Why republicans should care about having a king

[Seattle]

BTW, I see what you did there.

Nice pivot away from "no kings", towards "You know, I really like guns!"

I don't "really like guns". I'm neutral at best. That's the reality as well.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Exactly. A study of prisoners in New York found that each death penalty cost $1.4 million, compared to $602K for life imprisonment for an average criminal. In Florida the difference was greater; $3.2 million for each death sentence compared to $530K for life imprisonment.

The death penalty may be more humane, but for people who deserve the death penalty (cop killers, mass murderers etc) I have to admit I don't much care. Stop wasting taxpayer money on them.

The large cost is because they allow so many appeals and the appeals take so much time.

 

[DaveC426913]

When Australia passed comprehensive gun laws back in 1996, a lot of guns "went away". Specifically, they were handed in to the government during an amnesty period, and then crushed in those car crushing machines, in bulk.

All the US needs to do is to repeal its silly Second Amendment and bring out the car crushers.

Thanks Ozland, for setting the example and showing that it works!

 

[DaveC426913]

In theory that's true. I know about the Australis situation. This isn't Australia. People aren't going to turn in 400 million guns. That's the reality of it. They aren't going to change the 2nd Amendment either. I'd be fine if both of those things were reality but they aren't.

That's merely your opinion, on both. I have no doubt they said the same things in Australia.

Your opinion does not mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater (a logical fallacy). Australia is an extant example that it's worked at least once.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

When Australia passed comprehensive gun laws back in 1996, a lot of guns "went away". Specifically, they were handed in to the government during an amnesty period, and then crushed in those car crushing machines, in bulk.

All the US needs to do is to repeal its silly Second Amendment and bring out the car crushers.

Repeal of the second amendment won't happen in at least the next hundred years. Congress and the Supreme Court may be able, however, to modify its effect.
Americans won't give up their guns as easily as Australians.

 

[TheVat]

The large cost is because they allow so many appeals and the appeals take so much time.

And why do you think an appeals process might be of special importance in a DP case? Despite your earlier and highiy unusual argument about life after death making a wrongful conviction and execution no biggie, I think most people would want the criminal justice system to go the extra distance on assuring a proper trial and conviction for a DP. Hence, appeals. Again, the DP sentence is completely irreversible.

(Interesting chat, but it's got fuck-all to do with kings and the GOP)D)

 

[TheVat]

I'm against the death penalty but on moral grounds. You seem to base your morals on economics in this one case? Interesting. I'm pretty sure I know what your reply will be to this one.

Not sure citing an economic reason requires that it's his only reason. I do share your moral objections to the DP.

When Australia passed comprehensive gun laws back in 1996, a lot of guns "went away". Specifically, they were handed in to the government during an amnesty period, and then crushed in those car crushing machines, in bulk.

All the US needs to do is to repeal its silly Second Amendment and bring out the car crushers.

Yep, percentage matters. We may have 400 m guns, but a 75% turn over would get it down to 100 m, and that would be a serious improvement. It also is worth noting that the most of the 400m here are actually owned by a small percentage of the total population who own extensive arsenals. Preppers, collectors, militia loonies, far right paranoids... and a fair number like me and the missus who just inherited some. I would turn them in, if there was a buyback, but she likes them as part of her role as curator of the familial "museum" of ranching heritage. No ammo is kept, and one has had the barrel bent, so it's no longer legally a firearm. I'd love to pull the pins out of the rest.

 

[Sarkus]

Your opinion does not mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater (a logical fallacy).

While the idiom describes imprudent rejection, i'm not sure it's a logical fallacy in and of itself, formal or otherwise. Which fallacy were you thinking it to be? False dichotomy, perhaps?

 

[billvon]

The large cost is because they allow so many appeals and the appeals take so much time.

Yep. But if you are going to have a death penalty, you have to be 99.9999% accurate so you don't kill too many innocent people. And historically they haven't been all that accurate. So you really do need to spend that money.

 

[billvon]

I'm against the death penalty but on moral grounds. You seem to base your morals on economics in this one case? Interesting.

If the death penalty were handed out only to people who were guilty of their crimes I would have no moral problem with it. FAFO and all that.

But since we're not there yet I do have an issue with putting innocent people to death.

Plus which, of course, life in prison is cheaper. Win/win.

 

[DaveC426913]

While the idiom describes imprudent rejection, i'm not sure it's a logical fallacy in and of itself, formal or otherwise. Which fallacy were you thinking it to be? False dichotomy, perhaps?

Nirvana fallacy: (informal) rejecting a policy proposal because the result won't achieve a 100% perfect solution to the problem, even if it would be still be more effective than doing nothing.

Nirvana fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Seattle]

That's merely your opinion, on both. I have no doubt they said the same things in Australia.

Your opinion does not mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater (a logical fallacy). Australia is an extant example that it's worked at least once.

Of course anything I or you say, are our opinions. In this case, it's as close to reality as you can get.

 

[Seattle]

If the death penalty were handed out only to people who were guilty of their crimes I would have no moral problem with it. FAFO and all that.

But since we're not there yet I do have an issue with putting innocent people to death.

Plus which, of course, life in prison is cheaper. Win/win.

My moral qualm would be that it's an inappropriate action for the state, in addition to the accuracy issue. That's just an opinion of course.

 

[Sarkus]

Nirvana fallacy: (informal) rejecting a policy proposal because the result won't achieve a 100% perfect solution to the problem, even if it would be still be more effective than doing nothing.

Nirvana fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep, fair enough. Hadn't heard it called that, but as a false dichotomy/dilemma, yeah, okay. Makes sense. I am wondering if all occasions "throwing baby out" are captured by that, but, heck, that's another thread (if at all).

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Yep. But if you are going to have a death penalty, you have to be 99.9999% accurate so you don't kill too many innocent people. And historically they haven't been all that accurate. So you really do need to spend that money.

A complete revamping of the criminal justice system to focus more on truth and less on procedure should help.

 

[Sarkus]

A complete revamping of the criminal justice system to focus more on truth and less on procedure should help.

One needs procedure to be able to convince others of the truth in a fair and equitable manner. Without such you end with chaos and the rule of might. If the strong determine the "truth" then you don't have justice, you have agenda.

 

[billvon]

Not really the point of my analogy. So, broad strokes: A society of completely lawful, sober, ethical and responsible people would need no laws. We have laws because of a minority who do bad stuff, and therefore we all experience restrictions to our freedoms and our access to certain dangerous things.

In some cases it's not even the minority.

Several studies have shown that, if people had their way, the majority would pay zero (or close to zero) taxes and rely on other people to support the government. That, of course, does not work on a large scale. So we need tax laws.

Same thing with trash disposal. If there were no laws against it, state parks, sidewalks, parking lots etc would fill up with trash. "I meant to dispose of it properly but the baby got sick/my car broke down/I got in a fight with my girlfriend" etc. That's commonly known as the "tragedy of the commons" and it's a natural consequence of people who put self interest above communal interest. That's not even a bad thing - but it does tend to lead to problems if the potential downsides are not addressed with laws.

 

[billvon]

A complete revamping of the criminal justice system to focus more on truth and less on procedure should help.

You need procedure to get to the truth. The whole jury rigamarole? Lots of procedure, and not always accurate, but the best method we've found so far to determine guilt. Miranda rights? Prisoner rights? Rules against bias and discrimiation? Also more procedure but shown to be necessary.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

You need procedure to get to the truth. The whole jury rigamarole? Lots of procedure, and not always accurate, but the best method we've found so far to determine guilt. Miranda rights? Prisoner rights? Rules against bias and discrimiation? Also more procedure but shown to be necessary.

No, in many ways procedure and the advesary system blocks the truth. When evidence can be thrown out for human mistakes you miss some truth. When the judge can sustain an objection you miss some truth.

 

[billvon]

No, in many ways procedure and the advesary system blocks the truth. When evidence can be thrown out for human mistakes you miss some truth.

When you can torture someone for information, you absolutely miss the truth. Power then defaults to whoever has the best torturers.

When the judge can sustain an objection you miss some truth.

And when lawyers can routinely violate the law, the truth belongs who whoever is the most lawless.