Here is a death penalty candidate

it wasn't a mistake bells.
it took a deliberate action on the perps part to murder this man.

to determine their guilt, that's why.

that depends on the circumstances.
what is justice in one case is not justice in another.
would a person really be guilty of murder if he hit and killed a pedestrian walking right on the edge of the road, at night, in the rain?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now you are talking, that's the idea! After all, that's how street justice works, isn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyhow, I was thinking of Madoff. (or other old criminals) He was someone who didn't need to do fraud, because he was set up for life. Nevertheless, he decided to defraud people. It is hard to say what was the complete loss, but substantial.

Anyway, we have a dude who is 74 years old, no chance of getting out ever. He had his life, oh, what a life he had! Now prison is going to be a hospice for him eventually. Wouldn't it be simpler just put him out of his misery? Not to mention it would be a nice deterrent for white collar bankers, don't mess with the money you were trusted with....

Oh yes, here is a puppy in his crate. Look, how happy he looks:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reducing the factors in a fundamentally flawed system is not the answer. Changing it fundamently is. That's like saying, let's keep building spawling roads in America and build more Suburbs that demand a car to get to, when the oil is running out, and no replacement for that oil energy is known. Inevitablely this leads to a worse crisis later on that will be harder to turn around from. When you have realized you have made the wrong turn, it's time to turn the fuck around.

Do you know how much human effort and fossils fuels it takes to build a wall? How about a few apartment buildings? How about a industrial complex for the prisoners? If my idea is done on tax payer money, which is contracted by non-parasistic and non-predatory contracts (like most things today in American), all of it could be returned in ten years. From that point on, the prisoners would only pay a maintenance cost for upkeep.

Is Austrailia still in debt to Britain? Under you claim, a prison should always be debt. But you are wrong. Prison can become self-sustaining and the people in them can be rehabilitated. America's problem is that it doesn't seem to do most things intelligently these days, that's why we have a 16T debt. Fools run this country. 16T proves it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that is what the NDAA is for. Take 'em out back and shoot 'em in the head. As long as the the people using the NDAA just simply claimes the person fits the defintion of a terrorist. We can't even ask them to prove the person fits the defintion, because the NDAA stops all need for any evidence to justify even what it itself demands as evidence. It is lawfull anarchy at the top.

The fallacy of The Argument From Authority has officially become American Law. Our man Obama. I think it may qualify as the Argument From Ignorance too.

 

It is precisely to avoid such vendettas that governments were instituted and given the responsibility to objectively administer justice. However, implicit in the deal is the idea that justice will still be served. That the guilty will still be punished. To quote the Supreme Court from Gregg v Georgia:

GREGG v. GEORGIA, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)​

 

Syzygys,

My statement "I think you can get satisfaction like that in China, Iran, Syria, and maybe half a dozen to a dozen countries thereabouts" means those are the venues where you can get the satisfaction you seek.

Which is why I said "You mean you don't care whether the executed person committed murder or not"

That was what I thought you are advocating, not rules per se, but rules that can be bent.

Now tell that to witnesses who are afraid to testify.

So increasing the death penalty won't affect the rate of crimes of that type.

In either case you are encouraging them to execute any witnesses. You also are encouraging people to rebel against authority by imposing overly severe punishments. In any case, your idea won't fly without a constitutional amendment. Executions as you propose offend the 8th Amendment Cruel & Unusual Punishments Clause.

The Constitution guarantees a fair trial, effective assistance of counsel, the right to be heard and to confront the evidence, the right to an impartial trier of fact, freedom from illlegal search and seizure, due process of law, and freedom from cruel and unusual puishments. The rules of criminal procedure derive from this, from the common law and from legal theories extending back to the days of the Magna Carta. So you won't find any criminal justice experts who are going to be able to connect your example to the existing legal theory.

You just got through saying that innocent people get convicted, and you are disposing of human life by execution. Sounds like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

People are released from prisons every day in the US. Far more would be released if they were given parole. Many states just routinely deny parole, and the federal system requires them to complete 85% of their sentence before they become eligible for parole. Anyone worried about cost and fairness should be addressing those isues.

Anti-death penalty arguments have several grounds. One of the legal ones is the 8th Amendment violation, which outlaws your scheme.

I wonder if you would take such a cavalier attitude if your neck was on the line for a crime you did not commit. In any case this is not a legal theory either and it can't realistically be brought to court, which is where a bill like yours would end up if it were somehow miraculously ratified. The system of checks and balances won't allow such a bill to succeed, because the courts will have to strike it down under the rule of stare decisis. You would have to overthrow the government and install a new constitution. That was one reason I was recommending other venues, like China, Iran, Syria, etc., where you can get the satisfaction of death for lesser crimes.

 

So? Those are just meaningless big words, "better" and such. You could apply the same logic to war. If your country attacked, are you fighting back or not? Of course you are, you don't say: hey, we are not fighting back, we are better than them!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are not making much sense or ontopic arguments...

When did I say or imply that? I said I care about guilt.

Now we are just in blah-blah-blah territory.

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?

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!

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???

Anyhow overall our conversation isn't fruitful....

 

How about the Argument from Strength? Oh wait, that's what the criminals use!
I have just read a book WITSEC, about the witness protection service. Guess what? Until there was WITSEC, the government couldn't prosecute the maffia, because they intimidated witnesses and several times there was no other evidence just an eyewitness.

In plain English, the criminals used the argument from Strength, they were stronger than the average citizen, thus they went free. And the neighbourhood lived in FEAR.

If you don't mind to live in such an area, hey, it is your choice....

 

The deterrence part usually doesn't work, because the DP is not used often enough.

But there are other advantages of DP:

1. Safety. No dead man ever commited another crime.
2. National security. In case of a terrorist or maffia boss, it can be wiser to just get ride of him, instead of prolonging possible more indirect deaths (vengeance) or hostage taking.
3. My advocated organ donation is helping the community and the healing of the victim's family.
4. Cheaper. In most countries...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

5. Shortens suffering. Dead man feel no more pain.

For fun I will throw in a theist clause:

6. It speeds up the final justice (in front of God) and it is more human/Christian (no more suffering caused).

I would also like to add a Darwinist clause:

7. It is way more NATURAL, than being caged for life.

 

society should adopt the practices that best deters the type of crime in question without adversely affecting society itself, whatever that practice may be.

my definition is the art of fair play.
in my opinion you cannot define justice.

i never said, or suggested, that at all.

no.

depends on the crime.

yes, justice is a tough nut to crack isn't it?

 

Let's murder them for being stupid then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nevertheless you advocate the exact same punishment, so why are you more compassionate than him?

Nevertheless you can't give us a definition. Listen lady, I can come up with good sounding non-arguments that are impossible to define, but unlike you I don't fail at logic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your inability to give us a simple definition was fully noted.

Yes where? Since you failed to give us a link, we can come to the conclusion that you like to use heart warming non-arguments. But I already said that.

Hey, careful with the loaded questions. First, only you think society is a criminal, second, how can it not? We don't want/need to be better than the criminals, we just need to be smarter and stronger.

By lack of definition? What is the meaning of life? Why is the sky blue? Hey, I can do this just like you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

blah-blah same old same old. I listed the advantages of DP, deal with them and argue against them, don't just preach. The church is 2 blocks to the right.

Now when did I say that? I said, if the criminals are allowed to do everything (murder, witness intimidation, stealing) how can the prosecution do its job if their hands are tied and they have to do everything by the book?
Oh I know now, because they are better than them. Fuck even playing field...

Since conversation with you is useless, let's say goodbye with the story of Pablo Escobar:

You probably know the bases, druglord, basicly he was a king in his country, buying, killing or intimidating judges and witnesses. Eventually his power got so big that he was a danger to the political system (he took the supreme court judges as hostages)

So what happened? The police and decent people started to use the EXACT SAME TACTIC what he used. If you were Escobar lawyer, you got killed. If you were a family member of his, you got whacked.

Now it might sounds cruel to you (and even me) but guess what happened? IT WORKED!! Escobar went into hiding and eventually was hunted down like a mad dog and killed, and his empire collapsed.

I am sure you won't understand the meaning of the story, so just have a good night....

P.S.: Hey, I have just figured out what does better mean. Society is (or should be) stronger and smarter than the criminals. That is better right?

 

You see guys, anti-DP people are typically like Bells or Tiassa. They are full of preaching and giving undefinable but heart warming non-arguments, although they fail at dealing with the opposition facts and arguments. Then comes the labeling (what is again, not an argument itself) and eventually the personal attacks.

I have provided plenty of good common sense approach to the DP but I don't hold my breath and the rest is just repetition. In summary, the only good argument against the DP is that keeping the criminal alive is a bigger punishment (torture). I agree but if torture is the goal of punishment, we can torture the bastard for a while and still execute him later, there is no reason why it should last for decades. That is inhuman. Anti-DP people are like those who want to keep terminally ill people alive forever so just they can suffer more... Niiiiiiice....

Speaking of inhuman, how is the puppy doing in its crate? Has he started to go insane yet???

 

Err, that study concludes that the studies investigating the possible deterrent effect of the death penalty are all inconclusive. It is saying that the deterrent value is unknown, not that it is known to be zero.

But, rare compared to what? If the deterrent effect works, it means that the murder rate should be lower than it would be in the USA without the death penalty. And not necessarily lower than it is in some other country without the death penalty - that latter comparison includes any number of confounding factors. It's not an easy thing to clearly prove such a hypothesis, since it involves a counterfactual.

I think you need some more meat on that argument, there. I.e., it should cost more to apply the death penalty than a lesser punishment - exactly because the level of legal scrutiny and process involved should scale with the severity of punishment. That doesn't itself address the question of whether the penalty in question is a net harm to society - it costs more to build and maintain a system of roads and highways than not, but nobody argues that society isn't better off for having paid that cost. You have to measure the costs against the benefits - which would include justice as well as deterrence, here.

And you need to include all of the costs as well. It's unclear that the primary cost of the death penalty is purely financial. The term that gets used in academic studies of this is "brutalization of society." I.e., you end up executing some amount of innocent people, which you can never undo, and society in general lives under a system where execution by the state is a possibility. It is not easy to quantify these costs.

Executing a convicted criminal after due process isn't "murder."

Again, that has not been conclusively established.

But I have heard it credibly hypothesized that to get any significant deterrent effect from the death penalty, you have to execute large numbers of people. The death penalty has to be seen as a certainty in the minds of criminals. And the levels we're talking about would be unacceptable to pretty much any modern country (there are a few exceptions, of course).

 

The case against the death penalty is actually really simple to state: even the best criminal justice system is going to convict way too many innocent people for the death penalty to be a worthwhile system.

Answer me this: how many innocent people are you willing to mistakenly execute, per year, before you'd judge the death penalty to be counterproductive?

 

Hahhahaha you claim to be defending the pocutors to alow them to do there job yet the very person you are arguing with WAS a member of the DPP, She is telling you that a) it's unessary and b) unwanted. further more it's not just Tiassa and bells who are against the death penalty, it's outlawed by treaty in th majority of countries, the optional protocol to the universal declaration of civil and political rights bans the use of death as a penalty

 

And with the deterrent effect of this type of government behavior, the drug lords pulled in their horns and Mexico became the nice peaceful safe place we all admire today.

Or maybe not, eh?

Anyone who lets their government kill its citizens in cold blood, under any pretext whatsoever, deserves what history has shown to be the normal consequences of installing such government. But the rest of us don't.