Options

Capital Punishment thread

1235718

Posts

  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    A better way of putting it is by releasing an unknown quantity of guilty parties for one innocent person, you're putting a lot more innocent people at risk. The real question is "Is one innocent man worth the potential of more dead?"

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    That's where you differ than some of us, I think. And that's what the "10 guilty men, 1 innocent man" quote is about. It doesn't MATTER how small that number of innocent deaths is, it's still enough to invalidate the entire practice, because of how precious life is and how wrong it is to take it.

    Honestly, I don't find the concept of ten murderers/rapists running free from a flimsy justice system comforting at all. 20+ people died at V Tech. Now, if Cho had been arrested, and been found not guilty and released into the general populace along with 9 others like him and one innocent man, how is that in any way, shape or form a good thing?

    It's not a good thing, but it's a less evil thing, is the point.
    A better way of putting it is by releasing an unknown quantity of guilty parties for one innocent person, you're putting a lot more innocent people at risk. The real question is "Is one innocent man worth the potential of more dead?"

    For me, yes. (Though I would argue "potential for more dead" is kind of inflammatory and not realistic.) It's different for everyone.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    My point isn't 'tough, live with it', it's more along the lines of we're bound to make mistakes, but we can learn from them and fix them.

    If we're bound to make mistakes, then you are admitting that we are bound to execute innocent people. Would you be willing to accept that if it were your child up for execution?

    I can't answer that question, because I don't have children. And so, for right now, with what I've learned in my life up to this point, I can still stand by the death penalty with a clean conscience. It may change later. Besides, the mere presence of motorized tansportation on this planet is a guarantee that innocent people will die.

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    No, if a doctor kills a patient, it's malpractice. The prosecutor and the state and everyone could do their job perfectly well and execute an innocent person.

    I find that statement more disturbing than anything I've read here so far. How is human error malpractice? Malpractice is the intentional mistreatment of or simple disregard for patients. What I'm talking about is an honest to gods mistake, such as putting an innocent person on death row, barring some absurdly intricate and improbable conspiracy.

    Yeah, you're right, that's not what I meant to say of course. I retract that post. All I mean is that indeed mistakes will always be made, and we do what we can to minimise them. We can't remove all chance of doctors causing accidental death, but we can remove all chance of wrongful execution by abolishing the death penalty, so it seems to me you need a stronger reason than some woolly sense of justice to counter that argument.

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    It's not a good thing, but it's a less evil thing, is the point.

    Is it really less evil to put possibly hundreds at risk for one person they don't even know?

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    My reply would be what are the chances, in this time period, that an innocent person will die on death row?

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    That's where you differ than some of us, I think. And that's what the "10 guilty men, 1 innocent man" quote is about. It doesn't MATTER how small that number of innocent deaths is, it's still enough to invalidate the entire practice, because of how precious life is and how wrong it is to take it.

    Honestly, I don't find the concept of ten murderers/rapists running free from a flimsy justice system comforting at all. 20+ people died at V Tech. Now, if Cho had been arrested, and been found not guilty and released into the general populace along with 9 others like him and one innocent man, how is that in any way, shape or form a good thing?

    Bullshit argument. What exactly would you arrest him for?

    The real question to ask is; Would you be willing to lay down your life in order that 9 guilty men could be executed on spurious evidence?

    Gorak on
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    It's not a good thing, but it's a less evil thing, is the point.

    Is it really less evil to put possibly hundreds at risk for one person they don't even know?

    One evil: loosen the standards for convicting criminals so that more people that that are innocent are wrongly killed, but more guilty parites are put to death as well.

    Second evil: tighten the standard for convicting criminals so that less guilty parties are put to death, but fewer innocents are wrongly killed as well.

    I choose the second, which is lesser to me. And yes this results in guilty parties not being killed and taken out of society but that is a risk that I am willing to take in order to keep innocent people from getting convicted and killed.

    Edit: Changed to reflect that we are talking about death sentence here, not just jail time.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    My reply would be what are the chances, in this time period, that an innocent person will die on death row?

    More than zero. Any system that raises the possibility of an innocent person being executed above zero is wrong. What probability of execution would you be willing to accept for your own family?

    Gorak on
  • Options
    CoJoeTheLawyerCoJoeTheLawyer Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    You're telling me a convicted serial murderer like John Wayne Gacy, who really doesn't pay for his own room & board including his own personal cell away from other inmates, food, medical care including psychological counseling, utilities, premium cable television, compuers with internet access AND recieves an expense siphon for his personal hobbies like painting DOESN'T have a better quality of life than the typical homeless guy living on the street, who recieves none of these???
    Also, my god, how dare he given his own cell so he won't be brutally murdered by the other inmates. How dare he get food and medical care so that he doesn't go insane! And really, who needs utilities like water?

    So I guess I'm correct about the cable television, computer w/ internet access and money to practice personal hobbies? I didn't hear any wise ass comment about those particular things. It's morons like you who were convinced that these luxuries are necessities for prison inmates to begin with, which is why they get them today, and expect more. Anything else you think someone who is a serial killer deserves? Maybe a few days at the spa, since he worked so hard doing nothing all day? After all, he can't be expected to participate in prison work programs or otherwise contribute to his own necessities or upkeep, since he might chip a nail.

    As for him getting killed by other inmates, I don't care. If that's your argument then EVERY inmate should get his own personal cell as protection against violence from other inmates. Wow, that's reasonable.

    And yes, I know he's dead jackass. I'm just using an example of someone everyone has heard of. I'm sure if looked hard I could find someone alive who gets the same treatment.

    And we're not talking about the average prisoner: they live basically like shit, with exceptions. We're talking about people imprisoned for life or sitting on death row awaiting final disposition. They get care far beyond what the average inmate receives.

    CoJoeTheLawyer on

    CoJoe.png
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    We're talking about people imprisoned for life or sitting on death row awaiting final disposition. They get care far beyond what the average inmate receives.

    Source?

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Bullshit argument. What exactly would you arrest him for?

    The real question to ask is; Would you be willing to lay down your life in order that 9 guilty men could be executed on spurious evidence?

    Well, given that it would take place in a hypothetical universe with no death penalty and an apparently weak justice system, murder in the Xth degree, I guess. Take your pick. The point of the argument wasn't the person I named, but the fact that people think releasing multiple people onto the streets with a known history of killing innocents for no reason simply so one innocent person can walk free is a very, very bad idea. And as for your question, you've just asked if I'd be willing to die knowing that a lot of people won't be harmed because it's one innocent man with 10 guilty ones all to be executed. I haven't planned on being a martyr, and more importantly, the life I live doesn't lend itself well to me being mistaken for a serial killer. Moot point.

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Bullshit argument. What exactly would you arrest him for?

    The real question to ask is; Would you be willing to lay down your life in order that 9 guilty men could be executed on spurious evidence?

    Well, given that it would take place in a hypothetical universe with no death penalty and an apparently weak justice system, murder in the Xth degree, I guess. Take your pick. The point of the argument wasn't the person I named, but the fact that people think releasing multiple people onto the streets with a known history of killing innocents for no reason simply so one innocent person can walk free is a very, very bad idea.
    Way to twist the argument. The point is, whatever system you put in place, criminals will be let off and innocent people will be convicted. It's better to set the system to minimize the former, rather than to maximize the latter, say by executing everyone arrested without trial.
    And as for your question, you've just asked if I'd be willing to die knowing that a lot of people won't be harmed because it's one innocent man with 10 guilty ones all to be executed. I haven't planned on being a martyr, and more importantly, the life I live doesn't lend itself well to me being mistaken for a serial killer. Moot point.

    Oh, well life's just wonderfully convenient for you isn't it? Since you'll never be wrongfully convicted, who cares what injustices happen to other people?!

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Ok so, let's get one thing straight. The quote/idea isn't LITERAL. It doesn't mean, for every person that is innocent, we have to let 9 convicted criminals out of jail. Wow.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    More than zero. Any system that raises the possibility of an innocent person being executed above zero is wrong. What probability of execution would you be willing to accept for your own family?

    The odds are fractions of a percent and dropping every day. Thanks to modern forensics, innocents are being convicted less and less and innocents already convicted are being released. And, given the probability that anyone I care about in my family being executed is somewhere around 0.0000%, I'm fairly willing to accept it.

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ok so, let's get one thing straight. The quote/idea isn't LITERAL. It doesn't mean, for every person that is innocent, we have to let 9 convicted criminals out of jail. Wow.

    What? It's a figure of speech? Gee-willakers, I'da never thought of that. Of course, what I did think of was continuing the hypothetical just for the sake of argument. If we wanted to use real statistics and loosen the standards for what we have now, then to let one innocent person free, we'd probably have to let several hundred murderers go at a time. Which isn't exactly better.

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    One sec.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    More than zero. Any system that raises the possibility of an innocent person being executed above zero is wrong. What probability of execution would you be willing to accept for your own family?

    The odds are fractions of a percent and dropping every day. Thanks to modern forensics, innocents are being convicted less and less and innocents already convicted are being released. And, given the probability that anyone I care about in my family being executed is somewhere around 0.0000%, I'm fairly willing to accept it.

    Well, you know some of us care about innocent people in general being executed who aren't our immediate family. And with several hundred million people to choose from, even with a low probability, it'll still happen occasionally. And when there's a perfectly feasible alternative in life imprisonment, occasionally is bad enough.

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    More than zero. Any system that raises the possibility of an innocent person being executed above zero is wrong. What probability of execution would you be willing to accept for your own family?

    The odds are fractions of a percent and dropping every day. Thanks to modern forensics, innocents are being convicted less and less and innocents already convicted are being released. And, given the probability that anyone I care about in my family being executed is somewhere around 0.0000%, I'm fairly willing to accept it.

    that's something i'd need to see sourcing on, thanks. 'modern forensics' aren't exactly what csi might lead you to believe. plus, there's literally no way for you to know that 'innocents are being convicted less and less' unless you have the all-seeing eye.

    and if the only reason you can bring yourself to care about another human life is if you know them, well then i guess you've already set yourself pretty firmly on the side of the death penalty, but maybe just maybe you should take a second and think about what you would feel if somehow your 0.0000% odds didn't pay off and your dad ended up being charged with murder and going to long walk.

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    More than zero. Any system that raises the possibility of an innocent person being executed above zero is wrong. What probability of execution would you be willing to accept for your own family?
    The odds are fractions of a percent and dropping every day. Thanks to modern forensics, innocents are being convicted less and less and innocents already convicted are being released. And, given the probability that anyone I care about in my family being executed is somewhere around 0.0000%, I'm fairly willing to accept it.

    200 convictions have been turned over in the US on DNA evidence alone, at least one of them involving a guy who was on death row.

    Over here? One. Not because our justice system is better, but because our rules of evidence combined with shitty police record-keeping make it nearly impossible for convicts to get a hold of old evidence and request that new forensic techniques be applied to them. Justice systems are untrustworthy when it comes to lives.


    You know what else bugs me? I'm reasonably sure that plenty of you pro-death penalty types put much less faith in the justice system when it comes to things like family law, which are far more likely to affect you and your wallet. Hypocrites.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ok so, let's get one thing straight. The quote/idea isn't LITERAL. It doesn't mean, for every person that is innocent, we have to let 9 convicted criminals out of jail. Wow.

    What? It's a figure of speech? Gee-willakers, I'da never thought of that. Of course, what I did think of was continuing the hypothetical just for the sake of argument. If we wanted to use real statistics and loosen the standards for what we have now, then to let one innocent person free, we'd probably have to let several hundred murderers go at a time. Which isn't exactly better.

    You obviously don't understand because you keep talking about "letting people go" when that's not the point at all. The point is to have a high enough standard so that convictions of innocent people is held to a minimum.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Way to twist the argument. The point is, whatever system you put in place, criminals will be let off and innocent people will be convicted. It's better to set the system to minimize the former, rather than to maximize the latter, say by executing everyone arrested without trial.

    Wow. Executing everyone? Methinks you shouldn't be accusing others of twisting arguments. I didn't twist mine, I simply pointed out the point of my statement, which you missed due to my use of a notorious name. What I've stated, at least twice, by now, is that CS units are getting better and better at preventing innocent people from doing any kind of jail time, period, much less sending them to death row. So, basically, our current system is indeed on a path to minimizing innocent convictions and maximizing correct prosecutions, without any help from you or me.
    And as for your question, you've just asked if I'd be willing to die knowing that a lot of people won't be harmed because it's one innocent man with 10 guilty ones all to be executed. I haven't planned on being a martyr, and more importantly, the life I live doesn't lend itself well to me being mistaken for a serial killer. Moot point.

    Oh, well life's just wonderfully convenient for you isn't it? Since you'll never be wrongfully convicted, who cares what injustices happen to other people?![/QUOTE]

    No, since I'll never be wrongfully convicted, asking me what I'd do in a given situation is pointless, since I haven't had to deal with it. My answer would be flawed and not based on real life at all. Besides, it's not 'convenince' since people aren't exaclty being sent to death row right an left. I'm not in a minority here.

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ok so, let's get one thing straight. The quote/idea isn't LITERAL. It doesn't mean, for every person that is innocent, we have to let 9 convicted criminals out of jail. Wow.

    What? It's a figure of speech? Gee-willakers, I'da never thought of that. Of course, what I did think of was continuing the hypothetical just for the sake of argument. If we wanted to use real statistics and loosen the standards for what we have now, then to let one innocent person free, we'd probably have to let several hundred murderers go at a time. Which isn't exactly better.

    You obviously don't understand because you keep talking about "letting people go" when that's not the point at all. The point is to have a high enough standard so that convictions of innocent people is held to a minimum.

    The alternative to the death penalty isn't to let people go. Just to keep them in prison and not kill them.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ok so, let's get one thing straight. The quote/idea isn't LITERAL. It doesn't mean, for every person that is innocent, we have to let 9 convicted criminals out of jail. Wow.

    What? It's a figure of speech? Gee-willakers, I'da never thought of that. Of course, what I did think of was continuing the hypothetical just for the sake of argument. If we wanted to use real statistics and loosen the standards for what we have now, then to let one innocent person free, we'd probably have to let several hundred murderers go at a time. Which isn't exactly better.

    You obviously don't understand because you keep talking about "letting people go" when that's not the point at all. The point is to have a high enough standard so that convictions of innocent people is held to a minimum.

    And you haven't been paying attention when I've stated that the current system's 'minimum' is steadily shrinking. And I do understand what the quote is about, and letting any murderers/rapists/general psychopaths go for the sake of one person, and thereby putting an absurdly large number of MORE innocent people at risk, is definitely the greater of two evils.

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ok so, let's get one thing straight. The quote/idea isn't LITERAL. It doesn't mean, for every person that is innocent, we have to let 9 convicted criminals out of jail. Wow.

    What? It's a figure of speech? Gee-willakers, I'da never thought of that. Of course, what I did think of was continuing the hypothetical just for the sake of argument. If we wanted to use real statistics and loosen the standards for what we have now, then to let one innocent person free, we'd probably have to let several hundred murderers go at a time. Which isn't exactly better.

    You obviously don't understand because you keep talking about "letting people go" when that's not the point at all. The point is to have a high enough standard so that convictions of innocent people is held to a minimum.

    The alternative to the death penalty isn't to let people go. Just to keep them in prison and not kill them.

    Judging by the quote it is, since one would rather have a system in place whereby innocent people can go free easier at the expense of conivicting those that commit a crime. But here's a new question anyway. What makes you think someone with the mentality of a serial killer is actually going to suffer under their own conscience for life?

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ok so, let's get one thing straight. The quote/idea isn't LITERAL. It doesn't mean, for every person that is innocent, we have to let 9 convicted criminals out of jail. Wow.

    What? It's a figure of speech? Gee-willakers, I'da never thought of that. Of course, what I did think of was continuing the hypothetical just for the sake of argument. If we wanted to use real statistics and loosen the standards for what we have now, then to let one innocent person free, we'd probably have to let several hundred murderers go at a time. Which isn't exactly better.

    You obviously don't understand because you keep talking about "letting people go" when that's not the point at all. The point is to have a high enough standard so that convictions of innocent people is held to a minimum.

    And you haven't been paying attention when I've stated that the current system's 'minimum' is steadily shrinking. And I do understand what the quote is about, and letting any murderers/rapists/general psychopaths go for the sake of one person, and thereby putting an absurdly large number of MORE innocent people at risk, is definitely the greater of two evils.

    Until it's zero, I can't support it. And because of human error inherent in our justice system, the number of innocents who are killed by a death sentence will never be zero.

    I think it's pretty obvious you have a differing opinion about the value of life than me, so I guess we can leave it at that.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    And you haven't been paying attention when I've stated that the current system's 'minimum' is steadily shrinking. And I do understand what the quote is about, and letting any murderers/rapists/general psychopaths go for the sake of one person, and thereby putting an absurdly large number of MORE innocent people at risk, is definitely the greater of two evils.

    good thing nobody's saying we should just let all the prisoners out then, huh?

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ok so, let's get one thing straight. The quote/idea isn't LITERAL. It doesn't mean, for every person that is innocent, we have to let 9 convicted criminals out of jail. Wow.

    What? It's a figure of speech? Gee-willakers, I'da never thought of that. Of course, what I did think of was continuing the hypothetical just for the sake of argument. If we wanted to use real statistics and loosen the standards for what we have now, then to let one innocent person free, we'd probably have to let several hundred murderers go at a time. Which isn't exactly better.

    You obviously don't understand because you keep talking about "letting people go" when that's not the point at all. The point is to have a high enough standard so that convictions of innocent people is held to a minimum.

    The alternative to the death penalty isn't to let people go. Just to keep them in prison and not kill them.

    Judging by the quote it is, since one would rather have a system in place whereby innocent people can go free easier at the expense of conivicting those that commit a crime. But here's a new question anyway. What makes you think someone with the mentality of a serial killer is actually going to suffer under their own conscience for life?

    Why is it necessary that they suffer, instead of just be punished by the fact that their freedom is taken away and they will be living in one cell the rest of their lives?


    P.S> You post too goddamn fast.

    Medopine on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007

    Judging by the quote it is, since one would rather have a system in place whereby innocent people can go free easier at the expense of conivicting those that commit a crime. But here's a new question anyway. What makes you think someone with the mentality of a serial killer is actually going to suffer under their own conscience for life?

    ostensibly the prison system is meant to rehabilitate, not (always, at least) punish the wicked.


    and besides, i bet being locked up forever with a bunch of angry dudes who hate you isn't exactly relaxing

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Meh. Fair enough.

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Medopine wrote: »
    Medopine wrote: »
    Ok so, let's get one thing straight. The quote/idea isn't LITERAL. It doesn't mean, for every person that is innocent, we have to let 9 convicted criminals out of jail. Wow.

    What? It's a figure of speech? Gee-willakers, I'da never thought of that. Of course, what I did think of was continuing the hypothetical just for the sake of argument. If we wanted to use real statistics and loosen the standards for what we have now, then to let one innocent person free, we'd probably have to let several hundred murderers go at a time. Which isn't exactly better.

    You obviously don't understand because you keep talking about "letting people go" when that's not the point at all. The point is to have a high enough standard so that convictions of innocent people is held to a minimum.

    The alternative to the death penalty isn't to let people go. Just to keep them in prison and not kill them.

    Judging by the quote it is, since one would rather have a system in place whereby innocent people can go free easier at the expense of conivicting those that commit a crime. But here's a new question anyway. What makes you think someone with the mentality of a serial killer is actually going to suffer under their own conscience for life?

    I'm not really interested in their suffering, to be honest.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    yes! winning at last!

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    P.S> You post too goddamn fast.

    Hahaha! I know I'm new to this board and the rules suggest lurking, but I'm no stranger to message boards in general, friend. Behold, He Who Has No Life, but is getting increasingly hungry.

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Servo wrote: »
    yes! winning at last!

    'Ey, just because I enter into a debate doesn't mean I'm closed off to the point of views of others. No one will ever accuse me of at least not hearing what the opposing side has to say, boyo.

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    ScaldSeraphimScaldSeraphim Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    200 convictions have been turned over in the US on DNA evidence alone, at least one of them involving a guy who was on death row.

    Over here? One. Not because our justice system is better, but because our rules of evidence combined with shitty police record-keeping make it nearly impossible for convicts to get a hold of old evidence and request that new forensic techniques be applied to them. Justice systems are untrustworthy when it comes to lives.


    You know what else bugs me? I'm reasonably sure that plenty of you pro-death penalty types put much less faith in the justice system when it comes to things like family law, which are far more likely to affect you and your wallet. Hypocrites.

    I've been talking about the US system exclusively, so I don't know how things are handled in other countries. And when it comes to any laws, be they family, criminal, tax, whatnot, I don't see what it has to do with my wallet. Besides, I think most things like family law and divorce court and such are where we need the biggest reforms. Man, you wanna talk about innocent people being bent over a chair...

    ScaldSeraphim on
    "I know, I know. 'You were a child once.' I was a sperm once, but you don't see me wantin' to cuddle up to a fuckin' wankstain, do you?" -John Constantine

    "As I always say...Gandhi is dandy, but liquor is quicker! Ha ha...quicker." -Phil Ken Sebben
  • Options
    MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    200 convictions have been turned over in the US on DNA evidence alone, at least one of them involving a guy who was on death row.

    Over here? One. Not because our justice system is better, but because our rules of evidence combined with shitty police record-keeping make it nearly impossible for convicts to get a hold of old evidence and request that new forensic techniques be applied to them. Justice systems are untrustworthy when it comes to lives.


    You know what else bugs me? I'm reasonably sure that plenty of you pro-death penalty types put much less faith in the justice system when it comes to things like family law, which are far more likely to affect you and your wallet. Hypocrites.

    I've been talking about the US system exclusively, so I don't know how things are handled in other countries. And when it comes to any laws, be they family, criminal, tax, whatnot, I don't see what it has to do with my wallet. Besides, I think most things like family law and divorce court and such are where we need the biggest reforms. Man, you wanna talk about innocent people being bent over a chair...

    Haha oh my god.

    Ok going home from work now, will check in later...

    Medopine on
  • Options
    CoJoeTheLawyerCoJoeTheLawyer Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    We're talking about people imprisoned for life or sitting on death row awaiting final disposition. They get care far beyond what the average inmate receives.

    Source?

    HERE is a good place to start, but you can also find information by just using Google.

    Sorry if you were expecting a thesis on the subject.

    CoJoeTheLawyer on

    CoJoe.png
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    I don't support killing when it isn't necessary.

    I've heard the argument made that it is only an eye for an eye - the government treating a criminal as the criminal treated his/her victim.

    But at what point did we decide that the moral level the actions our government takes were going to be determined by loathesome criminals? I prefer the government's policy to reflect my values in the way it treats people, not the values of some depraved individual.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    Descendant XDescendant X Skyrim is my god now. Outpost 31Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I think that some of you guys need to set foot into a jail before you begin to make any arguments about the apparent joyful environment within. I work in a Canadian prison, which are by and large far less oppressive than their American counterparts, and I can assure you that it is a cold and miserable place. Everywhere you look there is chainlink and razorwire. You have no privacy due to the cameras mounted everywhere. The inmates are, for the most part, morose and ill-tempered, and they are able to leave their cells and move about a great deal. It's difficult to feel secure when you are surrounded by thieves, drug users, robbers, and murderers.

    A prison is one of the most depressing places on earth, and I get to leave everyday.

    Now think about the prisoner. He lives with those morose and ill-tempered guys, some of whom hate him and would like nothing more than ventilate him with a sharpened piece of plastic. The correctional officers can be even more ill-tempered than the inmates are, especially if they feel like taking out their bad mood on him. He has even less privacy than the staff, and his belongings are searched on a regular basis. He is regarded with suspicion and disdain by those who are supposed to be helping you move on with his life.

    Even the nicest medium-security prisons are unpleasant and oppressive. Now you change that into a Maximum-security institution in the States where they house those on Death Row, and you get even more unpleasant correctional officers and inmates, 23-hour lockup, and bad food. Then you add a near-complete lack of contact with the outside world and even less privacy than the general population.

    Yeah, free cable and hobby supplies really make up for that. Somehow I think life imprisonment in a Max institution is probably worse than death. At least with the Death Penalty you can see some sort of end to your sentence.

    Let me point out here than I am in no way sympathizing with inmates, who for the most part deserve to be where they are. But an argument stating that ANY prisoner lives better than even someone in low-income housing is ridiculous. At least the person in the projects can have realistic dreams of moving on. Many prisoners are allowed no such dreams by the reality that they face every day.

    EDIT: I write a friggin' novel and Shinto shows me up with four sentences. Bloody typical.

    Descendant X on
    Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
  • Options
    CoJoeTheLawyerCoJoeTheLawyer Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I think that some of you guys need to set foot into a jail before you begin to make any arguments about the apparent joyful environment within. I work in a Canadian prison, which are by and large far less oppressive than their American counterparts, and I can assure you that it is a cold and miserable place. Everywhere you look there is chainlink and razorwire. You have no privacy due to the cameras mounted everywhere. The inmates are, for the most part, morose and ill-tempered, and they are able to leave their cells and move about a great deal. It's difficult to feel secure when you are surrounded by thieves, drug users, robbers, and murderers.

    A prison is one of the most depressing places on earth, and I get to leave everyday.

    Now think about the prisoner. He lives with those morose and ill-tempered guys, some of whom hate him and would like nothing more than ventilate him with a sharpened piece of plastic. The correctional officers can be even more ill-tempered than the inmates are, especially if they feel like taking out their bad mood on him. He has even less privacy than the staff, and his belongings are searched on a regular basis. He is regarded with suspicion and disdain by those who are supposed to be helping you move on with his life.

    Even the nicest medium-security prisons are unpleasant and oppressive. Now you change that into a Maximum-security institution in the States where they house those on Death Row, and you get even more unpleasant correctional officers and inmates, 23-hour lockup, and bad food. Then you add a near-complete lack of contact with the outside world and even less privacy than the general population.

    Yeah, free cable and hobby supplies really make up for that. Somehow I think life imprisonment in a Max institution is probably worse than death. At least with the Death Penalty you can see some sort of end to your sentence.

    Let me point out here than I am in no way sympathizing with inmates, who for the most part deserve to be where they are. But an argument stating that ANY prisoner lives better than even someone in low-income housing is ridiculous. At least the person in the projects can have realistic dreams of moving on. Many prisoners are allowed no such dreams by the reality that they face every day.

    EDIT: I write a friggin' novel and Shinto shows me up with four sentences. Bloody typical.

    Gosh, that's so horrible...you would think those poor inmates were criminals or something.

    To be fair, you're describing what the average prisoner lives though, and you're right, it's not a happy existence. However, we're talking about convicted murderers sentenced to death or life imprisonment without parole (and getting off track, this thread is suppose to be about capital punishment, not prison quality of life). They get more of everything than the average prisoner. I don't think they deserve squat, and they certainly don't deserve things most of us would consider luxuries. I could honestly care less that they live sad, sad lives in prison. My argument is when you look at measurable quality of life (things like food, medical care, living arrangements) a prisoner gets just as much, if not more than someone from the lower class AND they get luxuries on top of that. While we may have to give prisoners necessities, the luxuries could be drastically cut, and I bet a majority of people would agree with me.

    And while you might be right that you should see the inside of a prison firsthand before you judge (and I have my friend...your description is fairly accurate), I think you should visit a low income housing project here in the U.S. of A and tell me that those poor souls have realistic dreams of moving on. Maybe we should take the free cable and art supplies from the prisons and give it to the low - income housing projects.

    CoJoeTheLawyer on

    CoJoe.png
Sign In or Register to comment.