So why?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I realize you posted some stats, but then you make comments like this:
quote:Regardless of statistics (even with some supporting my side, I still don't trust them, chaos theory and all, nothing is simple and straight forward and statistics rarely prove anything) we have no stats for if there was a universal enforcement.
This explicitly states that you don't trust the stats, and if you aren't relying on any kind of statistics then yes, your opinion is based on your gut opinion and not much else. And people will point that out.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Without a Pastwatch machine, we are never going to achieve that certainty. So are you suggesting that the death penalty should just be removed as an option?
If he wasn't suggesting it, I will. Yes. Like most civilized countries have already done.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't care that most civilized countries have done it-that's a hazardous standard to start using anyway.
I care that you can't un-kill someone, that I'm uncomfortable with the degree to which we're wrong about whether or not someone is guilty of the crimes we choose to kill over, that the deterrence factor is uncertain at best, and that society can be protected from these criminals at nigh on exactly the same level as though all of them were killed immediately with an absolutely reliable finding of guilt.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't care that most civilized countries have done it-that's a hazardous standard to start using anyway.
It is a pretty good indicator of the general moral compass of humanity and where we fall on that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I hear Gypsies and Muslim immigrants get a fair shake in a lot of those civilized countries you're talking about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If you think that because I feel that other countries are better at some things than we are that means that we should emulate them in everything, you are leaping to a conclusion that isn't justified.
And we are doing so well with Muslim immigrants and gypsies?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I hear Gypsies and Muslim immigrants get a fair shake in a lot of those civilized countries you're talking about.
Well, America can still fix as much as it can. You don't have to give up simply because you fall short in more than one area Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:And we are doing so well with Muslim immigrants and gypsies?
Last I checked, orders of magnitude better than most of Europe.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you think that because I feel that other countries are better at some things than we are that means that we should emulate them in everything, you are leaping to a conclusion that isn't justified.
No, I feel that the idea of using 'what other countries are doing' as a general moral compass is a pretty hazardous standard to be using. Because, well, there are some things the countries you're looking at do better than us. There are other things...not so well. Perhaps putting a bit of a dent in the idea that 'we shouldn't do the death penalty here because other civilized countries don't do it'.
Speaking of, y'know, unjustified conclusions-I wonder what I said that suggested I thought we were doing 'so well' with Muslim immigrants and gypsies? I'm pretty sure I haven't expressed an opinion on that.
quote:Last I checked, orders of magnitude better than most of Europe.
Heh, that's what I thought too, but I wouldn't be willing to say comfortably since it's been awhile since I read news about it. But assuming you're right, maybe Europe should emulate us on capital punishment since we're handling Gypsies and Muslims better-and that's a 'general moral compass of humanity'.
quote:Well, America can still fix as much as it can. You don't have to give up simply because you fall short in more than one area.
Well, we have developed some pretty bad habits over the past sixty years or so when we were spending a lot of our time being largely the only impediment to a whole lot of unpleasant things, without much help. You're right, though, we don't have to give up-it's unfortunate that during that time I just mentioned, well...lots of other people did give up. But hey, easy to criticize.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The primary arguments for Capital Punishment seems to be deterrence and preventing recidivism. There is very little discussion about fairness and justice.
So consider these two extremes.
Case #1: Assume we had really solid proof that executing homeless people or fortune 500 CEOs would dramatically reduce the violent crime rate. (Please ignore the question of how likely this is). If there were proof that it would dramatically reduce violent crime, would you support the executions?
Case #2: Assume that in the future we discover that 99% of people with a particular gene will commit murder when they become adults. Would you support either a death sentence or life imprisonment for all adults who had this gene.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're right, though, we don't have to give up-it's unfortunate that during that time I just mentioned, well...lots of other people did give up.
? (Or to the first part for that matter, but this I especially don't follow)
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The primary arguments for Capital Punishment seems to be deterrence and preventing recidivism. There is very little discussion about fairness and justice.
So consider these two extremes.
Case #1: Assume we had really solid proof that executing homeless people or fortune 500 CEOs would dramatically reduce the violent crime rate. (Please ignore the question of how likely this is). If there were proof that it would dramatically reduce violent crime, would you support the executions?
Case #2: Assume that in the future we discover that 99% of people with a particular gene will commit murder when they become adults. Would you support either a death sentence or life imprisonment for all adults who had this gene.
Good point. No and no.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, when we are ahead of the curve, yay for us. When we aren't, we should improve.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I can even credit an argument for the death penalty in the case of murder, attempted murder-but armed robbery? Now we'll kill you for stealing?
There is a world of difference between steeling and armed robbery. If a cat bugler crawls into a window, helps themselves and departs, no one the wiser to his heist, that is stealing. If I show up at a bank with an automatic rifle and threaten to kill everyone there if my demands are not met, then I have introduced violence and murder to the equation, and let everyone know in no uncertain terms that I value getting my unlawful and immoral way more then your innocent life.
quote:...well, they don't sound like someone who's committed to having much of a discussion.
This the second time you have used "sound" as a nice little word trick to say whatever you want without having to back it up with the fact that I didn't say it.
quote:You said independent-the FBI isn't independent, they're law-enforcement. Law-enforcement paid by the government to apprehend criminals. How is that supposed to be an independent, impartial organization to review investigations, just for starters?
A federal investigation branch of law enforcement is independent of local or state authorities. Are you suggesting that we get the Chinese police in here? At the end of the day any answer is going to involve investigators who are paid by tax dollars. Come on!
quote:And three months? That's it? It's really so critical that we kill `em quick? Why? Why is it so important? The nebulous deterrence value? Justice for the fallen? Salving for the victim's families?
The actual length of the holding before execution/investigation time is not all that important as long as it is arbitrary and relatively swift. To be honest, I pulled three months out of my butt, it seemed to qualify both as "swift" as to justice and also as "enough time" as to investigation. It can be up for discussion.
I understand where you are coming from with not wanting to kill. I get your point about you can't unkill someone, and it is a good point. But to truly limit prisoners from hurting each other we would need to keep them isolated, for life. And that sounds worse then death to me. So, we don't isolate them you say? What happens to your innocent man who gets thrown in with the wolves, and -just- the wolves, as you suggested segregating prisoners. Again, worse then death. I would rather take extra effort to ensure we had the right person and then kill them to simply have the added cost and cruelty of boxing them up until they die of old age because we are worried about their possible innocence.
quote:And you've got an ongoing habit now of quoting out of context and not addressing things. I know it's not a point-for-point discussion, but really.
I have addressed both these points before. I am quoting you (and others) in as brief a way as I can to not make my post simply a repost in quote form. Everyone can read what you originally said, and my quote is just a reference point to clarify what I am responding to. As to not addressing things you have brought up, just ask nicely. I'm busy, I don't have unlimited time to pour over your post and answer every little objection you make. You do not always address everything I say. I will not answer those accusations again from you.
So the statistics you quoted which you have so much faith in are a comparison of per capita violent crime in states which have the death penalty vs ones which do not.
If in state "A" which had no death penalty, the violent crime rate went up 20%, and in state "B" which had the death penalty, it decreased 20%, it would not show on your statistics. Only that some states have more violent crime and some do not, and none of the other variables are taken into consideration, such as, population size, economy, gun control, poverty level, education level, etc ad nausium.
Even at best, all your numbers suggest is that when taken overall, states without the death penalty have less violent crime then those with it. Which does not equal that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, especially when used in a theoretical way, as was being discussed.
quote:Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.
I am willing to say this much. Statistically, the effectiveness of the deterrent level of capital punishment is widely divergent and hotly disputed. Can we please leave it at that and continue our discussion?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Rakeesh, when we are ahead of the curve, yay for us. When we aren't, we should improve.
Kate, I'm pretty sure that Rakeesh's point was that since other countries are behind us on some human rights issues and ahead of us on others, we use what they are doing as evidence for what is right and wrong. If Capital Punishment is immoral, then we shouldn't do it regardless of what other countries are doing. If its right, we shouldn't stop just because other countries have.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I never suggested that we do anything "just because" other countries do it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I am willing to say this much. Statistically, the effectiveness of the deterrent level of capital punishment is widely divergent and hotly disputed. Can we please leave it at that and continue our discussion?
I can agree on that but I'm not sure that there is anything left to discuss once we do.
If we can't know with any degree of reliability whether executing more people will have beneficial effects, we clearly shouldn't execute more people based on the precautionary principle.
You might as well be saying, "Let's execute a bunch of two year olds and see what happens. We can't know if it will be good or bad until we try it".
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If I show up at a bank with an automatic rifle and threaten to kill everyone there if my demands are not met, then I have introduced violence and murder to the equation...
No, you haven't. You have introduced fear and coercion, but if you don't strike or pistol-whip anyone, or you don't fire your weapon and injure or kill someone, you haven't introduced violence and murder, only the threat of violence and murder. What would you say about someone who commits an armed robbery with an unloaded weapon?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I never suggested that we do anything "just because" other countries do it.
No you didn't. You did however say that we could look to other civilized countries to checking our moral compass. We can't.
There are legitimate reasons to look at what other countries are doing, but checking our moral compass isn't one of them.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I'm passionate on this topic, but I'd rather limit myself to only a short response.
I believe the death penalty is wrong at a fundamental level. Even if it was cheaper to just kill folks who commit crimes (it's not), even if it deterred more violent crime (arguable, but I'm in the camp that says it doesn't), and even if it were completely failproof on never killing innocents, I'd still say that it was wrong.
In the case of felonies, the state declares itself the victim of the crime. If a capital offense occurred, the state responds to the criminal's violence by murdering them. That's not justice, that's revenge. It doesn't sit well with me that the solution to one person's violence is for us as a society to stoop to their level. Try to justify the death penalty how you wish, I still think that we drop to their level. Criminals often have their own reasons to believe that their crimes were justified. I believe that having a society which endorses the death penalty brutalizes its citizenry by showing us that violence is an acceptable solution to our problems. I don't care if you can make the death penalty more efficient. I think it's just plain wrong.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Corruption of public officials is one I've advocated for before. If you seriously violate your oath of office, shouldn't capital punishment at least be a possibility.
Massive financial fraud is another area where I think we'd actually benefit from having it on the table.
I think this idea is actually interesting. In a way, I think focusing too much on capital punishment in the US is actually a bit narrow in scope. If my math is right, currently, according to the Iraq Body Count, the US executes only about as many people in a year as people in Iraq die as a direct result of "resulting directly from military actions by the USA and its allies" in five days. At the peak of violence, the US executes only about a half a day worth of civilian casualties. And arguably the "error rate" of deaths during a war is much greater than the error rate of a proper court.
So one argument, is whether the US should be reducing the number of people it kills. Another perspective is if we're already resigned to the US killing X number of people per year, it is worth considering how those deaths should be optimally distributed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...but I'm not sure that there is anything left to discuss once we do.
If we can't know with any degree of reliability whether executing more people will have beneficial effects, we clearly shouldn't execute more people based on the precautionary principle.
You might as well be saying, "Let's execute a bunch of two year olds and see what happens. We can't know if it will be good or bad until we try it".
Statistics are not the only way to predict the outcome of our actions, and not even the most reliable one. Deterrence is not the only issue at hand. And murdering toddlers randomly is hardly a fair comparison to me suggesting that the statistical analysis of the deterrence is disputed, but it is fairly ridiculous.
quote:...you haven't introduced violence and murder, only the threat of violence and murder. What would you say about someone who commits an armed robbery with an unloaded weapon?
You are correct. And I find it an interesting and complicated question, is the close personal threat of violence and murder enough to be killed as a just punishment. I will think on this, as I feel very divided. As to an unloaded gun, it changes nothing, as your first point is so good, that it is not the violence, but the threat of violence, so if you are able to carry out that threat or not is irrelevant.
quote:I believe that having a society which endorses the death penalty brutalizes its citizenry by showing us that violence is an acceptable solution to our problems
Sometimes violence an acceptable solution, see World War II. At some point you have to stand up for the innocent, and remove the threat.
I wonder Vadon, what do you think is an appropriate response from society to rape and murder etc?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I never suggested that we do anything "just because" other countries do it.
No you didn't. You did however say that we could look to other civilized countries to checking our moral compass. We can't.
There are legitimate reasons to look at what other countries are doing, but checking our moral compass isn't one of them.
Rabbit, if most of the other countries that execute people are also countries that we consider having a crappy record on human rights doesn't that indicate something?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: .
quote:I believe that having a society which endorses the death penalty brutalizes its citizenry by showing us that violence is an acceptable solution to our problems
Sometimes violence an acceptable solution, see World War II. At some point you have to stand up for the innocent, and remove the threat.
I wonder Vadon, what do you think is an appropriate response from society to rape and murder etc?
War is different. When there is an objective threat to the security of your country, defending yourself is justifiable. I'm not saying that when someone is attacking you, you should roll over and take the punches. Defense is different, and that's not what's happening in the case of the death penalty, because we control the situation in its entirety. The criminal is locked up and separate from society.
As for what I think the appropriate response is to rape and murder, I would support life in prison without parole.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Rabbit, if most of the other countries that execute people are also countries that we consider having a crappy record on human rights doesn't that indicate something?
If most of the countries we consider to have the best record on human rights are passing laws restricting free expression of religion, would you consider it to mean anything?
If a country you considered to have a generally deplorable human rights record, was really effective in caring for their elderly population, would you consider it evidence that we should stop caring for our elderly?
I simply don't think that at what others do, even others we respect, is a legitimate way to judge what we should or should not do.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I simply don't think that at what others do, even others we respect, is a legitimate way to judge what we should or should not do.
So you never look at what other people are doing when you decide what to do in a situation?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:War is different. When there is an objective threat to the security of your country, defending yourself is justifiable.
So it's a question of scale? If you are a really really big threat, then a it's okay to kill a really really big amount of people
I understand what you are trying to get at, but if killing is wrong, isn't the scale irrelevant? And what about killing/raping other inmates and guards?
quote:I simply don't think that at what others do, even others we respect, is a legitimate way to judge what we should or should not do.
Agree.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: So you never look at what other people are doing when you decide what to do in a situation?
It can be a factor, but not the only criteria which you judge the merits of your actions.
Or how about this:
"If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:War is different. When there is an objective threat to the security of your country, defending yourself is justifiable.
So it's a question of scale? If you are a really really big threat, then a it's okay to kill a really really big amount of people
I understand what you are trying to get at, but if killing is wrong, isn't the scale irrelevant? And what about killing/raping other inmates and guards?
You're conflating killing and murder. I believe the death penalty is murder because it's not done out of self-defense. We have them in prison. The threat to society is gone. It's not a question of scale, it's a question of the nature of the deaths. One person killing someone in self-defense is not murder, just as waging a war of defense is not murder either.
As for the ongoing threat of violence and sexual assault within a prison, I'm not saying that my solution is perfect. There are those risks. But that's a question independent of whether or not the death penalty is an appropriate response to a crime. Your concerns are about the infrastructure of our prison systems which is independent from the moral rightness or wrongness of capital punishment.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: So you never look at what other people are doing when you decide what to do in a situation?
It can be a factor, but not the only criteria which you judge the merits of your actions.
Or how about this:
"If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"
Who has said it should be the only criterion? Of course it shouldn't be the only thing we consider, but I don't think it's wrong to note what others are doing when you make a decision.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay Vadon, your points are well taken. I would take it as a huge improvement on the current system if murders, rapists, molesters, kidnappers and possibly armed robbers got life in prison without the possibility of parole. If they were made to work to help pay for the cost of feeding/housing, it would be even better.
I still think that morally it is not unjust to kill them, but we can agree to disagree about that.
I still feel that it is more humanitarian to kill them then to simply lock them up until they die. I know I would rather have a quick clean death then to slowly rot away surrounded by the scum of the earth.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I simply don't think that at what others do, even others we respect, is a legitimate way to judge what we should or should not do.
So you never look at what other people are doing when you decide what to do in a situation?
I think there are many reasons to look at what other people are doing when deciding a course of action. Determining what is morally correct is not one of those reasons.
For example, if it were suggested that eliminating capital punishment would lead to a surge in the murder rate, it would be prudent to look at other countries that had eliminated capital punishment to see what happened. If we were considering instituting harsher punishment for violent crime, it would be prudent to look at countries with harsher penalties in place to see whether the net social effect was positive or negative. But those aren't the same thing as looking at what other people/countries do in order to determine what is morally and ethically correct.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I still think that morally it is not unjust to kill them, but we can agree to disagree about that.
Sure thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I still feel that it is more humanitarian to kill them then to simply lock them up until they die. I know I would rather have a quick clean death then to slowly rot away surrounded by the scum of the earth.
People say that, but we don't have to put lifers on constant suicide watch, and in states with the death penalty, I believe the needle or the gas chamber is often used effectively as a bargaining chip to get people to plead to things-I think that puts a pretty decisive ding in the notion that it's more humanitarian to kill `em than lock `em up forever. It's usually a safe assumption that people prefer being alive to being dead, and that assumption remains true even when things get really bad.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I still feel that it is more humanitarian to kill them then to simply lock them up until they die. I know I would rather have a quick clean death then to slowly rot away surrounded by the scum of the earth.
I think its telling that although most people who aren't on trial for a capital crime would agree with you, nearly everyone on trial for a capital crime fights to spend their natural life in prison rather than be executed.
This is a judgement no one can make until they are in the situation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Stone_Wolf_,
In all honesty, I'm having a real struggle with this discussion because what you have proposed, mandatory Capital Punishment for all violent crimes, is so far beyond what I've ever heard proposed in any serious political debate. This is way beyond what's done in the most oppressive societies on earth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am not aware of any human society that has every executed everyone found guilty of armed robbery.
Why are you making such an extreme proposal? Are you trolling us or really that far outside the mainstream of humanity?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:It's usually a safe assumption that people prefer being alive to being dead, and that assumption remains true even when things get really bad.
quote:This is a judgment no one can make until they are in the situation.
You may be right, I certainly hope I never have to test the theory. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Why are you making such an extreme proposal? Are you trolling us or really that far outside the mainstream of humanity?
Are those really my only two options?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, is this another area where what just makes sense overrides what we can actually observe happens in the world in groups we're actually discussing?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not necessarily convinced by that example anyways. Someone who is fighting against a death penalty isn't necessarily voting for a life in prison versus a quick death. They may also be hoping that that the delay gives them a chance at being exonerated, which has happened.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Why are you making such an extreme proposal? Are you trolling us or really that far outside the mainstream of humanity?
Are those really my only two options?
Perhaps not. If you post something, pretending to be serious about it when you aren't a lot of people would consider it trolling and if you are serious about this proposal -- you are pretty far outside the mainstream of humanity.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I had to look "trolling" up...no, I am sincere. I don't think that puts me "far outside the mainstream humanity".
I read Starship Troopers at a stage of my life when I did a lot of soul searching and devolving a lot of my beliefs. Further, I was very heavily bullied throughout school, and several of my loved ones are victims of rape/molestation.
As to killing armed robbers, I never said either way, I said I was conflicted, and would think about it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I had to look "trolling" up...no, I am sincere. I don't think that puts me "far outside the mainstream humanity".
Perhaps then you could point to some societies that do what you've proposed or even some organizations that are proposing this kind of thing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As to killing armed robbers, I never said either way, I said I was conflicted, and would think about it.
Why are you conflicted about it? I haven't seen anyone but you even suggesting we ought to be considering it.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: As to killing armed robbers, I never said either way, I said I was conflicted, and would think about it.
Yes, you did. In your OP, you said:
quote: I suggested in the origin post Sexual Assault, that anyone convicted of murder, rape, molestation or kidnapping should be put to death, after a brief time for a secondary investigation. I'd like to add to that list attempted murder and armed robbery.
The question you are pondering is whether it should apply to armed robbery where no violence or murder has occurred.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Why are you making such an extreme proposal? Are you trolling us or really that far outside the mainstream of humanity?
Are those really my only two options?
Yes, actually. I postulated earlier that you might not really be cognizant of why what you are proposing is soundly rejected as immoral (I won't bother to internet psychology diagnose why) and that appears to be the case.
I don't need to gloss over the fine points of it — others are doing that for me. The long and short of it is that your idea is bad. Both in terms of general morality as well as achievability and feasibility (which it lacks). If you promote it hoping for the community here at large to 'smooth the edges,' you'll find that if asked to do so, they'll treat your entire plan as an edge to be smoothed away, a poor and credulous system of vengeful, overbearing capital punishment, poorly proposed and poorly backed, ultimately vulnerable to being pounded mercilessly for its propositional weaknesses.
That's it. That's pretty much the only place we can go with this. That's discussion. Don't be too averse to being shown what you've been shown about the Stone_Wolf_Stone_Cold_Justice_System. You have a wealth of valid criticisms that your vigilante idea hasn't (and won't, imo) overcome in trying to assert its validity.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
One serious problem with adding armed robbery, rape and kidnapping to the list of capital crimes is that it removes any further deterrence against murder for those guilty of these crimes.
If you're committing an armed robbery, there's quite an incentive under the Stone_Wolf_Stone_Cold_Justice_System to just kill your victim(s) and be done with it. Might even make it easier to get away with the crime. As it is, armed robbers are often moved to spare their victims because killing them would lead to a more serious sentence. No chance of that if armed robbery will already get you the chair.
Also, kidnapping is a weird crime to have in there. One of the most common forms of kidnapping happens when a parent who doesn't have custody takes their child from the other parent. Would you execute the guilty parent in a case like that?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To Rabbit, I will look...can't right now, must fold laundry. Why am I conflicted about it? Because of my basic belief that underlays the morality, that is, once you have proven yourself to be a risk to society, society has a right to remove that risk. But I feel I need to further examine it as Sean pointed out, "whether it should apply to armed robbery where no violence or murder has occurred", but the willingness to murder for money, or the attempt to murder, shows a risk to society, without actually accomplishing that risk. So I will think more on it.
To Sean Monahan, you are right again, I did say it, completely slipped my mind. Thank you for not beating me up in your posts, I appreciate it.
To Samprimary, I don't know what to say, other then, if you are trying to change my mind about something specifically, you might try to be a bit nicer. If you goal is to just point out that you are so smart and I'm a close-minded bloody-handed lunk, then I hear you loud and clear.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:One of the most common forms of kidnapping happens when a parent who doesn't have custody takes their child from the other parent. Would you execute the guilty parent in a case like that?
Custodial interference vs kidnapping with the threat of bodily harm for ransom.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There are all sorts of side effects of making the death sentence mandatory for crimes. One of them is that its likely to reduce the reporting of crime.
Rape is already seriously under reported, far more so than any other violent crime. One reason for that is that people are commonly raped by someone they know, often even a family member. There is a certain amount of social pressure not to involve the courts. Imagine how much worse that would be if the death penalty was on the line.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: So you never look at what other people are doing when you decide what to do in a situation?
It can be a factor, but not the only criteria which you judge the merits of your actions.
Or how about this:
"If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"
Sure, if it was into a pool of marshmallow fluff...
Mmmm, marshmallow fluff.
-Bok
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:"If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"
I've jumped off bridges. Its quite fun as long as you pick the right bridge.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
[quote]To Samprimary, I don't know what to say, other then, if you are trying to change my mind about something specifically, you might try to be a bit nicer.quote]
It's not a matter of changing your mind about anything. It's a matter of, it you want to have a discussion with people, you have to accept that they may think your ideas are wrong. Possibly completely wrong. And if you aren't willing to listen and respond to their explanations of why, then it's not a discussion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Society absolutely has a right to remove that risk. Killing isn't necessary to remove that risk in the present, and according to evidence we can actually quantify and observe might not even be an effective deterrent to remove future risks. It's pretty straightforward.
quote:There are all sorts of side effects of making the death sentence mandatory for crimes. One of them is that its likely to reduce the reporting of crime.
Threats, violence, and even murder of witnesses, reporters of, and investigators into, all of these crimes that would warrant the death penalty are another possible outcome.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I still feel that it is more humanitarian to kill them then to simply lock them up until they die. I know I would rather have a quick clean death then to slowly rot away surrounded by the scum of the earth.
If you sincerely feel that life in prison is a more heinous punishment than execution, why do you think Capital Punishment would be a greater deterrent to crime that life in prison. Those two positions are inherently contradictory.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's not the only one.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Removing the risk doesn't mean destroying the risky actor as the only choice.
Also, your system presumes that people cannot change in fundamental ways. Which has been disproven many times over. It may not be common, granted.
As a parent, I look at it this way, the authority should model good behavior, not indulge in that which it would like to abolish.
Or a more Libertarian spin on it would be, I would never want to give the State more power over me than I have over it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: To Samprimary, I don't know what to say, other then, if you are trying to change my mind about something specifically, you might try to be a bit nicer. If you goal is to just point out that you are so smart and I'm a close-minded bloody-handed lunk, then I hear you loud and clear.
To you, is stating straightforwardly that your idea can not work and that you don't seem to recognize for what reasons this is so necessarily 'mean?' Am I calling you a close(d)-minded, bloody-handed lunk, or are you — feeling a bit pressured by others — ascribing that message and motive to me?
You have a strange definition of what's going to constitute a discussion, here. To help you, I should point out that it's still a discussion even if you're going to assert that we have to cajole you and Be Nicer if we want you to be able to recognize that our counterarguments versus your system are valid.
ANALOGY SITUATION METAPHOR SIMILE HYPOTHETICAL MAKE PRETEND TIME: You bring a horse with no legs to a horse race, and you think it's a born winner and ask sincerely if it's got a shot at winning. I say "Don't be ridiculous, it doesn't have any legs." You reply "I don't know what to say except that if you're trying to change my mind, you might try to be a bit nicer."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:To Rabbit, I will look...can't right now, must fold laundry. Why am I conflicted about it? Because of my basic belief that underlays the morality, that is, once you have proven yourself to be a risk to society, society has a right to remove that risk. But I feel I need to further examine it as Sean pointed out, "whether it should apply to armed robbery where no violence or murder has occurred", but the willingness to murder for money, or the attempt to murder, shows a risk to society, without actually accomplishing that risk. So I will think more on it.
So if we were to identify genes that predisposed people to committing violent crime, would you think society had a right to imprison or execute people who have those genes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not ignoring you all, just taking care of babies and trying (unsuccessfully) to fold laundry. Very cranky babies today.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Slate is doing a series on innocent folk who get imprisoned and how that happens. Interesting read: http://www.slate.com/id/2291061/entry/2291063/ Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I fear and dislike government officials, am a self declared Libertarian, and yet I'm proposing handing over the power of life and death to the government which I basically want to have as little power as possible over me, and that death be made mandatory.
I have to admit it. My views on the death penalty come from; A) A separate view on how the world "should work" not, how it does. B) A large feeling of discontent with the injustice which is produced by a system which has been designed to protect the wrongfully accused. C) A strong desire to protect the truly innocent victims from predators of all kinds.
My ideas (read as Robert Heinlein's ideas) were best and brightest on the pages of fiction, where that system was already in place, with no difficult transition from reality to utopia.
*sigh* It is hard to let go of childhood beliefs as to what the world should be. But as soon as I could accept that this was wishful thinking, I couldn't help but just wish for people to be happy and not hurt each other rather then to kill those that breached the peace. I mean heck, if it's all a wish anyway, why not wish for something better.
Trusting our current government with the power to kill us is a scary proposition, and should truly be reserved for special cases.
I still feel very strongly that the current jail time for these heinous crimes is a joke. I would still love a chance to preform sweeping reforms in our system. I will be posting some of my ideas for those reforms, in a new topic...when I have time.
Thank you Hatrack for pointing out where the line between fantasy and reality meet and helping me get a better understanding of it.
P.S. I still think Samprimary should try to be nicer.
[ April 14, 2011, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:So if we were to identify genes that predisposed people to committing violent crime, would you think society had a right to imprison or execute people who have those genes.
Absolutely not. Genes may increase the chance of someone doing something, but I strongly believe in freewill and people should only be held accountable for their choices, and not things beyond their control.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: As it is, armed robbers are often moved to spare their victims because killing them would lead to a more serious sentence. No chance of that if armed robbery will already get you the chair.
Good point.
I remember in the movie "Heat" that once one of the people being held at gun point was killed, they killed all the rest, as the sentence would be the same for all involved and by killing them it made it harder to investigate the crime.
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
[BEGIN light-hearted digression]
How about the penal code on that one planet in a season one episode of STTNG, where Wesley faces the death penalty for falling into some flowers? (The planet has a mandatory death sentence for all crimes/infractions, but enforcement is only done randomly.)
Now that was some kind of fictional justice system.
[/END]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I hate that episode.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
That's just because you don't want to believe that God is actually just an alien life-form.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: P.S. I still think Samprimary should try to be nicer.
Look, I sincerely think that it's doing you a favor to state, in no uncertain terms, why your plan is bad and that there's obviously a lot you don't see in play here you aren't factoring in.
You are talking about a plan that literally would not even find usage in the most despotic, evil regimes on earth. When your plan, sufficiently detailed, would make the DPRK or the Myanmar Republic or even Zimbabwe go "Wow, that's one screwed up place" it is time to step back and rethink one's conceptualization of appropriate systems of justice.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: As it is, armed robbers are often moved to spare their victims because killing them would lead to a more serious sentence. No chance of that if armed robbery will already get you the chair.
Good point.
I remember in the movie "Heat" that once one of the people being held at gun point was killed, they killed all the rest, as the sentence would be the same for all involved and by killing them it made it harder to investigate the crime.
Great film, great scene.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Also, good post (your long one, not the one about Heat).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samprimary you say:
quote:...I sincerely think that it's doing you a favor to state, in no uncertain terms, why your plan is bad...
If you had gone to any length to discuss why you thought it was bad, I wouldn't be complaining. In your first post (in another thread that I copied over) you briefly but actually discuss deterrence, morality and constitutionality.
I will quote your posts actually in this thread when you spoke to why you think it is bad vs when you just said it's bad, everyone but you knows it because it's obvious and you really should know it.
Why it's bad:
quote:...in terms of general morality as well as achievability and feasibility...
That's it.
This is why I find your posts upsetting. I did my best to try and discuss objections that were brought to bear, and many posters went to a lot of thought and trouble to point out flaws and bring insight.
The other posters who did the work of actually discussing the issues with me had 1/100th the attitude you did, and really did help me figure something out.
You just sat at the side line and poked fun. What you did here was just be an intellectual bully. So do not pretend for a single second that it was for my benefit.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:If you had gone to any length to discuss why you thought it was bad
By the time Sam posted that, others had already explained in detail why it was bad, and you had already called them mean. Samp specifically said "others have already explained this at length" and was specifically addressing your reluctance to address previous criticisms of your plan.
Edit: I actually don't agree with Samp's posting style in cases like yours, but still, by the time he commented, you had already attributed "meanness" to many well intentioned posts.
[ April 14, 2011, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...by the time he commented, you had already attributed "meanness" to many well intentioned posts...
Wildly inaccurate.
I said Rakeesh was caustic and plain rude (edited) answering a question from you RA, and that hardly constitutes "many well intentioned posts". Rakeesh even edited his post in question to say he came off harsh. My original posting just requested that Rakeesh keep it civil.
[ April 14, 2011, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Why it's bad:
quote:...in terms of general morality as well as achievability and feasibility...
That's it.
quote:You are talking about a plan that literally would not even find usage in the most despotic, evil regimes on earth. When your plan, sufficiently detailed, would make the DPRK or the Myanmar Republic or even Zimbabwe go "Wow, that's one screwed up place" it is time to step back and rethink one's conceptualization of appropriate systems of justice.
If you want to take my observations and strawman them into me just 'sitting at the side line and poking fun' and 'being an intellectual bully,' I think the answer to my previous question (to quote: "to you, is stating straightforwardly that your idea can not work and that you don't seem to recognize for what reasons this is so necessarily 'mean?'") is apparently yes. I'm intellectually bullying you as much as I was saying you were a closed-minded bloody-handed lunk.
I respect that you are sincerely attempting to discuss your idea. One of the ways I'm going to do that is by not handling it gingerly with kid gloves. It's a horrible idea, you need to understand that, and this needs to be stated outright. There are many, many compelling and details already present in this thread. If you have questions about why I personally agree with most everything that has already been stated, you can ask rather than simply ascribing the motivation of meanness to myself, Rakeesh, and others.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
*sigh* The quote you have supplied is from after the discussion took place, and again, doesn't really supply much of, if any of the "why" you are claiming to have injected into the disscusion.
Your quote says, Wow, even monsters would think you're a monster, try again.
If you are comfortable with how you handled yourself at the end of the day, then fine, go with god. I think you acted poorly. I don't really care. I made my points, in this particualar issue (Samp is a meany) and am utterly willing to let it die.
If you want to "help" someone in the future, perhaps you might try to use less mockery, less "you are wrong, horribly horribly wrong" arugument, and more explanation. At least that was what actually helped me to understand the issues here, when the others did it that way.
As to me calling everyone mean in this thread, it's simply not true, read the topic over. I called you mean. And I still think it's true.
quote:I respect that you are sincerely attempting to discuss your idea.
Thanks.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To be fair, I believe you that your intention was not to be mean to me. And further I don't know you well enough by a long shot to think that you are mean. I do think your comments were mean.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, well-bear that in mind next time someone says a given idea sounds sexist or sounds vengeful, hmmm?
Look, Stone Wolf, what it comes down to, partly, is this: a bunch of the ideas you expressed were pretty bad, even *really* bad. You may or may not agree, but, well, hey, we're not going to get anywhere with that discussion.
But one of the first things you did was to reject the possibility of including actual evidence as to impacts of capital punishment. Even though the use of statistics to see how laws impact people is a pretty standard way of discussing politics...and even though most of the evidence seems to point against the ideas you were suggesting.
Then you started dropping other points ofthe discussion too, more than once after some pretty important issues were brought up-and that's the second controversial topic you've had this sort of pattern in recently, where gut feelings ought to be credited, and evidence is initially rejected or dismissed.
In fairness, you did pretty quickly realize, "OK, that doesn't fly," but it took in both cases like a half dozen people pointing out some of the same objections. People are going to get frustrated if you approach a discussion from the angle of, "This just makes sense, it's a given." Well, the people who don't already agree at least
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Your quote says, Wow, even monsters would think you're a monster, try again.
quote:As to me calling everyone mean in this thread, it's simply not true, read the topic over.
Why do I have to defend myself from statements I never made?
quote:And further I don't know you well enough by a long shot to think that you are mean.
Do you understand me well enough, in comparison to Rakeesh, to know that I'm mean?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Seriously, I don't care. You are Rakeesh are peaches, chock full of love and kittens and rainbows. Or not, whatever you want.
Moving on, shall we?
[ April 15, 2011, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just an FYI: it's "chock-full," not "chalked full."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks Tom, I will edit it right now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Moving on, shall we?
Alright. How much courtesy and niceness do you think someone is entitled to in a given conversation, if they approach it in good faith but don't participate in, well, a way where ideas can be compared to each other and challenged and rebutted?
In other words, how much does good faith alone in a conversation get someone, after the initial exchange when challenges to an idea are made?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...how much does good faith alone in a conversation get someone, after the initial exchange when challenges to an idea are made?
Part of what is so frustrating to me is that I produced statistics in support of deterrence, discussed why I felt your specific stats were inconclusive, and further went on to explain why I felt existing stats were not reliant (should read "relevant") to a completely different set up, siting a legitimate mathematical concept to help explain why.
And what I get is..." one of the first things you did was to reject the possibility of including actual evidence"
You dismissed my statistics offhandedly, and went on to complain about how I "started dropping other points ofthe discussion too, more than once after some pretty important issues were brought up" which first off, I'd like to see them, but second, I invited you to ask me to address anything you thought I missed and should. Which you didn't.
So, to your question...
"...if they approach it in good faith but don't participate in, well, a way where ideas can be compared to each other and challenged and rebutted?"
I don't think it relates to me.
[ April 15, 2011, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Part of what is so frustrating to me is that I produced statistics in support of deterrence, discussed why I felt your specific stats were inconclusive, and further went on to explain why I felt existing stats were not reliant (should read "relevant") to a completely different set up, siting a legitimate mathematical concept to help explain why.
Well, that's sort of what happened. What I feel like happened was, we'd just gotten started on looking at what studies have shown us about the deterrent effect of the death penalty in the real world. To the tune of perhaps a few things looked at at most. But you shut that down for the purposes of the discussion by saying, "It doesn't really matter what statistics here say-that's got nothing to do with this completely new system I've got in mind that would just work, I know it."
quote:
You dismissed my statistics offhandedly, and went on to complain about how I "started dropping other points ofthe discussion too, more than once after some pretty important issues were brought up" which first off, I'd like to see them, but second, I invited you to ask me to address anything you thought I missed and should. Which you didn't.
No. You dismissed any statistics at all offhandedly-you just explained how you did yourself, without the qualifier 'offhandedly'. And yeah-I did ask you to address things that were missed, and your response was to say, "This isn't a point-for-point thing, and anyway you're being kind of mean." Or rather, "There are no points or judges and if I choose to not specifically address something you said, you are just going to have to ask again nicely." Direct quote-hell, you even said you chose not to, man.
For example, one point you didn't address was this notion of yours that it's a fate worse than death to be imprisoned for life amongst the scum of the Earth. Another was your constant insistence that absolute certainty must only go one way-we ought to support a massive increase in death penalty because it's the only way to be absolutely certain of no repeat offenders. But we shouldn't seek that kind of absolute certainty in the case of innocent convictions. I don't recall you addressing points that the actual cost of violent offender incarceration is, when actually put up to our budget, tiny. And that if we're looking at this problem from economic points of view, there are many, many other places to look first.
I'm early on page two so far. I didn't 'address your request' because you were basically asking, "Could you re-request something you (and other people) have mentioned several times already for me-and stop being mean?"
[ April 15, 2011, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Moving on, shall we?
Alright. How much courtesy and niceness do you think someone is entitled to in a given conversation, if they approach it in good faith but don't participate in, well, a way where ideas can be compared to each other and challenged and rebutted?
In other words, how much does good faith alone in a conversation get someone, after the initial exchange when challenges to an idea are made?
There's never anything wrong with being kind or nice to someone. Ever.
As for who you decide to be nice to, that's up to you. Trying to figure out a code of conduct on who gets the benefit of your good graces and who doesn't seems like a cold and cynical task. I'd much rather just treat everyone that I can with respect.
I disagree strongly with Stone Wolf and I made that clear, but I also tried to treat his views with respect when expressing mine. I agree with the majority of posters here that Wolf's position is outside mainstream discourse on punishment. But I think how we make our arguments is almost as, if not more, important than what we actually say.
And yes, I'm an idealistic pansy who revels in taking the moral highground and I wear that badge proudly. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: I disagree strongly with Stone Wolf and I made that clear, but I also tried to treat his views with respect when expressing mine. I agree with the majority of posters here that Wolf's position is outside mainstream discourse on punishment. But I think how we make our arguments is almost as, if not more, important than what we actually say.
Yes, well, so did I-initially. But then it became clear over time that those views weren't very well thought out and attempts to challenge them directly - the purported reason for the thread in the first place - just wouldn't be engaged with. Attempts to point that out didn't get much success either.
I think the means of communication is important-but I also think that sort of thing can be taken too far. For instance, "I agree with the majority of posters here that Wolf's position is outside mainstream discourse on punishment," this while technically accurate (according to Futurama the most important kind of accuracy) is misleading-or at least I'll bet it is. I'd be very surprised if you thought the views expressed were just 'outside mainstream'.
I think it's important to actually communicate that message, too.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think the means of communication is important-but I also think that sort of thing can be taken too far. For instance, "I agree with the majority of posters here that Wolf's position is outside mainstream discourse on punishment," this while technically accurate (according to Futurama the most important kind of accuracy) is misleading-or at least I'll bet it is. I'd be very surprised if you thought the views expressed were just 'outside mainstream'.
I think it's important to actually communicate that message, too.
Of course I think they're more than just outside mainstream discourse. I also think that his views are wrong. I expressed that earlier when I explained my fundamental moral opposition to the death penalty, but I felt no need to reference that in a post where I was talking more about the tone we take when expressing ourselves. Why keep harping on a point that I already agreed to disagree upon?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Because the Munroe school of thought on dealing with people on the internet who are wrong is strongly followed here.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Man, I love XKCD. He's right though, at least in my case. It takes a real effort to not say something when someone's so obviously wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Stone_Wolf_,
This is the second discussion in the last week or so where you've taken offense when people have criticized you for failing to support the claims you make. I'm not sure what you expect from a discussion between people who strongly disagree. But on this forum, when people disagree with you they are going to point out logical fallacies in your arguments, ask you to provide supporting data and demand clarification of your position. When you keep repeating your claim without responding to such requests, people are going to criticize you.
If people become too hostile, you can report them to the moderator by pushing the whistle and he will decide whether people have actually violated the generally accepted rules of civility and what to do about it. But as a general rule, If you are going to participate in discussing controversial topics on this forum, you need to get comfortable with the concept that your position will be criticized and that you are likely to be criticized if you don't support your position.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Look, I am happy to try answer all points in a discussion as best I can. If I miss something that someone said, it isn't deliberate, and invite anyone to simply say "Please address X" and I will.
I feel pretty strongly that I haven't been ignoring points that are bad for me as Rakeesh and others have said I have. I will demonstrate.
quote:...one point you didn't address was this notion of yours that it's a fate worse than death to be imprisoned for life amongst the scum of the Earth.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:It's usually a safe assumption that people prefer being alive to being dead, and that assumption remains true even when things get really bad.
quote:This is a judgment no one can make until they are in the situation.
You may be right, I certainly hope I never have to test the theory.
quote:Another was your constant insistence that absolute certainty must only go one way-we ought to support a massive increase in death penalty because it's the only way to be absolutely certain of no repeat offenders. But we shouldn't seek that kind of absolute certainty in the case of innocent convictions.
We did discuss this...we talked about crimes in prison, and the humanitarian value of prison/isolation/death. We also discussed what lengths should be gone through to prove a case, how absolutely proving it is impossible without a Pastwatch machine.
quote:I don't recall you addressing points that the actual cost of violent offender incarceration is, when actually put up to our budget, tiny.
quote:As to non-violent drug crime, let them go...and while you are at it, legalize all drugs, and suicide and all "victimless crime". As to should there be some reform to the capital punishment system, I understand you are saying that the huge amounts of money are going to ensure that the innocent are not unjustly killed, but seriously, at some point all the multiple appeals seem to be just a delaying tacit and have nothing to do with innocence.
quote:If they were made to work to help pay for the cost of feeding/housing, it would be even better.
There was a lot discussed in a very little amount of time. Sometimes the people who shout loudest get more attention, so if I missed anyone's point, I do apologize, but it was unintentional, and I think this reputation I seem to be getting for ignoring people's posts is unfair.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright, I think I see the source of disagreement. When I think of 'address a point', I don't generally mean something along the lines of, "You may be right." In fact to me that's almost entirely neutral-it doesn't actually respond to any of the reasons the contradiction was made, for example. It's pretty empty as far as what's being discussed. And...really, that's pretty much it. Quite different definitions for when something has actually been addressed.
I don't think many or perhaps even any of those quotes you linked are much of a demonstration of points being addressed, but clearly you do. *shrug* It just seems very fluffy to me. "Here's why we should have a huge upswing what crimes we punish with death."
"Damning indictment."
"Oh, well you may be right. That's not too difficult to deal with anyway." That's...well, just doesn't seem like much of a discussion to me.
----------
Jebus, your habitual lust for a good zinger notwithstanding, it's not quite accurate-as usual. In this case the missing element being that I am actually interested in discussing it with this particular person and believe he's got good motivations-so not just a general 'someone'. Nice try though! Listen, there will be plenty of chances for you to assert superiority in a similar fashion again though, so don't worry about it. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Honestly though, Rakeesh, I'm getting tired of arguing about this. If you think the way I discuss things is so intolerable, don't engage in discussion with me.
Simple, easy, cost effective and best of all, zero headaches!
Regardless of if you feel my answers were sufficient, I think you can not longer claim that I simply ignored these topics.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Seriously, I don't care.
Heh, well, if you say so.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well Samp, while I do appreciate the attempt to troll me and all, I have to say, you are a kind and genuine person and I can't help it, I've fallen in love with you. Marry me! We'll fly to Antigua on my private jet and leave the worries of this life behind and I'll show the paradise in my arms, and my heart, forever.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Just stop it, stone wolf. You obviously weren't ready for an actual discussion about your idea, or the criticism it deserved.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Can I get an official word here Papa Janitor? Am I really the bad guy? Cause if so I can simply delete the thread and try and do better.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:So if we were to identify genes that predisposed people to committing violent crime, would you think society had a right to imprison or execute people who have those genes.
Absolutely not. Genes may increase the chance of someone doing something, but I strongly believe in freewill and people should only be held accountable for their choices, and not things beyond their control.
Stone_Wolf_, People who've committed violent crimes also have freewill. Having committed a violent crime in the past, may increase the chance that they will do it again in the future, but it doesn't make it certain. People can and do change. Just like the "gene" example, having committed a violent crime increases the risk that you will commit a violent crime in the future, but it does not make it certain. Why do you see the two cases as fundamentally different?
Males in their late teens and early twenties are the most likely group to commit violent crimes. At this age, the judgement centers in their brains aren't fully mature. There is every reason to believe that with added maturity and proper help, these people can lead meaningful productive lives.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*facepalm* Stone_Wolf, let it go. There is a high ground to be had here, but it will not be possible to occupy that high ground and get the last word. In fact, it is so obvious that you want to have the last word on this that I strongly suspect some people here are stringing you along for fun, because you clearly can't bring yourself to let something go unanswered. Don't make yourself that vulnerable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Can I get an official word here Papa Janitor? Am I really the bad guy? Cause if so I can simply delete the thread and try and do better.
Please don't delete the thread. Many people have made thoughtful contributions to the discussion and it is very disrespectful to them to delete the thread. Instead, let the personal fight go, drop the discussion of who is at fault and go back to discussing the issues rather than the people.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Can I get an official word here Papa Janitor? Am I really the bad guy? Cause if so I can simply delete the thread and try and do better.
This isn't about being the bad guy. You just don't get it and you need to learn what is wrong with your approach.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks guys.
I can see what you mean Rabbit, and the point that people can change is not lost one me. But there is a huge difference between genes which might lead someone to taking a wrong action and people who have done so already.
I truly wish that our prison systems generated truly reformed people instead of just older, more muscular and tattooed people.
I'm sure there are some who do truly reform. Without looking at stats, I bet ya that the number of repeat offenders is pretty high. (I will look, just not this sec, busy ya know).
What do you think about exile? We are closer then we have ever been to colonizing other worlds (which still is not even close), and if we find enough of them habitable, would a prison planet make sense? It worked for Australia after all.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Now I'm starting to think this is a joke. We're moving from "kill everybody" to "okay, exile them to prison planets"?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I just want to be polite here Parkour, it seems as if you haven't read the whole thread.
I have accepted that it is not a good idea to, kill everyone, as you put it.
So, yes, are moving on, and no, it is not a joke.
What do you think of a prison planet? It could be run with a lot of security, or none what so ever, that is, internal security. I imagine either way there would be external (in the form of prevention from leaving the planet) security.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I liked that episode.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be honest, were there a place to exile repeat offenders to, I would actually consider exile to be an intriguing option.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I can see what you mean Rabbit, and the point that people can change is not lost one me. But there is a huge difference between genes which might lead someone to taking a wrong action and people who have done so already.
I don't see this huge difference. Can you please try to explain it to me?
Your primary rational (as I understand it) for executing violent criminals isn't that its fair, a proportional punishment to the crime they committed. It's that it will keep them from committing future. But we don't know that they will commit future crimes. We know only that they are more likely to commit future crimes.
If its morally acceptable to execute people because they are likely to commit crimes and we had some reliable way of predicting who would commit crimes, why should we wait until after they've committed the first crime?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: To be honest, were there a place to exile repeat offenders to, I would actually consider exile to be an intriguing option.
Only repeat offenders? Or any violent criminals?
If the planet was a prison, as in, guards and rules and such, I'd say any offenders. But if it's dog eat dog, we drop you off and you fend for yourself mob rule, then defiantly only violent offenders.
Rabbit: First off, I am no longer calling for heads. Maybe if we are talking about a Utopian society such as the one I based my original (and now better understood as wishful thinking and no longer supported) arguments on such as was the case in Starship Troopers, then maybe.
But not here and now in our time, no, I don't want the government to execute all violent criminals. Just want to make that very clear.
So...the difference. We base our judgment on experience, and our trust of others on their past deeds. So if someone actually committed a violent crime, it seems to me to be a safe call to put them in the "dangerous" category simply on direct evidence.
Using the same criteria, someone who has a higher potential because of factors which are beyond control and still have chosen not to commit any violent crime, shouldn't be in the "dangerous" category.
I do take your point about the morality of condemning people for unmade choices.
(edited for clarity)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If the planet was a prison, as in, guards and rules and such, I'd say any offenders. But if it's dog eat dog, we drop you off and you fend for yourself mob rule, then defiantly only violent offenders.
I think it is naive to expect that the former would not become the latter within a matter of months.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What do you think of a prison planet? It could be run with a lot of security, or none what so ever, that is, internal security. I imagine either way there would be external (in the form of prevention from leaving the planet) security.
Heinlein suggested, not an prison planet, but exile. "Coventry" I believe he called it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So...the difference. We base our judgment on experience, and our trust of others on their past deeds. So if someone actually committed a violent crime, it seems to me to be a safe call to put them in the "dangerous" category simply on direct evidence.
But our judgement is pretty clearly flawed. With people, past behavior isn't a very good indicator of future behavior. Many people who commit a violent crime, never will again.
My gene proposal was a hypothetical. If in the future we determine that 90% of people who carry a certain gene were likely to commit a violent crime, would it be morally acceptable to exile or imprison everyone who carried those genes? If not, what do you see as the difference? It would much safer assumption that these people would commit crimes than what you have proposed.
Recognize that the hypothetical 90% is much higher than recidivism rates. It would be a much more reliable predictor of violent behavior than what you are proposing. If such a test existed, would you consider it fair or moral
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom but cross-country statistical comparisons are often questionable. The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.
The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:
* Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
* Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
* The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
quote:If the planet was a prison, as in, guards and rules and such, I'd say any offenders. But if it's dog eat dog, we drop you off and you fend for yourself mob rule, then defiantly only violent offenders.
I think it is naive to expect that the former would not become the latter within a matter of months.
The former would likely become worse than the latter withing a few weeks. Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:If such a test existed, would you consider it fair or moral(?)
Absolutely not. I still believe very strongly in freewill, and think it would be an atrocity to persecute someone for something they can not control.
That being said, if it really was true, and 90% with that gene really did start hacking people up with axes, then I might be swayed by an argument of "separate but equal", that is, segregation to a "secure community" to prevent axeings.
I admit those two statements are contradictory, but I don't want to be chopped up with an axe.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The former would likely become worse than the latter withing a few weeks. Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Or Abu Ghraib, Baghram, and likely the secret detention facilities.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
Another blow to the recidivism argument for violent crime. Although, it should be noted, that these stats are for criminals who were caught and successfully prosecuted. I imagine that gathering statistics as to unsolved crimes and recidivism might be a tad difficult.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, the 97.5% of released rapists who were not rearrested for rape should be killed because of the 2.5% who were?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I guess you haven't been following this thread much scholarette, I have jumped from the kill em all and let god sort them out ship. This statistic is just another reason why.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What do you think of a prison planet? It could be run with a lot of security, or none what so ever, that is, internal security. I imagine either way there would be external (in the form of prevention from leaving the planet) security.
Heinlein suggested, not an prison planet, but exile. "Coventry" I believe he called it.
Speaking of Heinlein, the thread seems to have gone from "Starship Troopers" to "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What do you think of a prison planet? It could be run with a lot of security, or none what so ever, that is, internal security. I imagine either way there would be external (in the form of prevention from leaving the planet) security.
Well, this is as much if not more in the realm of fantasy, but only if we desire the punishment to explicitly and purposefully be barbaric do you go with the unguarded prison planet exile.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It's not so bad, from my studies of unguarded prison planets, usually it only takes a day or two for good characters to break-out of unguarded prison planets. On the other hand, if you're actually evil, what usually happens is you end up taking over one of the Enterprises before being defeated. Either that or a well-meaning SG team breaks you out of prison.
Worst case scenario, Jet Li comes and beats everyone up *shrug*
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay, we have established that universal capital punishment for violent crime is not the best idea since sliced bread.
Some posters feel that capital punishment is never a good idea, some that it would require 100.0% certainty of guilt.
As far as I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong, there is basically only the magic/technology-we-don't-have-yet (Pastwatch machine, etc) to prove without any doubt guilt or innocence.
So without utter certainty, what are the right circumstances for death to be brought on by the state?
It wouldn't be a confession of guilt, while that might eliminate the worry of killing an innocent (beyond a false confession) it would make getting a confession nearly impossible.
How about someone caught in the act? Cops bust in on a psycho covered in blood up to his hairline wielding a machete and wearing a mask made of one of his victim's faces.
How about someone found guilty of crimes against humanity, like war crimes. A Nazi guard at Auschwitz.
How about if one of the hijackers from 911 had miraculously survived and been captured?
Is there any real legitimate time when the current government of the United States of America should execute people?
I'm asking you Hatrack.
[ April 16, 2011, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There's still a question you haven't much focused on, Stone_Wolf. Why is it important that they be killed at al? Now although I have to admit, I do think just about any answers to that question will serve the 'pro' side of the argument badly, it still needs to be answered. Why is it important that they be killed instead of somehow removed from society for life short of executing them?
The only line I believe any government, including our own, should use when it comes to executing people is to prevent future loss of life, not redress (though I really think the appropriate word is 'revenge') past loss of life, no matter how heinous. There are an awful lot of people I would like to be killed, but that's a risky business to get into, not least because it's really easy for us to kill people.
So one circumstance might be, as outlandish and unlikely as it is, if there were someone we knew was violently, murderously dangerous to society as a whole or even particular members of society-and for some reason we started to lack confidence in our ability to incarcerate them for life in prison.
In this circumstance, acceptable reasons aren't 'they'll get out of jail too soon'. That's not a failure of the criminal justice system, that's a (possible) failure of a representative society, because we're the ones who decide what these penalties should be. Acceptable reasons would be that he has confederates outside of prison who will attempt to break him out of prison in the future, putting guards, other prisoners, and the rest of society at risk. And these confederates might actually, y'know, do it-we have reason to suspect they might succeed or come close to succeeding.
It's an unlikely scenario, but its outcome generally describes the only time I feel we ought to entertain the idea of allowing executions: to prevent future loss of life.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not so bad, from my studies of unguarded prison planets, usually it only takes a day or two for good characters to break-out of unguarded prison planets. On the other hand, if you're actually evil, what usually happens is you end up taking over one of the Enterprises before being defeated. Either that or a well-meaning SG team breaks you out of prison.
Worst case scenario, Jet Li comes and beats everyone up *shrug*
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:There's still a question you haven't much focused on, Stone_Wolf. Why is it important that they be killed at al?
This is at the heart of the question I am asking, just phrased in a slightly different way.
Is it safe to say that your position can be summed up by "We should only kill criminals if incarceration doesn't stop them from committing crimes"?
For me the idea behind the "why" was always that society had a right to protect itself. But you and other have pointed out that there are other ways.
Some have said that my initial position was influenced by revenge. I have thought long and hard about this, and I don't agree.
My beliefs are a shamattering of this and that when it comes to souls and afterlife, etc, but at the end of the day, I seem to believe in reincarnation, of our essences returning until we have gained enough wisdom to be able to transcend morality and the lessons of this life.
The reason I mention this is, I don't think that death is the end, so killing people who are on such a wrong path as to rape and murder seemed more like a "reset button" then vengeance. This also influenced me when it came to the possibility of executing the wrongfully accused.
But it really isn't fair to give cart blanch to kill on such a theoretical belief.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Is it safe to say that your position can be summed up by "We should only kill criminals if incarceration doesn't stop them from committing crimes"?
From committing crimes against people - though the idea of capital punishment for abuses of office that necessarily involve forethought and considerations about getting caught, that's an interesting notion - yes, I think I could get behind that.
It would also be necessary to include an item about proving that the person being executed actually committed the crime, and that we proved they committed the crime in a lawful way-and that those laws were just. That's a lot of legwork, but killing ought to be serious business.
quote:For me the idea behind the "why" was always that society had a right to protect itself. But you and other have pointed out that there are other ways.
Yes, exactly. And since those ways aren't as irreversible as execution, they ought to be used, especially since the benefits of using maximum force are sketchy at best. When you take emotion out of it, it's pretty difficult to make a case that includes execution and doesn't include concepts like vengeance.
quote: The reason I mention this is, I don't think that death is the end, so killing people who are on such a wrong path as to rape and murder seemed more like a "reset button" then vengeance. This also influenced me when it came to the possibility of executing the wrongfully accused.
Alright, but this seems to me to be at odds with talk about criminals needing to worry about 'staring down the barrel of the US of A' and 'scum of the Earth'. To me, that kind of language sounds like vengeance talk. Not, y'know, pure unadulterated 100% vengeance, but a definite smattering of vengeance in there somewhere. That's not really a criticism, by the way, since wanting to avenge an injustice seems quite natural to me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My grandmother often tells me, "Sometimes you have to just let people be who they have worked so hard to become."
The thing about it is, it is nearly impossible to reconcile who is a bad person from their own choices and who is a bad person from being raised poorly, abuse, lack of love and affection and generally having the lesson that the world is a bad place and no one will take care of them but themselfs beaten into them so often.
I'm sure it's a real combo. I'm sure even "bad people" still have something to offer the world. I'm sure even "good people" have weak and hurting moments and strike out in cruelty and fear.
I can't seem to find any supporting data, but I seem to remember that most child molesters were molested themselves.
If there is fair way to judge people's souls as to what they deserve, it is beyond me.
I'm sorry, I know I had more points to make, but it's very early and I seem to be very distractable. I'll have to return to this a little later, maybe after some breakfast.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)