Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed today in Utah. Would you like to know more?

11314151618

Posts

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Urian wrote: »
    Didn't intend on coming back to this thread but after reading about people saying Hitler deserved to live, even one person saying he wishes happy endings or something for people who do bad things... you folks should be severely beaten for even suggesting this drivel. I wish I knew what rose-tinted lens you people saw life from or what beautiful world you were raised in where fucking Hitler does not deserve to be brutally tortured and then slowly killed, much less killed at all. If you think "humanity" is in forgiving someone like that, you are inhuman.

    Don't worry, I also understand that your own views are--like Hitler's--simply the product of your upbringing crossed with the circumstances of your birth, and whatever you believe, whatever you do, whatever twisted system of justice that you support and are a component of as a constituent, no matter how much real injustice it deals out and misery it causes, I still ultimately wish you the best too.

    Because nobody chooses to be a villain, no one chooses to be a douchebag, ultimately. What good does wishing awful ends upon them do, but to make them suffer for choices they couldn't possibly have made?

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Urian wrote: »
    Didn't intend on coming back to this thread but after reading about people saying Hitler deserved to live, even one person saying he wishes happy endings or something for people who do bad things... you folks should be severely beaten for even suggesting this drivel. I wish I knew what rose-tinted lens you people saw life from or what beautiful world you were raised in where fucking Hitler does not deserve to be brutally tortured and then slowly killed, much less killed at all. If you think "humanity" is in forgiving someone like that, you are inhuman.

    Don't worry, I also understand that your own views are--like Hitler's--simply the product of your upbringing crossed with the circumstances of your birth, and whatever you believe, whatever you do, whatever twisted system of justice that you support and are a component of as a constituent, no matter how much real injustice it deals out and misery it causes, I still ultimately wish you the best too.

    Because nobody chooses to be a villain, no one chooses to be a douchebag, ultimately. What good does wishing awful ends upon them do, but to make them suffer for choices they couldn't possibly have made?

    Your response makes me smile :).

    Erik
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lucid wrote: »
    What about the roots of that value system though? For me, in the value of life it's as I explained before. There is an objective aspect intrinsically linked to that value, that being the evident chance that positive outcomes for society will occur. When constructing the value concerning life, there's an objective reason to base it on, i.e. it's doesn't lay purely in emotional roots.

    Right.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lucid wrote: »
    What about the roots of that value system though? For me, in the value of life it's as I explained before. There is an objective aspect intrinsically linked to that value, that being the evident chance that positive outcomes for society will occur. When constructing the value concerning life, there's an objective reason to base it on, i.e. it's doesn't lay purely in emotional roots.

    Isn't the quality of an objective system determined by a subjective value though?
    Lucid wrote:
    I don't know, I think the value of life does have some objectivity to it. I mean, there are examples of people who are sentenced to death that contribute positive effects on society at some level. The flaws that lead to the negative effects of incarceration are things that can be dealt with without a need for death. There's a chance for postive gain in valuing life, while in considering death only there is no gain to be had.

    You argue that a person has an objective worth because they can contribute positive effects to society. This argument is predicated on effects that a person would consider positive. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

    I want to stress that I don't advocate some type of moral equivalency. Just an acceptance that morality is by its nature subjective. A claim that a person's opinion is wrong because it is not objective rings hallow to me, while a claim that person's opinion is wrong because it is monstrous does not.

    I think it is dangerous for people to subjugate their own values to a false ideal of an objective morality.

    edit: I wanted to add an analogy that I think makes my position less convoluted. Take a board game like Monopoly. There are objective reasons to make decisions in the game. The subjective premise though is that you want to win the game. You can construct an entirely objective system upon a subjective value.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    You argue that a person has an objective worth because they can contribute positive effects to society. This argument is predicated on effects that a person would consider positive. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
    Positive in the sense that there's situations in reality where criminals and those sentenced to death have produced gains for society. Whether this is participating in some kind of educational program to raise awareness on crime and what not, or simply reintegrating into the economical fold. This can be done upon release or through programs in prison that contribute to the economy through prisoners work. These things occur in reality and aren't based on hypotheticals like the pro death arguments have relied on. This is what I'm designing an objective basis for the value of life on, it's not purely constructed on an intagible sense of morality. Trying to move the variable towards postive gain for society is always better than removing it entirely. This is in addition to the emotional ties I carry in my ideal of the value of life.

    I only see the emotional component inherent in the pro death penalty value though.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lucid wrote: »
    You argue that a person has an objective worth because they can contribute positive effects to society. This argument is predicated on effects that a person would consider positive. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
    Positive in the sense that there's situations in reality where criminals and those sentenced to death have produced gains for society. Whether this is participating in some kind of educational program to raise awareness on crime and what not, or simply reintegrating into the economical fold. This can be done upon release or through programs in prison that contribute to the economy through prisoners work. These things occur in reality and aren't based on hypotheticals like the pro death arguments have relied on. This is what I'm designing an objective basis for the value of life on, it's not purely constructed on an intagible sense of morality. Trying to move the variable towards postive gain for society is always better than removing it entirely. This is in addition to the emotional ties I carry in my ideal of the value of life.

    I only see the emotional component inherent in the pro death penalty value though.

    Aren't those effects only gains though if viewed through a subjective lens? Otherwise they're just effects.

    Take the example of convicts persuading others not to commit crimes. You and I might value not having people commit crimes, and thus consider this a gain. However, while the effect seems on its face objectively good, it still ultimately depends on subjective desires, just as much as someone who wants to see a person receive retribution for a crime.

    For every reason (decreased murder rate, cost, etc.), there is a 'why' (as anyone who has debated with a two year old might attest), and eventually any objective system relies upon a subjective desire.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    "everyone can be forgiven, for it can only be forgiveness when it is not deserved"

    vs

    "you should be severely beaten for expressing too much compassion for evil people."

    hm. Which one is more ethically compelling?

    HMMMMMM

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I smell Podly

    Lazegamer, can we at least agree that the chances of something positive happening are greater after the fact if a criminal is kept alive, and that they are zero if they are executed?

    I mean, subjectively positive for the demographic that doesn't consist of sociopaths

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I smell Podly

    Lazegamer, can we at least agree that the chances of something positive happening are greater after the fact if a criminal is kept alive, and that they are zero if they are executed?

    I mean, subjectively positive for the demographic that doesn't consist of sociopaths

    If you're asking about my opinion? I don't think the killing of people we've found guilty outweighs all of the negatives.

    As to your second, I'm not studied in psychology, but I don't think everybody who highly values retribution is a sociopath. I think that retribution has a role in our justice system; long prison sentences are deserved for heinous crimes. During that time we should try to rehabilitate, but you can only rehabilitate the willing. If not, at least we will have lessened that persons ability to harm society for the time being.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Urian wrote: »
    Didn't intend on coming back to this thread but after reading about people saying Hitler deserved to live, even one person saying he wishes happy endings or something for people who do bad things... you folks should be severely beaten for even suggesting this drivel. I wish I knew what rose-tinted lens you people saw life from or what beautiful world you were raised in where fucking Hitler does not deserve to be brutally tortured and then slowly killed, much less killed at all. If you think "humanity" is in forgiving someone like that, you are inhuman.

    Your response is, to re-respond, the epitome of the kind of attitude I'm against.

    So I am to be beaten now, for calling for compassion. What good would this do? Would I change my ways because of a beating? Would a beating somehow "show me" that wishing terrible ends on people is the right thing to do?

    Here is an article that describes Saddam Hussein's final moments. At his end, he was surrounded by a crowd of people who hated him and taunted him, and then killed violently when he was in the middle of praying. I honestly feel bad for the man. His death isn't going to prevent other dictators from doing the same, it's not going to bring back any of the victims of his regime. It put a capstone of suffering on a career of visiting suffering on others. It only added more agony to the world. It's a useless and tragic death.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    I smell Podly

    Lazegamer, can we at least agree that the chances of something positive happening are greater after the fact if a criminal is kept alive, and that they are zero if they are executed?

    I mean, subjectively positive for the demographic that doesn't consist of sociopaths

    If you're asking about my opinion? I don't think the killing of people we've found guilty outweighs all of the negatives.

    As to your second, I'm not studied in psychology, but I don't think everybody who highly values retribution is a sociopath. I think that retribution has a role in our justice system; long prison sentences are deserved for heinous crimes. During that time we should try to rehabilitate, but you can only rehabilitate the willing. If not, at least we will have lessened that persons ability to harm society for the time being.

    Maybe not everybody who values retribution is a sociopath, but I think an argument could be made that everybody who values revenge over other, more concrete societal benefits has big problems of some sort. Anybody who resorts to the lizard-brain enjoyment of schadenfreude is somebody that frightens me.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • C2BC2B SwitzerlandRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Uhmmmmm, nobody here talks about all the community work prisoners have to do?

    You know, after Chernobyl,..... the only reason the core was the core was filled up so fast after the explosion was BECAUSE of all the prisoners in the jails. They were sent there to fill it up. Sure they lived not more than one day but they sacrificed themselves. And probably thousend of people were saved.

    What does a dead man contribute to society except some shortlived satisfaction?

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Maybe not everybody who values retribution is a sociopath, but I think an argument could be made that everybody who values revenge over other, more concrete societal benefits has big problems of some sort.

    They are clearly not interested in society's well-being, or even the well-being of individuals.
    Anybody who resorts to the lizard-brain enjoyment of schadenfreude is somebody that frightens me.

    I perhaps paradoxically enjoy schadenfreude. I wonder what's up with that.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    C2B wrote: »
    Uhmmmmm, nobody here talks about all the community work prisoners have to do?

    You know, after Chernobyl,..... the only reason the core was the core was filled up so fast after the explosion was BECAUSE of all the prisoners in the jails. They were sent there to fill it up. Sure they lived not more than one day but they sacrificed themselves. And probably thousend of people were saved.

    What does a dead man contribute to society except some shortlived satisfaction?

    Probably not the best example since sending prisoners to Chernobyl was essentially a death sentence.

    Life/no parole prisoners do some work, but not the kind where they go out and fix roads or anything.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Maybe not everybody who values retribution is a sociopath, but I think an argument could be made that everybody who values revenge over other, more concrete societal benefits has big problems of some sort.

    They are clearly not interested in society's well-being, or even the well-being of individuals.
    Anybody who resorts to the lizard-brain enjoyment of schadenfreude is somebody that frightens me.

    I perhaps paradoxically enjoy schadenfreude. I wonder what's up with that.

    It's one thing to discover that you are like anybody else and derive pleasure from the suffering of others. It's quite another entirely to argue for it.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • C2BC2B SwitzerlandRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    C2B wrote: »
    Uhmmmmm, nobody here talks about all the community work prisoners have to do?

    You know, after Chernobyl,..... the only reason the core was the core was filled up so fast after the explosion was BECAUSE of all the prisoners in the jails. They were sent there to fill it up. Sure they lived not more than one day but they sacrificed themselves. And probably thousend of people were saved.

    What does a dead man contribute to society except some shortlived satisfaction?

    Probably not the best example since sending prisoners to Chernobyl was essentially a death sentence.

    Life/no parole prisoners do some work, but not the kind where they go out and fix roads or anything.

    Well, they do here, somewhat. And community work isn't only based in fixing roads. Prisoners have qualifications and they are used. They don't just sit around the entire time. In what world do you live?

    Also it wasn't a death-sentence just a short decision. Also there were many prisonners who voulnteered for this even. They did it. They could have just as good doing nothing if they didn't care about it.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    C2B wrote: »
    Uhmmmmm, nobody here talks about all the community work prisoners have to do?

    You know, after Chernobyl,..... the only reason the core was the core was filled up so fast after the explosion was BECAUSE of all the prisoners in the jails. They were sent there to fill it up. Sure they lived not more than one day but they sacrificed themselves. And probably thousend of people were saved.

    What does a dead man contribute to society except some shortlived satisfaction?

    Huh? Is this something I just don't know about Chernobyl? I'd always heard it was the firefighters who got sent in to fix things. I've never, anywhere, heard of convicts being sent in to fix things up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

    It's wikipedia etc, but... got a source?

    Erik
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    C2B wrote: »
    C2B wrote: »
    Uhmmmmm, nobody here talks about all the community work prisoners have to do?

    You know, after Chernobyl,..... the only reason the core was the core was filled up so fast after the explosion was BECAUSE of all the prisoners in the jails. They were sent there to fill it up. Sure they lived not more than one day but they sacrificed themselves. And probably thousend of people were saved.

    What does a dead man contribute to society except some shortlived satisfaction?

    Probably not the best example since sending prisoners to Chernobyl was essentially a death sentence.

    Life/no parole prisoners do some work, but not the kind where they go out and fix roads or anything.

    Well, they do here, somewhat. And community work isn't only based in fixing roads. Prisoners have qualifications and they are used. They don't just sit around the entire time. In what world do you live?

    Also it wasn't a death-sentence just a short decision. Also there were many prisonners who voulnteered for this even. They did it. They could have just as good doing nothing if they didn't care about it.

    If it was a volunteer situation, then yeah, go for it, as long as they are secure enough to be kept from escaping back into the general populace as soon as they're on the bus to their suicide mission.

    But I would never argue that inmates lives should be used to keep the rest of us safe if it was compulsory.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    C2B wrote: »
    Uhmmmmm, nobody here talks about all the community work prisoners have to do?

    You know, after Chernobyl,..... the only reason the core was the core was filled up so fast after the explosion was BECAUSE of all the prisoners in the jails. They were sent there to fill it up. Sure they lived not more than one day but they sacrificed themselves. And probably thousend of people were saved.

    What does a dead man contribute to society except some shortlived satisfaction?

    Huh? Is this something I just don't know about Chernobyl? I'd always heard it was the firefighters who got sent in to fix things. I've never, anywhere, heard of convicts being sent in to fix things up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

    It's wikipedia etc, but... got a source?

    I haven't heard of any specific case like this either, but I wouldn't say it was an impossibility by any means, a source that elaborates would be nice.

    It wouldn't surprise me. It's not a close analogy by any means, but in the US and elsewhere, convicts are used as labor in areas of natural disasters (such as flood relief)--along with a huge number of other industries. A flood isn't the same thing as an explosion at a nuclear power station, but the labor in question is done against further loss of property and lives (though I don't know how many lives were lost to disease or injury in flood regions).

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • C2BC2B SwitzerlandRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Ego wrote: »
    C2B wrote: »
    Uhmmmmm, nobody here talks about all the community work prisoners have to do?

    You know, after Chernobyl,..... the only reason the core was the core was filled up so fast after the explosion was BECAUSE of all the prisoners in the jails. They were sent there to fill it up. Sure they lived not more than one day but they sacrificed themselves. And probably thousend of people were saved.

    What does a dead man contribute to society except some shortlived satisfaction?

    Huh? Is this something I just don't know about Chernobyl? I'd always heard it was the firefighters who got sent in to fix things. I've never, anywhere, heard of convicts being sent in to fix things up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

    It's wikipedia etc, but... got a source?

    Researched it and could not find a link as of yet. Also the part about them volunteering "could" have been heroic bullshit concerning that the person I heard it originally from wasn't exactly a historian. But, I'm pretty still pretty sure about the prisoner part.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Well, given the soviet treatment of 'prisoners' in general, I would in no way be surprised to hear they did this (my grandparents fled the soviet union.) I just hadn't heard about it at all. Perhaps given the quick response time, though, it might be more likely that they sent in local firefighters unaware of the extent of the peril during the earliest and most critical moments, then did the '40 seconds of exposure' thing as time went on.

    Erik
  • NuckerNucker Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Because nobody chooses to be a villain, no one chooses to be a douchebag, ultimately.

    I'm curious about this--maybe it's just that you're assuming others have the same common sense that you do, but are you saying that no one intentially chooses to do harm for the sake of doing harm? Or is it that in the event that someone chooses to do harm for the sake of harm, they weren't socialized correctly or are psychotic and thus are not responsible for their actions?

    If the former is true, then I'd have to disagree with you outright. If the latter is true, then we'd have to get into an argument over sociology and psychology. Really, I'm more interested to know if you think the former is true.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Aren't those effects only gains though if viewed through a subjective lens? Otherwise they're just effects.

    Take the example of convicts persuading others not to commit crimes. You and I might value not having people commit crimes, and thus consider this a gain. However, while the effect seems on its face objectively good, it still ultimately depends on subjective desires, just as much as someone who wants to see a person receive retribution for a crime.

    For every reason (decreased murder rate, cost, etc.), there is a 'why' (as anyone who has debated with a two year old might attest), and eventually any objective system relies upon a subjective desire.
    They're gains in a statistical sense if we're talking about the larger community and society we live in. I mean if you want to take it the way you're saying, everything is subjective to some extent. It doesn't mean we can't use an objective framework though.

    It's similar to an anti slavery value in some sense. That being that yes, it's subjectively moral in some sense, but there's also the objective reality that not holding people captive for low benefits(if any) has a greater gain for society on the whole and in the long run in varying ways. It's an objective layer to a value basically. Those in favor of slavery would only have their emotion to frame the value as they're either unaware of the gains to no slavery or choose to ignore them, relying solely on their belief that it's better somehow. As with retribution, an objective reality exists that society is served through essential infrastructure by not pursuing that value as a dominant factor.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Nucker wrote: »
    Because nobody chooses to be a villain, no one chooses to be a douchebag, ultimately.

    I'm curious about this--maybe it's just that you're assuming others have the same common sense that you do, but are you saying that no one intentially chooses to do harm for the sake of doing harm? Or is it that in the event that someone chooses to do harm for the sake of harm, they weren't socialized correctly or are psychotic and thus are not responsible for their actions?

    If the former is true, then I'd have to disagree with you outright. If the latter is true, then we'd have to get into an argument over sociology and psychology. Really, I'm more interested to know if you think the former is true.

    It's the latter, sorry.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • walnutmonwalnutmon Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Part of what makes humans human is a deviation from their base animal impulses.

    Many of the posters on this forum, for example, might feel the twinge to hold Hitler up as an example of somebody who deserved to die for no reason other than revenge killing. They suppress that urge. I strongly encourage everybody to do the same.

    The only arguments I have seen from the pro-death penalty crowd here are straw men, ad hominem (although to be fair there have been some of these from the anti-death penalty crowd as well) attacks and appeals to emotion. Nobody has conclusively provided proof that the best thing for society is more death. Objectively, there has been no argument that the death penalty is a better solution than other corrective measures. Subjectively, the only thing to talk about is the value of revenge vs. the value of not being an animal who abides only by his/her base impulses. Since talking about subjective, emotional beliefs will only end up with, "I FEEL THIS" followed up by "YEAH BUT I FEEL THIS", I'd rather see if anybody has an objective argument in favor of the death penalty that doesn't involve dictators from bygone eras.

    I think the only good argument for the death penalty, which I don't have very strong feelings on either way, is to save people the time and money of having to sustain individuals who have done something which they deserved to be killed for. Which is actually very logical (but in practice isn't actually true).

    When it comes to revenge: imagine you come home and your family has been tortured and killed, and you have a gun. You most likely will end up killing that person, unless you're really bad at aiming, or very "passive" in nature. Whether it be because you're scared, or angry, or both, or perhaps just protecting yourself from the same; it's hard to imagine someone arguing that that person was wrong to do that.

    But just because it makes sense for that person to do something, doesn't mean it makes sense for the state to do the same thing.

    If you could ideally run capital punishment so that those who have committed horrendous violent crimes (I don't personally care whether or not they could be rehabilitated, but to appease you could even throw that in there) were executed in a safe, and more importantly fast and efficient way, then I think the argument becomes far stronger. But because of all the implications that a capital punishment case has on cost, trials, extra appeals and so on it doesn't make sense anymore because what you're doing is administering revenge in a lab for those who are emotionally satisfied in your doing so.

    It's just too removed from the situation. It would probably make more sense if the victim (or those who wish to persue death) had to actually kill the person in some non-trivial way (push this button while on your couch), because then you're at least admitting what it is that the state is doing.

    So I support killing violent individuals if you're in the position to do so in a timely manner... but if in practice it's just some 10 year, million dollar process, the purpose has been really obscured by the process.

    Is there anyone who disagrees with the initial hypothetical situation I described? Because if so, you probably disagree with my thought process. I think the only difference between us then would be that I don't necessarily think that revenge is evidence of moral inferiority

    xbox: jmbizzo | ps3: walnutmon | steam: walnutmon | SC2: walnutmon.591
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Nucker wrote: »
    Because nobody chooses to be a villain, no one chooses to be a douchebag, ultimately.

    I'm curious about this--maybe it's just that you're assuming others have the same common sense that you do, but are you saying that no one intentially chooses to do harm for the sake of doing harm? Or is it that in the event that someone chooses to do harm for the sake of harm, they weren't socialized correctly or are psychotic and thus are not responsible for their actions?

    If the former is true, then I'd have to disagree with you outright. If the latter is true, then we'd have to get into an argument over sociology and psychology. Really, I'm more interested to know if you think the former is true.

    It's the latter, sorry.

    Loren, you are a cool dude.

    I don't think we agree on ethics or politics, but I like the cut of your jib on this issue.

    The notion of state sponsored killing has never sat well with me. It wasn't until many years ago when I was in high school that I found a good formulation of how I feel about the death penalty. One of my teachers brought it up while we were talking about government.

    If you support the death penalty, you should be willing to personally execute a person that you love and care about because they have been rightfully convicted in a court of law despite the fact that they truly feel remorse.

    Conversely, the opponent to execution has to be willing to argue for the continued life of the non-repentant murder of everyone they care for.

    I find myself far more able to do the latter than the former. People do bad things for two reasons, it seems to me. Either they are ignorant of the consequences or nature of what they're doing. Or they've lived lives that have rendered them unable to properly make moral decisions. Whether it stems from systematic abuse, or whatever. There is no better word for someone who willingly and intentionally murders another human being than "insane."

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Dead Thread Redemption

    DNA shows man may have been wrongly executed
    DALLAS — A DNA test on a strand of hair that linked a convicted murderer to the crime scene shows it wasn't his — a revelation that strongly suggests the Texas man was wrongly executed under state law.

    That single strand was the only piece of physical evidence linking career criminal Claude Jones to the 1989 killing of a liquor store owner in Point Blank, Texas. He was executed in December 2000, the last person put to death during George W. Bush's time as governor.

    A judge would have to make the final decision on whether Jones was wrongly executed. Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a New York legal center, acknowledges the hair doesn't prove Jones' innocence but does show there was insufficient evidence to convict and execute him.

    Looks like our justice system still isn't perfect, even with DNA evidence. One is still too many.

    Oh yeah, lolTexas

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    But see, if we hadn't executed him, we might have to pay him money for wrongful imprisonment now!

    If a judge were to say he was wrongfully executed does the family get to sue Texas?

    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG now featured at the Exigency Forum
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    DALLAS — A DNA test on a strand of hair that linked a convicted murderer to the crime scene shows it wasn't his — a revelation that strongly suggests the Texas man was wrongly executed under state law.

    That single strand was the only piece of physical evidence linking career criminal Claude Jones to the 1989 killing of a liquor store owner in Point Blank, Texas. He was executed in December 2000, the last person put to death during George W. Bush's time as governor.

    A judge would have to make the final decision on whether Jones was wrongly executed. Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a New York legal center, acknowledges the hair doesn't prove Jones' innocence but does show there was insufficient evidence to convict and execute him.

    Am I terrible for reading that and immediately thinking of that scene in Friends where the kid is talking about thinking there was a town named Gunpoint?

    steam_sig.png
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Parental Unit RemulakRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    In this thread, the only way to be terrible is to support the death penalty.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I get by on the knowledge that I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time mucking about inside of my asshole anyway
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    In fairness, this is yet another example where there is evidence that the conviction may have been improper, but not necessarily evidence that he was "innocent."

    Which is to say that the pro-death-penalty crowd can still say he was probably guilty, and this is just a technicality. And that, in all likelihood, they're right.

    While this is going to sound terrible, what we really need is a case where we find incontrovertible evidence of innocence after the execution, so we can finally put this shit to rest.

  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Innocent until proven guilty
    Evidence used to prove guilt was faulty
    Innocent man was executed

    QED

    eokNV.jpg
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    "Innocent until proven guilty
    Evidence used to prove guilt was faulty
    Innocent man was executed"

    I think theres a flaw there, we dont have evidence that the jury used that piece of evidence in their consideration. They can choose to ignore such a fact when determining guilt and that some other evidence removes reasonable doubt.

    I am not trying to argue or devils advocate, but the above logically doesn't sound right to me. Mcdermott is kind of saying the same thing as me I believe.

    Edit: I hear alot of about the cost of the death penalty, vs life in prison. I hear stories all the time about how it actually costs more to do the death penalty, however I really haven't seen a good source, or a logical reason. I think Bullshit even made this point, but just put together a quick list of costs to show the difference. Are death row inmates kept under a higher skilled/more secure lock and key then lifers making their time in prison more expensive then regular imates or something? I do imagine that alone setting up and maintaining a procedure and equipment to properly kill someone would be expensive in itself and require specialists on staff that wouldn't constantly need to be utilized.

    Double edit: Is it the fact that a live prisoner keeps making the prison money vs a dead prisoner? I am not sure this is a valid argument with how brimming full our current prisons are, I am pretty sure they could fill the extra space easily and keep trucking.

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Innocent until proven guilty
    Evidence used to prove guilt was faulty
    Innocent man was executed

    QED

    This is a great logical construct, and certainly how our legal system should work, but unfortunately it ignores the fact that guilt often exists outside of the legal system.

    Like, regardless of presumption of innocence and an acquittal, somebody might be in reality quite guilty of the crime. As in, you know, he did it. Your little exercise in QED doesn't change the reality of whether or not the accused committed the act they're being tried for. It's about legal outcome, no more.

    Unfortunately, most people aren't going to consider legal outcome in a vacuum when deciding whether the death penalty is a good thing.


    Basically, presumption of innocence exists in the courtroom, and our laws should always be based on it, but it simply does not exist out in the real world. O.J. is still guilty as hell.
    Edit: I hear alot of about the cost of the death penalty, vs life in prison. I hear stories all the time about how it actually costs more to do the death penalty, however I really haven't seen a good source, or a logical reason. I think Bullshit even made this point, but just put together a quick list of costs to show the difference. Are death row inmates kept under a higher skilled/more secure lock and key then lifers making their time in prison more expensive then regular imates or something? I do imagine that alone setting up and maintaining a procedure and equipment to properly kill someone would be expensive in itself and require specialists on staff that wouldn't constantly need to be utilized.

    Pretty sure it mostly comes down to higher security plus a more exhaustive appeals process (court time ain't cheap). Then when you figure you're paying for ten years (or more) of higher-security incarceration...yeah, I can see how it would cost more.

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Wouldn't court costs of death penalty be relatively the same as life in prison? I understand the death penalty would put a bit of a rush on things so they would be closer to each other. Or is it also the length of the process different because of the different stakes? I guess I can see that.

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Actually, for a great example of presumption of innocence not existing in the real world (and an example of otherwise reasonable people suggesting it should be set aside in a courtroom as well), go check out the thread on shooting of Oscar Grant (on the BART). Or any police shooting, really...but that one was particularly special.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2010
    This being the 21st century, even in Utah, the prison authorities made the grim announcement via Twitter.

    This offends me much more than the fact that they put an unrepentant murderer to death.

  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Damn you, eidetic memory! Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Wasn't that the one with the bystander video showing him indisputably shooting the guy in the back? The evidence means the issue there becomes what level of murder he's guilty of.

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
    Thomas-Vail.png
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Are you speaking about that someone who was arrested was immediately shot and killed, or the officer shooting him?

    In the first case, it wasn't intended execution. In the second, well theres a presumption of innocence even with a video of the act.

    Noone denies the officer shot him, the defense were trying to prove he was not at fault for shooting him(and badly at that). This happens in alot of cases for defense. Noone denies the act happened, just the circumstances and fault.

    steam_sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.