Options

Capital Punishment thread

11214161718

Posts

  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    You lose all sorts of constitutional rights when you're incarcerated, regardless of your crime. What's your point?

    my point is that the supreme court decided that prisoners have a constitutional right to receive and right letters and to appeal their cases.

    if you're comfortable with taking away their rights to communicate and appeal, then why even keep them alive? why not just save money on food and space and kill them?

    if we take away their appeals rights, then the cost of the dp goes way, way, way, way down.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Communism tangent:
    The goal of the state being the provider and to always give everyone what they "deserve" is unfeasible. It's not even a goal that we should seek, as that's essentially what went wrong with almost every socialist state that was ruled by a communist party during the 20th century.

    So, you're basing your ideal government on a horribly flawed system, and you're basing your notion of "justice" on some five-year-old's fantasy of everyone getting what they deserve.

    if you think communism has ever been practiced in the political history of mankind, you need to do some more critical thinking.

    I'm not sure how you got that impression. I was pretty explicit with the bolded bit above.

    RE: Grow the fuck up:

    Your ideal justice system assumes that the state is an institution to be used for doling out joy to good people and suffering to bad people. It's not, and societies that have tried that kind of state generally ended up with a surplus of suffering and a general lessening of quality of life.

    "Good people" and "bad people" are subjective judgments of character. It also seems to assume that we are ultimately responsible for our actions, and that genetics and shitty social situations don't really factor in. Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I understand the calculus of negligence just fine, but it isn't relevant here. Hand's equation has nothing to say about the goals of society; all it says is that there must be certain restrictions on liability to allow a market society to function. And, as someone else is concurrently attempting to explain to you, the "loss" variable in the equation can't be quantified when we're talking about human lives.

    even if hand's formula doesnt provide a goal, society's overwhelming acceptance of the formula is indicative of how we consider the value of life.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    if we take away their appeals rights, then the cost of the dp goes way, way, way, way down.

    The way I'm reading this statement is, you just want people to die. You're all for eradicating whatever chances an innocent person might have to make a case for their lack of guilt if it means we can kill a few more people.

    Am I reading that incorrectly?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    As I said, I'm a consequentialist. In this context, for all intents and purposes, capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder.

    This is not to say that I'm against state-sanctioned murder, or state-sanctioned kidnapping, or state-sanctioned assault and battery. Given good enough reasons, reasons which -- by my moral code -- involve superior consequences, I may be convinced that they are in fact acceptable routes to take. For instance, arresting a criminal is a necessary process of temporarily removing him from society while his actions are evaluated by authorities. However, same could not be said of capital punishment; it is not necessary. There are many alternatives that serve the same purpose, if we are concerned with public safety.

    The only reason for which you seem to be supporting CP is that, in your opinion, the person deserves to die. It is a very poor argument that doesn't have much substance to it.

    it's not the only reason. i accept that killing those aryan brotherhood gang leaders would do a lot for deterrence as well. but it is the main reason.

    perhaps, the difference lies in our outlooks on life. i am a principle-list (whatever that is) as opposed to a consequentialist. trying to hurt someone, but failing, is still bad.

    i guess you think failed assault and battery is no different from eating a chocolate cake.

    Every moral outlook on life has its weaknesses and failings. Same holds true for consequentialism, and as well principal-ism.

    But it doesn't mean these weaknesses and failings cannot be remedied by simple "fixes". Failed assault and battery may not have any negative consequences, but I could argue that it would have had some, if it had succeeded. Therefore I can still make it fit in the framework of consequentialism, with relatively little trouble.
    cp is done as humanely as possible

    Right, but isn't locking them away infinitely more humane than killing them? It seems very hypocritical to be concerned with humaneness when the action itself is inherently barbaric and inhumane.

    the point was, it's not like murder. i was exposing your comparison to be stupid, not proposing my own stance.

    The end result is the same. Whether you stab someone to death, or kill them by lethal injection, they still die, and in both cases your intent (which admittedly is not covered in consequentialism, but is still an important consideration) is to kill them.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Your ideal justice system assumes that the state is an institution to be used for doling out joy to good people and suffering to bad people. It's not, and societies that have tried that kind of state generally ended up with a surplus of suffering and a general lessening of quality of life.

    no, you are factually incorrect.

    most of the states that i like and support are more socialist than capitalist, including many in the eu. universal healthcare, pension, welfare, universal education, all of these are state "intrusions" into the private sector to attempt to make people, first and foremost, happy. the state has never been only about just maintain security and peace. it also takes a very direct hand in the welfare and happiness of people.

    security and peace are of course important secondary concerns, but if you ask why we should have the state provide universal healthcare, education, welfare, etc., the answer is not: "because we fear the proletariat revolution".

    the answer is: because "we dont want people to be sick," "we don't want people to be hungry," "we dont want people to be uneducated".

    some of the best things that have ever come out of government are the things that have been done to bring joy to people.
    "Good people" and "bad people" are subjective judgments of character. It also seems to assume that we are ultimately responsible for our actions, and that genetics and shitty social situations don't really factor in. Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement.

    and that's why i keep quoting "good" and "bad". typing out "convicted serial murderer" every time is a pain in the ass. that's why i just use bad instead.

    convicted serial murderer is not a subjective term.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I've already said that I think the death penalty is probably justified in some extreme cases, and without having done any more than a layman's reading on the subject, it sounds like the Aryan Brotherhood bit might meet that criteria. So I'm just going to leave it at that on that particular issue.

    On the subject of vengeance by the rape victim: punishing her is a good idea for rehabilitative, punishment and deterrent purposes. You can't just dismiss deterrent by saying "it's complicated" and then saying that deterrence doesn't work in the same breath. Punishing her means the state is taking a potentially dangerous person (still a murderer) and incarcerating them while rehabilitation can take place, as well as a deterrent to her and society at large. Punishing her is perfectly justified.

    Loren said pretty much what I would've said in terms of your general philosophy, but I'm interested in redirecting the conversation toward our earlier discussion of the justification of taking innocent life, because I want know your thinking. To wit:
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i've also addressed this already. people who didnt deserve to die (being innocent of the accused crime, although not necessarily perfectly innocent) are sacrifices. they are like the innocent civilians that die from car accidents. we dont want them to die, but we accept that there are losses that are taken when pursuing certain goals.

    No. Wrong. Society hasn't made some decision that a certain number of car related fatalities per year are okay, and if we could just get down to that number we could stop worrying about the ones that do happen. Car safety standards are updated all the time, with the ultimate goal of no automobile related fatalities.

    Society has not, that I am ever aware of, collectively expressed the idea that some innocent deaths are justified if necessary to maintain the death penalty. In fact, most officials, when directly confronted with innocents who've been executed, have suspended the death penalty or commuted death sentences in their jurisdiction completely (see various U.S. governors in the last five years or so.)

    im guessing youve never studied product liability. please feel free to look up justice hand's (one of the most well respect judges in u.s. history) famous equation regarding torts. society has certainly made a decision regarding car and other accident fatalities. it has also done the same for the death penalty or the death penalty would simply be outlawed.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I understand the calculus of negligence just fine, but it isn't relevant here. Hand's equation has nothing to say about the goals of society; all it says is that there must be certain restrictions on liability to allow a market society to function. And, as someone else is concurrently attempting to explain to you, the "loss" variable in the equation can't be quantified when we're talking about human lives.

    even if hand's formula doesnt provide a goal, society's overwhelming acceptance of the formula is indicative of how we consider the value of life.

    See, this is where I disagree. Hand's formula isn't some ideal statement for society to be guided by, it's a limit on the idealism of society. Without having some sort of limit on tort liability, the market wouldn't function, since B would approach infinity. The fact that Hand's equation even needs to exist is a testament to the fact that we'd like to have a stronger response to negligence; we wouldn't need to limit the burden for it otherwise.

    If you can find even one reasonable politician in American (or other, if you're from somewhere else with the death penalty) history making the argument that some innocent sacrifice is necessary to maintain the death penalty, I'll accept that it's an idea that society has, if not accepted, then at least debated. Otherwise, you're wrong, and citing Hand doesn't make you right.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    if we take away their appeals rights, then the cost of the dp goes way, way, way, way down.

    The way I'm reading this statement is, you just want people to die. You're all for eradicating whatever chances an innocent person might have to make a case for their lack of guilt if it means we can kill a few more people.

    Am I reading that incorrectly?

    yes.

    this is the last time i summarize the thread (or any argument) for anyone:

    aryan brotherhood gang leaders, in supermax prisons, 23 hours of isolation, but have constitutional rights of appeals and letters. they keep committing or organizing murders.

    i say kill them because there is nothing else we can do.

    dyscord says, no we can isolate them forever and take away their rights.

    i ask rhetorically, "including the right to appeal?" why not just kill them then?

    that's it. last fucking time.

    read the fucking thread.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    perhaps, the difference lies in our outlooks on life. i am a principle-list (whatever that is) as opposed to a consequentialist. trying to hurt someone, but failing, is still bad.

    i guess you think failed assault and battery is no different from eating a chocolate cake.

    Every moral outlook on life has its weaknesses and failings. Same holds true for consequentialism, and as well principal-ism.

    But it doesn't mean these weaknesses and failings cannot be remedied by simple "fixes". Failed assault and battery may not have any negative consequences, but I could argue that it would have had some, if it had succeeded. Therefore I can still make it fit in the framework of consequentialism, with relatively little trouble.

    so in other words, like every other human being on the planet, you consider consequences and intentions.
    The end result is the same. Whether you stab someone to death, or kill them by lethal injection, they still die, and in both cases your intent (which admittedly is not covered in consequentialism, but is still an important consideration) is to kill them.

    the intent was to punish a murderer for his heinous crimes, not to stab someone and strangle them for fun and profit. totally different.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Why not simply take away their letter rights so they can't organize murders anymore?

    They can still appeal if they want to, through special channels. Just don't let them contact the outside world otherwise.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    and that's why i keep quoting "good" and "bad". typing out "convicted serial murderer" every time is a pain in the ass. that's why i just use bad instead.

    convicted serial murderer is not a subjective term.

    You said this earlier (my extra formatting):
    a serial murderer rapist should die because he is a horrible fucking person.

    I assume the underlined bit can be truncated to "bad". So, serial murderer rapists should die... because they are bad. Still not understanding how you get to your conclusion, and I'm still seeing "bad" as a subjective judgment on your part.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    LindenLinden Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement.

    Thank you. This, Ketherial. This is why I seem to be asking "why" all the time. Because you've never answered.

    Linden on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    perhaps, the difference lies in our outlooks on life. i am a principle-list (whatever that is) as opposed to a consequentialist. trying to hurt someone, but failing, is still bad.

    i guess you think failed assault and battery is no different from eating a chocolate cake.

    Every moral outlook on life has its weaknesses and failings. Same holds true for consequentialism, and as well principal-ism.

    But it doesn't mean these weaknesses and failings cannot be remedied by simple "fixes". Failed assault and battery may not have any negative consequences, but I could argue that it would have had some, if it had succeeded. Therefore I can still make it fit in the framework of consequentialism, with relatively little trouble.

    so in other words, like every other human being on the planet, you consider consequences and intentions.

    You got a point to make here?
    The end result is the same. Whether you stab someone to death, or kill them by lethal injection, they still die, and in both cases your intent (which admittedly is not covered in consequentialism, but is still an important consideration) is to kill them.

    the intent was to punish a murderer for his heinous crimes, not to stab someone and strangle them for fun and profit. totally different.

    No, you're talking about reasons behind the intent, not the intent itself.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Linden wrote: »
    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement.

    Thank you. This, Ketherial. This is why I seem to be asking "why" all the time. Because you've never answered.

    Exactly. That's why I say his stance doesn't have much of a substance behind it: it simply is based on the opinion that bad people "deserve to die".

    ege02 on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I've already said that I think the death penalty is probably justified in some extreme cases, and without having done any more than a layman's reading on the subject, it sounds like the Aryan Brotherhood bit might meet that criteria. So I'm just going to leave it at that on that particular issue.

    On the subject of vengeance by the rape victim: punishing her is a good idea for rehabilitative, punishment and deterrent purposes. You can't just dismiss deterrent by saying "it's complicated" and then saying that deterrence doesn't work in the same breath. Punishing her means the state is taking a potentially dangerous person (still a murderer) and incarcerating them while rehabilitation can take place, as well as a deterrent to her and society at large. Punishing her is perfectly justified.

    why does she need to be deterred? unless you think she is going to be raped again? it's the same with crimes of passion. punishing these people serves no deterrent function at all. and punishing her doesnt serve as a deterrent on other would be rapist killers either. even if it did, the effect would be so miniscule as to be unmeasurable.

    if rehab is your goal, then incarcerating her will bring about the exact opposite effect. unless you think prison is a good place to get rehab, then i think we can agree that incarcerating her does nothing for anyone.

    also, she doesnt need to be detained because she's not a threat (unless you rape her).

    trying to argue that this girl should go to prison for reasons of deterrence, detention or rehab is ridiculous and wrong. the reason she should go to prison is because she fucking killed three people.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Yes, I think we are going to send her to prison because she killed three people, and the appropriate response is to detain her and attempt to rehabilitate her so that it won't happen again. There is also a punitive element, not only to stop her from killing someone again while being rehab-ed, but to act as a cautionary tale for others who might think that society will tolerate those who kill for revenge.

    She's not necessarily going to be detained in a maximum security prison; it could just as easily be a minimum security facility, a mental hospital, or hell, even house arrest.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    even if hand's formula doesnt provide a goal, society's overwhelming acceptance of the formula is indicative of how we consider the value of life.

    See, this is where I disagree. Hand's formula isn't some ideal statement for society to be guided by, it's a limit on the idealism of society. Without having some sort of limit on tort liability, the market wouldn't function, since B would approach infinity. The fact that Hand's equation even needs to exist is a testament to the fact that we'd like to have a stronger response to negligence; we wouldn't need to limit the burden for it otherwise.[/quote]

    but i still dont see why you dont think the fact that we only limit manufacturer's liabilities to hand's formula a clear acceptance that life has a value and it is definitely not infinite or invaluable. society believes that even if some will be sacrificed, the auto manufacturing industry must progress.

    it's really no different with death penalty. society considers the loss of "innocent" life a sacrifice that it is willing to make for the ideal of justice to be satisfied. i happen to agree with them.
    If you can find even one reasonable politician in American (or other, if you're from somewhere else with the death penalty) history making the argument that some innocent sacrifice is necessary to maintain the death penalty, I'll accept that it's an idea that society has, if not accepted, then at least debated. Otherwise, you're wrong, and citing Hand doesn't make you right.

    but dont actions speak louder than words? doesnt ratification of the death penalty, knowing that innocents might die, mean that they accept the sacrifice? i dont see how you can see it any other way.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Why not simply take away their letter rights so they can't organize murders anymore?

    They can still appeal if they want to, through special channels. Just don't let them contact the outside world otherwise.

    they need to call witnesses, who are often other gang members.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Why not simply take away their letter rights so they can't organize murders anymore?

    They can still appeal if they want to, through special channels. Just don't let them contact the outside world otherwise.

    they need to call witnesses, who are often other gang members.

    So what? Monitor and record their conversations.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    aryan brotherhood gang leaders, in supermax prisons, 23 hours of isolation, but have constitutional rights of appeals and letters. they keep committing or organizing murders.

    i say kill them because there is nothing else we can do.

    dyscord says, no we can isolate them forever and take away their rights.

    i ask rhetorically, "including the right to appeal?" why not just kill them then?

    It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that there are other options than "leave things as they are", "remove their constitutional rights", and "kill them". Like, for example, placing them under improved supervision by guards who aren't in a position that they can get away with taking bribes. You've completely ignored this suggestion, because you don't really have a rebuttal, because it doesn't fit into your twisted conflation of "justice" and "revenge".
    Ketherial wrote: »
    read the fucking thread.

    Pots and kettles.

    gtrmp on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    why does she need to be deterred? unless you think she is going to be raped again? it's the same with crimes of passion. punishing these people serves no deterrent function at all. and punishing her doesnt serve as a deterrent on other would be rapist killers either. even if it did, the effect would be so miniscule as to be unmeasurable.

    I don't know that it would be unmeasurable. Now, the difference in deterrent between a short sentence and a horribly long sentence probably wouldn't make much difference...somebody bent on revenge to the point that they're willing to deal with prosecution won't be deterred. But the difference between light punishment and no punishment? I'd say it's significant. If there were literally no consequences, I think you'd see many more people take revenge into their own hands.

    The threat of even light punishment is is enough to deter the vast majority of people, provided we're not talking about actual crimes of passion...which making the active decision to kill the people who raped you (well after the fact) is not.

    And yes, this is behavior we definitely want to deter if at all possible. Because, outside of the idea that extrajudicial executions are a "bad thing," it also puts others (for instance, bystanders) at risk.
    trying to argue that this girl should go to prison for reasons of deterrence, detention or rehab is ridiculous and wrong. the reason she should go to prison is because she fucking killed three people.

    True, except that I do suspect (again) that having light punishment compared to no punishment would provide some deterrent effect.

    I mean seriously, if I knew I'd actually get in no trouble I'd have zero problem hunting down and killing down the man who raped my wife. None. I'd just take him down from a distance like a deer. But as it is the threat of even a short prison sentence is enough to deter me. Of course, I also wasn't the one who was raped so this isn't entirely applicable...but still.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    a serial murderer rapist should die because he is a horrible fucking person.

    I assume the underlined bit can be truncated to "bad". So, serial murderer rapists should die... because they are bad. Still not understanding how you get to your conclusion, and I'm still seeing "bad" as a subjective judgment on your part.

    still not fully sure what you are looking for here. i dont have a bright line for you to cross if that's what you are looking for. if a person tortures and kills 30 people that's probably enough for me to consider them worthy of the death penalty. just one, maybe, maybe not.

    my personal preferences are of course subjective. and that's why i bow down to the laws and the decision of a judge and jury, which ive repeated again and again.

    honestly, i dont even know why you care about how "subjective" my answer is. only a fool requests objective answers to subjective questions.

    for example, "how much punishment should a man get for raping a 12 year old girl? why? answer that objectively please." what does that even mean?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I don't think that most people do accept the idea that some innocents will die, that's my point. I think that people believe that the system works and that most don't particularly care about the people who fall through the cracks because they don't know them or their circumstances, and never will, and hell, they were already found guilty, right?

    The fact that I've never heard anyone in the public sphere make the argument you're making only reinforces my belief that people don't agree with it.

    I'm not an expert on tort law, so I can't tell you how and if Hand's reasoning applies to wrongful death cases. But I suspect that it isn't cleanly applied in the manner you seem to think it is, 1) because Hand wasn't considering fatalities when he came up with it, 2) he wasn't even talking about state action, and 3) as I said before, you can't neatly quantify loss of human life into a little three variable formula.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    so in other words, like every other human being on the planet, you consider consequences and intentions.

    You got a point to make here?

    my point is you cant weasel out of a discussion by saying you only care about consequences and then go back and start caring about intent later.
    the intent was to punish a murderer for his heinous crimes, not to stab someone and strangle them for fun and profit. totally different.

    No, you're talking about reasons behind the intent, not the intent itself.

    explain the difference.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Why not simply take away their letter rights so they can't organize murders anymore?

    They can still appeal if they want to, through special channels. Just don't let them contact the outside world otherwise.

    they need to call witnesses, who are often other gang members.

    So what? Monitor and record their conversations.

    they are monitored and recorded. they pass coded hand signs to each other or use codes through their lawyers questioning, etc.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    gtrmp wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    aryan brotherhood gang leaders, in supermax prisons, 23 hours of isolation, but have constitutional rights of appeals and letters. they keep committing or organizing murders.

    i say kill them because there is nothing else we can do.

    dyscord says, no we can isolate them forever and take away their rights.

    i ask rhetorically, "including the right to appeal?" why not just kill them then?

    It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that there are other options than "leave things as they are", "remove their constitutional rights", and "kill them". Like, for example, placing them under improved supervision by guards who aren't in a position that they can get away with taking bribes. You've completely ignored this suggestion, because you don't really have a rebuttal, because it doesn't fit into your twisted conflation of "justice" and "revenge".

    i havent ignored it at all. i already stated that that's not the only way they pass messages to each other. seriously read the thread. no seriously.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    so in other words, like every other human being on the planet, you consider consequences and intentions.

    You got a point to make here?

    my point is you cant weasel out of a discussion by saying you only care about consequences and then go back and start caring about intent later.

    I never said I only care about consequences.
    the intent was to punish a murderer for his heinous crimes, not to stab someone and strangle them for fun and profit. totally different.

    No, you're talking about reasons behind the intent, not the intent itself.

    explain the difference.

    Your intent, i.e. your goal, your aim, the result you want to get, is their death.

    When someone asks, why did you intend their death, you can give your reasons. You can say, "I wanted to kill him because he killed my father," or "he stabbed me in the back in a business deal".

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Why not simply take away their letter rights so they can't organize murders anymore?

    They can still appeal if they want to, through special channels. Just don't let them contact the outside world otherwise.

    they need to call witnesses, who are often other gang members.

    So what? Monitor and record their conversations.

    they are monitored and recorded. they pass coded hand signs to each other or use codes through their lawyers questioning, etc.

    Tie their hands behind their backs when they are in the presence of a witness.

    Have their communications relayed through third parties so the "code" doesn't go through.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    why does she need to be deterred? unless you think she is going to be raped again? it's the same with crimes of passion. punishing these people serves no deterrent function at all. and punishing her doesnt serve as a deterrent on other would be rapist killers either. even if it did, the effect would be so miniscule as to be unmeasurable.

    I don't know that it would be unmeasurable. Now, the difference in deterrent between a short sentence and a horribly long sentence probably wouldn't make much difference...somebody bent on revenge to the point that they're willing to deal with prosecution won't be deterred. But the difference between light punishment and no punishment? I'd say it's significant. If there were literally no consequences, I think you'd see many more people take revenge into their own hands.

    The threat of even light punishment is is enough to deter the vast majority of people, provided we're not talking about actual crimes of passion...which making the active decision to kill the people who raped you (well after the fact) is not.

    And yes, this is behavior we definitely want to deter if at all possible. Because, outside of the idea that extrajudicial executions are a "bad thing," it also puts others (for instance, bystanders) at risk.

    at this point, the last thing i can say is: the side that is affirming that there would be a deterrence effect has to provide some empirical evidence. because all you and everyone else has done is say that it would and i simply don't believe it.

    apologies if i believe my criminal law class professor more than you.
    trying to argue that this girl should go to prison for reasons of deterrence, detention or rehab is ridiculous and wrong. the reason she should go to prison is because she fucking killed three people.

    True, except that I do suspect (again) that having light punishment compared to no punishment would provide some deterrent effect.

    I mean seriously, if I knew I'd actually get in no trouble I'd have zero problem hunting down and killing down the man who raped my wife. None. I'd just take him down from a distance like a deer. But as it is the threat of even a short prison sentence is enough to deter me. Of course, I also wasn't the one who was raped so this isn't entirely applicable...but still.

    although i see what you are saying, i still disagree.

    i think most people have an aversion to killing. i think most people would go to the police. i think the left overs would not take justice into their own hands because it's a pain in the ass. there are enough natural deterrents. to pretend like your less deterred just because one criminal got away with it (which you heard of) is kind of silly and far fetched.

    like i said earlier, even high profile cases like oj and michael did not significantly affect the crime rate. if some random girl gets away with murdering her rapists (assuming you even heard of her), i would argue that it would have zero effect on your later actions.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I don't think that most people do accept the idea that some innocents will die, that's my point. I think that people believe that the system works and that most don't particularly care about the people who fall through the cracks because they don't know them or their circumstances, and never will, and hell, they were already found guilty, right?

    The fact that I've never heard anyone in the public sphere make the argument you're making only reinforces my belief that people don't agree with it.

    really? do you know of any other people who support capital punishment? ask them if they are comfortable with sacrificing a few innocents? if they didnt know that some people who did not deserve to die will be (and have been) executed, then they are fucking morons.

    also ask them if knowing that some innocents will die changes their minds about the issue. i would bet it doesnt.
    I'm not an expert on tort law, so I can't tell you how and if Hand's reasoning applies to wrongful death cases. But I suspect that it isn't cleanly applied in the manner you seem to think it is, 1) because Hand wasn't considering fatalities when he came up with it, 2) he wasn't even talking about state action, and 3) as I said before, you can't neatly quantify loss of human life into a little three variable formula.

    as far as i know, he was very much calculating fatalities. the case i remember is the mining case where the miners were using dynamite and many of them were getting killed. if i remember correctly, they ultimately concluded that hand's formula was not applicable to especially dangerous working conditions and that strict liability would apply instead. still, they did consider hand's formula.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    the intent was to punish a murderer for his heinous crimes, not to stab someone and strangle them for fun and profit. totally different.

    No, you're talking about reasons behind the intent, not the intent itself.

    explain the difference.

    Your intent, i.e. your goal, your aim, the result you want to get, is their death.

    When someone asks, why did you intend their death, you can give your reasons. You can say, "I wanted to kill him because he killed my father," or "he stabbed me in the back in a business deal".

    so are you saying that intent is a more important consideration than reasoning? if i intend for someone to die, regardless of reasoning, then im no different from a serial murderer?

    bombing factories in a war? self defense? these make me equivalent to a serial murderer?

    is that what you are actually saying?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    they are monitored and recorded. they pass coded hand signs to each other or use codes through their lawyers questioning, etc.

    Tie their hands behind their backs when they are in the presence of a witness.

    Have their communications relayed through third parties so the "code" doesn't go through.

    why would that work?

    the code might be a single word or any series of words. no third party would know which words not to say. you have to remember, these people have thousands and thousands of hours to plan.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Linden wrote: »
    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement.

    Thank you. This, Ketherial. This is why I seem to be asking "why" all the time. Because you've never answered.

    Exactly. That's why I say his stance doesn't have much of a substance behind it: it simply is based on the opinion that bad people "deserve to die".

    how much punishment should a rapist receive? why?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    the intent was to punish a murderer for his heinous crimes, not to stab someone and strangle them for fun and profit. totally different.

    No, you're talking about reasons behind the intent, not the intent itself.

    explain the difference.

    Your intent, i.e. your goal, your aim, the result you want to get, is their death.

    When someone asks, why did you intend their death, you can give your reasons. You can say, "I wanted to kill him because he killed my father," or "he stabbed me in the back in a business deal".

    so are you saying that intent is a more important consideration than reasoning? if i intend for someone to die, regardless of reasoning, then im no different from a serial murderer?

    bombing factories in a war? self defense? these make me equivalent to a serial murderer?

    is that what you are actually saying?

    For me, it goes consequence > intent > reasoning.

    I consider each one, but consequence is by far the most important factor.

    Killing someone without intending to do so is worse than intending to kill them but failing to do so.

    But killing someone with the intention of killing them is very nearly the same regardless of reason, with specific exceptions such as self-defense (because in self-defense you don't get a choice).

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Linden wrote: »
    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement.

    Thank you. This, Ketherial. This is why I seem to be asking "why" all the time. Because you've never answered.

    Exactly. That's why I say his stance doesn't have much of a substance behind it: it simply is based on the opinion that bad people "deserve to die".

    how much punishment should a rapist receive? why?

    By your logic, he deserves to be raped.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    they are monitored and recorded. they pass coded hand signs to each other or use codes through their lawyers questioning, etc.

    Tie their hands behind their backs when they are in the presence of a witness.

    Have their communications relayed through third parties so the "code" doesn't go through.

    why would that work?

    the code might be a single word or any series of words. no third party would know which words not to say. you have to remember, these people have thousands and thousands of hours to plan.

    Like I said.

    Have their communication go through a third person, whose job is to listen to person A, rephrase it, and relate it to person B. Their code goes down the drain.

    ege02 on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    "Good people" and "bad people" are subjective judgments of character. It also seems to assume that we are ultimately responsible for our actions, and that genetics and shitty social situations don't really factor in. Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement.
    and that's why i keep quoting "good" and "bad". typing out "convicted serial murderer" every time is a pain in the ass. that's why i just use bad instead.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    a serial murderer rapist should die because he is a horrible fucking person.
    I assume the underlined bit can be truncated to "bad". So, serial murderer rapists should die... because they are bad. Still not understanding how you get to your conclusion, and I'm still seeing "bad" as a subjective judgment on your part.

    still not fully sure what you are looking for here.

    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement. When you say you're using "bad" as a shorthand for "convicted serial murderer", but have already declared your justification for their deaths as "they are bad", you're simply changing the words of your argument, not offering any new information or insight. "Why do bad people deserve to die?" has, as of this posting, still not been answered by you.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Linden wrote: »
    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement.

    Thank you. This, Ketherial. This is why I seem to be asking "why" all the time. Because you've never answered.

    Exactly. That's why I say his stance doesn't have much of a substance behind it: it simply is based on the opinion that bad people "deserve to die".

    how much punishment should a rapist receive? why?

    All things being equal, enough to deter other potential rapists.

    Because we don't want people raping other people.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Your intent, i.e. your goal, your aim, the result you want to get, is their death.

    When someone asks, why did you intend their death, you can give your reasons. You can say, "I wanted to kill him because he killed my father," or "he stabbed me in the back in a business deal".

    so are you saying that intent is a more important consideration than reasoning? if i intend for someone to die, regardless of reasoning, then im no different from a serial murderer?

    bombing factories in a war? self defense? these make me equivalent to a serial murderer?

    is that what you are actually saying?

    For me, it goes consequence > intent > reasoning.

    I consider each one, but consequence is by far the most important factor.

    Killing someone without intending to do so is worse than intending to kill them but failing to do so.

    But killing someone with the intention of killing them is very nearly the same regardless of reason, with specific exceptions such as self-defense (because in self-defense you don't get a choice).

    thank you for the explanation.

    however, i cannot agree with you simply because i do not equate soldiers to mass murderers. reasoning is > than intent for me.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    Linden wrote: »
    Again, I have no idea how you get to the conclusion that bad people "deserve to die". You keep repeating it, as if it's some axiom. That's not an argument, it's just an emphatic, repetitive statement.

    Thank you. This, Ketherial. This is why I seem to be asking "why" all the time. Because you've never answered.

    Exactly. That's why I say his stance doesn't have much of a substance behind it: it simply is based on the opinion that bad people "deserve to die".

    how much punishment should a rapist receive? why?

    By your logic, he deserves to be raped.

    im asking you for your supposedly "objective" answer.

    unless of course you want to just retract the entire quote tree above.

    Ketherial on
Sign In or Register to comment.