05-02-12, 05:40 PM #61
But I think that's all side-show - even if it were clearly shown to work, it still wouldn't justify the numbers of wrongly-executed people that we already know about. So I think it's a tactical mistake to get sucked into a technical argument on this subject - you won't end up with a clear outcome, even after expending lots of space and energy debating tons of details, and in the meantime the larger point will get lost.
Again, notice that this subject is a real can of worms, which is why I council avoiding it. Upshot is that even if we think that deterrence works, the death penalty is still a net loser.
I say this because I used to go back and forth on the death penalty question, and always get bogged down in all these diversions whenever I'd try to reason through it. Then I encountered an argument that focussed almost exclusively on the issue of exeutions of innocent people. It was an eye-opener to realize that I could dispense with all of the sticky questions and reach a satisfactory, clear-cut answer.
05-07-12, 01:07 PM #62
I am bored, so...
How many innocent people are you willing to mistakenly execute, per year, before you'd judge the death penalty to be counterproductive?
Kind of funny, no anti-DP people ever answered this question...
05-07-12, 01:11 PM #63
Second, a deterrent only works if the tool is used. If you just threaten your kids with punishment, but never follow through, they will figure it out and won't give a shit eventually.
If we only execute 1 in 100 people on death row, that is not really a deterrent now is it? So I say let's execute 5-6000 criminals a year (instead of the 2-300) and THEN see if crime rate falls.
05-07-12, 01:15 PM #64
Come on guys, I already told you all your arguments belong to us.
But let me use your same argument: Since we have newer and newer criminals all the time, thus obviously prisons don't have any deterrent effect, so why don't we close all the prisons??
How you like me now??? And you worry about the government?? The government is starting illegal wars already, worry about that, then we can come back to the DP...
05-07-12, 01:25 PM #65
Anyhow, until I get bored again, I would like to present Bells with a present, Indonesia death penalty case:
"Ahmad Suradji (born 10 January 1949 - 10 July 2008) was a serial killer in Indonesia. Suradji, a cattle-breeder born on 10 January 1949, was executed July 10, 2008.He admitted to killing 42 girls and women over a period of 11 years. His victims ranged in age from 11 to 30, and were strangled with a cable after being buried up to their waists in the ground as part of a ritual...."
Personally, I don't notice ladykillers, unless they hit the number 100, so 42 is kindergarden really. But I am sure we should have kept this fine specimen alive so he could have written a tearjerking autobiography explaining his childhood and such...
P.S.: Kind of hard to explain a few dozen bodies buried around your house....
Last edited by Syzygys; 05-07-12 at 01:49 PM.
05-07-12, 01:31 PM #66
It's easy to point to specific cases and say the death penalty was justified, but that does not justify the death penalty in general when so many innocent people are wrongly convicted.
05-07-12, 01:49 PM #67
05-07-12, 02:07 PM #68
That's because I'm not actually against killing the guilty, I'm just against the death penalty. The thing about life in prison is you still have the possibility of justice.
05-07-12, 05:29 PM #69
That said, I myself am in the same boat as Spidergoat, I am not opposed to the death penalty, in principle, it's just that in practice it is highly likely that we execute innocent people all too regularly, because our system sucks.
In the face of an unreliable system of pronouncing guilt, I'd rather err on the side of not inflicting permanent harm, especially where it costs me more money to inflict that permanent harm than it would to simply incarcerate. Making certain innocent people are not killed unjustly, and saving money to boot? That's win/win.
That said, I accept that most of those convicted of heinous crimes are guilty, so simply releasing them is not an attractive option. There is nothing sadistic about that.
05-07-12, 05:52 PM #70
If so, well, you're pretty much alone and so your position isn't one I'm worried about addressing.
05-07-12, 07:19 PM #71
You just have reached this realization...Congratulation my friend, and welcome to the darker side!
05-07-12, 07:25 PM #72
I've asked repeatedly in this thread already, and never received any answer: exactly how many innocent people are you comfortable with executing, on an average year, to maintain a death penalty? I'm looking for an integer number in response here.
05-07-12, 07:26 PM #73
So far I haven't heard a response to this argument, but I don't hold my breath...
and saving money to boot?
Not to mention than it is OK to execute people in countries where it is cheaper then life in prison?? (which is most countries)
There is nothing sadistic about that.
I really hate to repeat myself, and none of my arguments are met with anything serious counter argument...
05-07-12, 07:28 PM #74
Otherwise you can check Japan's standard if you want high standard...
exactly how many innocent people are you comfortable with executing, on an average year, to maintain a death penalty? I'm looking for an integer number in response here.
Here it is again from post #62:
05-07-12, 07:32 PM #75
If you can't address your interlocutors honestly, then you should do us a favor and at least stop trolling this thread.
05-07-12, 08:19 PM #76
I note that the conviction rate in Japan is extremely high, which will make a neutral comparison difficult - it seems that Japanese prosecutors try much fewer criminals than do American ones (on a per-crime basis, of course).
Point is that it's a number so large that for you to declare that you're okay with executing that many innocent people per year renders your position repellent and barbaric on its face. You're being a real fool by agreeing to endorse the executions of a much larger group of wrongly-convicted than just the capital crimes in question.
But even if we limit the discussion to capital crimes, you're still simply stating a tautology: advocates of the death penalty are willing to execute exactly as many innocents as would be locked up for capital crimes in the absence of the death penalty, by definition. That doesn't bear on the question of whether that's too many, and it's a pointed evasion of the point that the moral weight of false imprisonment is less than that of false execution. If you're just going to beat your chest about how you reject that difference, without offering any actual argumentation in support of that, then you're just trolling. And meanwhile, no reasonable person rejects that difference, so you're doing a great job of ensuring that every reasonable person rejects your position in the process.
05-07-12, 08:29 PM #77
05-08-12, 02:57 AM #78
If you want to save money on the cost of prisons, if you want to bring people back to productive lives, supporting their families and paying in to social security and tax revenue, then--if they're eligible for probation or parole, let them go. They will be monitored, but at a fraction of the cost of prison.
And I never said prisons should be in debt. You either don't understand me or you just got it wrong. Prisons already get all the free labor they want. So you think you're improving on a cost, but you fail to take this into account.
The question is: why are people still locked up if they're eligible for parole? Why are so many first-time losers not given probation? Look in that direction, and that's where you will find opportunity for fundamental change. The alternative is. . .business as usual. . .
05-08-12, 04:05 AM #79
Now we are just in blah-blah-blah territory.
You ever see (or read) Twelve Angry Men? You remind me of the last juror, the one that was crazy for the death penalty.
Please list a couple of white collar crimes where witnesses were intimidated. I am not saying there aren't any, but usually it is not the fraud cases..
You don't know that. Let's try and see.
Now you are just being stupid.
OK, the stupidity level is increasing. If they don't want to be punished, they can stop commiting crimes.
So? let's make such an ammandement. What's the big deal?
A constitutional amendment of this kind is a huge change in policy. Basically, you're saying you have a problem with the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the 8th Amendment. Did you ever take US history? Can you tell me where this amendment came from? It was because the British treated their American prisoners with cruelty. So now you want to go back to the colonial period? Maybe you'd like to see shackles and chains, branding and the rack. You see the issue here? You want the Constitution to say "Cruel and Unusual punishments shall be allowed." Is any of this soaking in on you yet?
The legal issue I was talking about is that you would have to convince 2/3 of the house and senate that this level of cruelty is OK. Then you would have to get 3/4ths of the state legislatures to be OK with cruel and unusual punishment. (That's how the Constitution is amended.)
You don't think it's a big deal because you have no sense of large ideas--at least not as far as this subject is concerned. You'd better hope they don't start locking people up for being small-minded.
Funny. I think we all agreed that life in prison is more cruel and basicly torture than a simple DP. So we should all just open the prison doors...
I am not worrying about cost. It is the anti-DP side that brings the cost issue up. But here is an idea. If we stop fighting unwiniable and silly wars, the money saved on those could be used for executions!
You haven't talked about how you'd be willing to support your own idea if the shoe was on the other foot.
Absolutely YES. Just because the system is not perfect, that doesn't mean you have to stop the system.
I am still not getting why you are bringing these up, but did you know that Ted Bundy escaped twice from prison and several people are dead because the system couldn't contain him???
Of course the other thing you did by bringing up Ted Bundy was to take the most notorious prisoner, from 35 years ago, and now you're tying to apply him to the stock broker who rips his clients off - who you want to execute. It's that extreme lumping together of the most extreme psychopath with the guy who never harmed a fly (physically, that is; a rip-off artist) and you're pairing these two together as if they're the same. This is what makes your ideas so absurd.
Anyway, under your system, it's just like having Ted Bundy loose. You're OK with killing innocent people, and your scheme will kill a Bundy full of them every day. Hour? Minute? Hell, let's just build ovens and do it up right like the Nazis did. Pretty soon there won't be anyone around to steal FROM.
Anyhow overall our conversation isn't fruitful....
I'm not the first and I won't be the last.
05-08-12, 05:03 AM #80
...when there is doubt, torture him with decades in prison....
Let's hope after a few decades, the authorities were right.
But what if they're wrong?
Last edited by Jan Ardena; 05-08-12 at 06:19 AM.
By decons in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 12-08-09, 07:56 PMReplies: 14
By madanthonywayne in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 01-30-09, 06:31 AMReplies: 29
By Norsefire in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 08-16-08, 02:55 PMReplies: 171
By Mickmeister in forum PoliticsLast Post: 10-15-07, 07:44 PMReplies: 78
By OliverJ in forum World EventsLast Post: 04-16-06, 06:21 PMReplies: 82