Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are.
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 241 of 302 (198229)
04-11-2005 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Phat
04-11-2005 4:49 AM


Re: (*Blink*) Save Money?
No, I don't have any references to back this up, but my understanding is that the legal costs of everthing leading up to an execution can well be greater than the imprisonment cost. Maybe this has been covered somewhere upthread.
I, however, wonder if Texas has streamlined those costs?
I don't doubt the high per prisoner cost, by your figures $36,500 (not $3,650) per year. That would be $2,555,000 for 70 years. I wish I had that kind of money to live on.
Moose
ps: Shouldn't this discussion be happening somewhere else? Maybe someone would like to start a new topic. If so, please link back to this topic. BTW, I do think there is an old topic lurking somewhere - I recall long ago posting to it.
Added by edit: The topic might be Theocracy alive and well in Utah (and considerations of the death penalty)
Adminnemooseus note: I have paid very little attention to this topic. I consider it a "junk" topic (to use a kinder phrase), so don't be looking for any moderation efforts from me.
This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-11-2005 04:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Phat, posted 04-11-2005 4:49 AM Phat has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 242 of 302 (198243)
04-11-2005 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rrhain
04-11-2005 4:40 AM


Rrhain,
I agree with your point that we cannot guarantee death of only guilty people when imposing the death penalty. With that said, I have a question and a comment. Comment first.
In post 239, Phatboy writes:
Rrhain writes:
It isn't as if we are forced to administer the death penalty. There is imprisonment. What, therefore, is the possible justification for execution when we know that there will always be the chance that there is somebody who has been convicted but is actually innocent? Why skip to the end?
it costs too darn much to keep these people in prison for 70+ years ... Just zap em!
If we had unlimited funds, I would agree that there may be useful alternatives to the death penalty. But as Phatboy "eloquently" hints at, we have limited funds. If you use the money to imprison people for life, you simply pull those funds away from somewhere else.
Of course, there's no guarantee what programs those funds come from, so it's hard to judge the situation. But I don't think it's right to judge the practical matters of the death penalty vs. life imprisonment without addressing exactly these funding issues. If the redirected funds cause the death of more people than the number of innocent people who die on death row, then the alternative solution would be a failure.
In post 240, contracycle writes:
Are we not the richest society that ever lived? Do we not produce more food every year than our species can consume? Do we not waste vast quantitites of wealth and productive power on mere entertinament, mere travel, mere toys? What price human life for the richest human beings who have ever walked the earth? You need to get your moral priorities right.
I agree 100% with contra's statement, but not with his/her implied conclusion (that we should keep people imprisoned for life). We should be doing what we can to support those with basic needs (food, shelter, basic education). To spend so much money to save the life of a single person being killed for a crime he/she did not commit is absurd when so many people die "innocently" from disease, malnutrition, etc. (or even from "innocently" contracting diseases; use the money for education and research).
I don't know enough about the current leadership of our government to know what programs are most likely to be cut, but my gut tells me that military operations are deemed "necessary," while education, research, foreign aid are still treated more "optionally" and thus more likely to get budget cuts.
...
Next, here's a question about your logical argument. I don't understand how you can go from one premise to the next here, so I'd appreciate if you could explicate your thinking process on why this is OK.
In post 213, Rrhain writes:
Of 24 people on death row in Illinois, 13 were INNOCENT.
How do we know they were innocent in the end? They were released from jail.
and then follows up in
Since release from jail doesn't just happen but only comes after an investigation that indicates the person should not be in jail (...), I had assumed that it was obvious that their release from jail was indicative of just such an investigation which showed them to be innocent.
(bold mine)
Now, as far as I can understand, the same problem holds here--you cannot actually know that somebody is innocent with 100% accuracy. It's possible that some of these people were released yet guilty. There's no "perfect" system here either.
I guess your argument would be that the situation is correctable, because those people are still available to be punished (locked up for life); so it's not comparable to the death penalty (where you 'jump to the end').
But I'm not so sure. If you release somebody who is actually guilty, it's possible that they may kill. If that happens, then by releasing somebody, you've essentially executed an innocent person. If your logic is that we cannot spare even one innocent life, then, since the system for release is not 100% and it may result in the loss of innocent lives, that we should not do it.
My conclusion would be that a criminal justice system is flawed, whether it comes to conviction or failure to do so. There is no system where every innocent person is protected 100%; convicting and killing innocent people, as well as letting the guilty go free, and subsequently kill, are both real issues. Thus, demanding a system to avoid the death of innocent people is simply one that cannot be met.
I'd appreciate your comments.
Thanks!
Ben

http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/reports/pr101001_e.htm
Top 9 Pro Death Penalty Arguments

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2005 4:40 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by contracycle, posted 04-11-2005 8:45 AM Ben! has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 302 (198245)
04-11-2005 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Ben!
04-11-2005 8:00 AM


quote:
If we had unlimited funds, I would agree that there may be useful alternatives to the death penalty. But as Phatboy "eloquently" hints at, we have limited funds. If you use the money to imprison people for life, you simply pull those funds away from somewhere else.
Sorry, its still nonsense. With huge billion-upon-billion turnover in advertising alone, it is absurd to say "we cannot afford it". Of course you could afford it, if you wanted to. You have to decide whether you value human life or not.
quote:
To spend so much money to save the life of a single person being killed for a crime he/she did not commit is absurd when so many people die "innocently" from disease, malnutrition, etc. (or even from "innocently" contracting diseases; use the money for education and research).
Except, that this is the state acting on our behalf, and therefore we have a much greater duty of care to those against whom we pass judgement. Better that 10 innocent men go free than 1 innocent man be imprisoned, they used to say. Also, most of these are straw men: the state is unlikely to spend on malnutrition of it is worried about the "moral hazard" of capitalist charity. Similarly, health-care reserach: if that is to be driven by private investment, then that is also not an appropriate spending option for the governmental costs incurred by inarceration.
quote:
My conclusion would be that a criminal justice system is flawed, whether it comes to conviction or failure to do so. There is no system where every innocent person is protected 100%; convicting and killing innocent people, as well as letting the guilty go free, and subsequently kill, are both real issues. Thus, demanding a system to avoid the death of innocent people is simply one that cannot be met.
Fine, but when using a rock as heavy and dangerous as the state, more than due, but perhaps zealous, oversight should be warranted. Just because it is not 100% does not mean we must abandon our efforts.
Furthermore, appealing to the prospect that we might release someone who is guilty who "goes on to kill again" is blackmail. That too is governed by due process - if for example they were released on a technicality, then thats too bad. To incarcerate, or worse, kill, a person without a technically delimited and strictly administered process is to essentially punish on the basis of hearsay.
And incidentally, this relates directly to those held without evidence, trial or charge in US and UK detention centres. In Belmarsh, there are prisoners that cannot be tried based on the formal burden of proof. Then, I say, they should not be held, should they? The state is admitting that it has NOT got proof that these people are as dangerous as they claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Ben!, posted 04-11-2005 8:00 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Ben!, posted 04-12-2005 1:04 AM contracycle has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 244 of 302 (198247)
04-11-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by contracycle
04-11-2005 5:19 AM


Re: (*Blink*) Save Money?
contracycle writes:
Are we not the richest society that ever lived? Do we not produce more food every year than our species can consume? Do we not waste vast quantitites of wealth and productive power on mere entertinament, mere travel, mere toys? What price human life for the richest human beings who have ever walked the earth? You need to get your moral priorities right.
My response was tongue in cheek. Sort of "a modest proposal." This society spends too much on a lot more things than prisoners. War, for one. I DO protest when my education costs continue to go higher and when my insurance goes higher as well. In order to spend money more wisely, we need to find better ways to rehab young offenders besides jail so that they won't reoffend. We need to take care of our older population before we take care of prisoners. Of course, all of this could be done if we stopped spending 100 billion dollars a year trying to straighten up another country after thoroughly blowing them up!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by contracycle, posted 04-11-2005 5:19 AM contracycle has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 245 of 302 (198257)
04-11-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Silent H
04-09-2005 5:38 PM


Re: Entering the Arena... Re: reasons for/against capital punishment
quote:
Yes, I could see stopping executions to review cases and revamp the system in general, so executing innocent people can't happen. But that does not mean that after a good system is in place executions should never reappear.
Are you proposing that it is possible to have a 100% foolproof, airtight, perfect, error-free system in which it is 100% guaranteed to never, ever, for eternity and beyond convict and execute an innocent person?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Silent H, posted 04-09-2005 5:38 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Silent H, posted 04-11-2005 1:35 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 246 of 302 (198260)
04-11-2005 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Silent H
04-10-2005 6:04 AM


Re: uh-oh
quote:
If a rabid dog, or let's say a feral and quite hostile animal of some kind, was caught and caged, would you feel it is still correct to kill the animal rather than trying to stay safe while continuing to feed it until it dies of natural causes?
Personally I think it is time to put it down.
That is a mercy killing, not a punishment killing.
The dog with rabies has a fatal brain disease, and will suffer and die anyway, so we end it's life out of kindness. We do not think that the dog is "evil" if it has bitten someone. Indeed, we put down animals with rabies even if they have not hurt anyone because dying of rabies is very painful.
quote:
If you agree, then why does this also not apply to humans who have gone "feral and quite hostile" and are likely to try and kill again, and society is reduced to having to try and stay safe while feeding that person until they die of natural causes.
The humans are not sick with rabies. This would be a punishment or revenge killing, not a mercy killing, so I don't think it is a valid comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Silent H, posted 04-10-2005 6:04 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Silent H, posted 04-11-2005 1:42 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 247 of 302 (198261)
04-11-2005 10:38 AM


I cannot believe that people, especially you Phatboy, are putting your concern about pinching pennies as some kind of valid argument against saving innocent lives.
"Just zap em"?
I'm disgusted at your lack of morality.

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 248 of 302 (198262)
04-11-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Phat
04-11-2005 4:49 AM


Re: (*Blink*) Save Money?
Phatboy writes:
Because it costs too darn much to keep these people in prison for 70+ years!
Actually, it cost about 10 times as much to execute them. Like I said, I did a lot of research into this when I was in the ethics class.
Here is why it cost so damn much to zap them.
Our legal system was set up to try to prevent an innocent person from being executed as much as possible. When a person is condemned to death in court, the law says that the the sentence has to go through automatic appeal process. I forget how many appeals a condemned person goes through, but I know that he goes through enough of them that the expenses for the legal process is a lot more than life imprison.
I don't have the figures with me right now, although once upon a time I had a nice chart for them.
ABE
I was digging through some old files. Found some interesting facts.
You are more likely to be executed if you are a white person. However, half the people that are executed are black. Currently, there are 35 states with CP.
This message has been edited by Troy, 04-11-2005 09:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Phat, posted 04-11-2005 4:49 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by kjsimons, posted 04-11-2005 12:05 PM coffee_addict has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 249 of 302 (198274)
04-11-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by contracycle
04-11-2005 4:32 AM


Re: uh-oh
This position merely validates the witch-hunt, dumping evidence and due process in favour of instant reaction and thus probably prejudice.
No it does not. I am not talking about mere suspicion that a person might kill. It is that the person has killed, without reason, and is prone to kill again given their psych makeup.
This remains anticipatory punishment prior to the commission of an offence, and I am perfectly entitled to reject it.
It is anticipatory of another offence, but the gears do not go into motion until an act has been commited.
Let me break this down.
A person is caught in the process of murdering, or just having murdered, someone and is acting violent... is it okay to kill this person at this time?
If no, then we are talking about a different initial moral view point, and what else I have to say will not carry weight. If so, then continue...
Instead of catching the person in the act, we catch them after the fact and we manage to subdue them without killing them. If they continue to act violently (and are seen to have a history of violence) and we already know they have killed, why is it not justified to kill them outside the time when they are actively violent and killing?
I share your interest in not having anticipatory sentencing for any crimes, I just do not see this as anticipatory (depending on the rules set).

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by contracycle, posted 04-11-2005 4:32 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 4:59 AM Silent H has replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 250 of 302 (198291)
04-11-2005 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by coffee_addict
04-11-2005 10:45 AM


Re: (*Blink*) Save Money?
Actually, it cost about 10 times as much to execute them.
Amensty International seems to think it's a bit cheaper than that. In NY they estimate it as only 3 times as expensive.
Page not found – Amnesty International USA

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by coffee_addict, posted 04-11-2005 10:45 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by coffee_addict, posted 04-11-2005 12:08 PM kjsimons has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 478 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 251 of 302 (198292)
04-11-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by kjsimons
04-11-2005 12:05 PM


Re: (*Blink*) Save Money?
Well, it's been while since I took the class. Memory ain't what it used to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by kjsimons, posted 04-11-2005 12:05 PM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by kjsimons, posted 04-11-2005 12:26 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 257 by Silent H, posted 04-11-2005 1:47 PM coffee_addict has replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 252 of 302 (198299)
04-11-2005 12:19 PM


What about Jessica Lunsford?
I live in Orlando, Florida and we've had a couple of recent cases where I think the death penalty is appropriate.
In one case Jessica Lunsford was raped and killed by a convicted sex offender. Her body was found when the killer told the police where he had buried it. Does anyone here have a problem with a death sentence for this individual.
In another case, a group of people had been squatting in a house that was empty during the summer (common down here in FL with all the snowbirds). The owner's grand-daughter came down to live in the house, found the squatters, and had the police evict them. One of the squatters had left an x-box behind and he was so mad about it that he recruited a group of friends, some through threats of violence, to attack the people in the house. All six people and a dog that was in the house were beaten to death with baseball bats. Do these people deserve to live or should they die?
I personally don't see anything wrong with the state executing these individuals. I can understand in cases where the evidence is not very clear cut, that one might not want to enact the death penalty, but in some cases there is no doubt about who did it.
This message has been edited by kjsimons, 04-11-2005 11:21 AM
This message has been edited by kjsimons, 04-11-2005 11:23 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by contracycle, posted 04-12-2005 5:03 AM kjsimons has replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 253 of 302 (198300)
04-11-2005 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by coffee_addict
04-11-2005 12:08 PM


Re: (*Blink*) Save Money?
Well you weren't too far off, after all you were within an order of magnitude!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by coffee_addict, posted 04-11-2005 12:08 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 254 of 302 (198317)
04-11-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rrhain
04-11-2005 4:40 AM


Non sequitur. With a "u."
Thanks, though that is immaterial to the argument. You will find I misspell many things, especially when I type fast or it is late at night (and some even if I type early and slowly). Some of my most common are using mys instead of mis, and prosyletize instead of proselytize. Spelling was not necessarily my strongest point.
Only if one is being disingenuous and abadoning
Abandoning is with an "n". The entirety of the sentence is mere ad hominem.
Given that it is impossible to know for certain if all people condemned to death actually did the crime for which they were convicted, how is that not arguing for the execution of innocent people?
Just because it is not possible to know if all people scheduled for execution are actually innocent, does not in any way shape or form lead to the conclusion we cannot know that some of them are 100% guilty. You are making a logical error.
I am for reforming laws pertaining to execution such that they cannot be applied in situations of less than 100% certainty. I am not supportive of most systems currently in existence.
But you are advocating for the death penalty. This will necessarily result in the execution of innocent people. Therefore, you are advocating a process that kills innocent people.
You need to build an argument for this. Currently this is mere assertion.
How does the existence of a death penalty necessitate that it will be applied in situations of less than certainty?
Indeed. The fact that you ignore even your own arguments makes it very difficult to have any sort of rational discussion with you. It is, however, something within your control. Pay attention to what you are saying. Actually read what the other person has said. Stop trying to stroke your ego.
I think I have done an accurate job of reading what you have said, as well as what I have argued. Other than this statement to the contrary, you have provided no evidence for me to believe I have not understood you or me.
It is neither ad hominem nor non sequitur (with a "u"). You have ignored your own statement. That is not an argument against you. It is an argument against your claim. Consider:
You should note that what I was responding to was your statement...
Bingo. And notice how you seem to ignore this.
Your comment was in reference to my statement regarding innocents killed in executions. How can I be ignoring it when I am addressing it? You are attacking me by suggesting that I am ignoring it, when clearly I am not... you simply had just reached the point of where I began to discuss it.
Please don't do this anymore.
Um, didn't you just say that 2 + 2 = 4? And doesn't 1 + 1 = 2? Therefore, isn't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 equivalent to 2 + 2? And therefore, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4. To insist that it is something other than 4 is to ignore your own argument. It has nothing to do with you. Stop trying to stroke your ego.
This has to be the worst strawman fallacy I have ever seen commited. And what does any of this have to do with stroking my ego?
You established something as true and then immediately behaved as if it were false. That is illogical.
Please explain what I said was true and then behaved as if false.
There is no way to guarantee that everybody who is convicted is actually guilty. There is always the possibility that a mistake has been made.
I await your evidence for this. Your assertions are tantalizing.
All other sentences have some sort of means of restitution should it be found that there was a mistake.
This does not address my statement:
This still does not make the errors of the system reflect on any particular sentence.
You need to make a logical argument of why a particular system's failings reflect on the use of a sentence in general.
Why are you skipping to the end? Why are you jumping to the point of death?
Your statements are provocative and suggest moving to a judgement, rather than proceeding with a sentence after careful and necessary time spent in judgement.
If your question is why should we kill someone that we have captured, rather than containing them until they die of natural causes, I think I have already explained my position.
Your system needs to be 100% perfect without ever having any chance for error. Such a system cannot exist.
It is possible to create a system whereby executions are only applied to people that 100% did commit murder. Your repeated insinuations that it is impossible have my curiosity... what is your evidence for this fact.
In any case I will withdraw my use of the word "generally" as it appears to have caused confusion over what I was advocating.
Since there is no way to apply the death penalty only to those who are truly guilty, since it will always be applied at least once to an innocent person, there is no way to apply the death penalty that results in no innocent person ever getting killed.
AD NAUSEUM. Your repetition of a claim, especially a mere assertion, does not make it more acceptable, much less more correct. Please detail your argument of why the above statement is true.
And by detail your argument I mean something better than this...
There will always be somebody who looks guilty but is actually innocent. This is because a trial is an investigation based upon observation and as we have learned from science, it is impossible to observe everything. The only way to have perfect knowledge is to observe everything and since we cannot observe everything, we cannot have perfect knowledge. And that is completely ignoring the fact that justice is carried out by humans who have agendas and biases. Ergo, mistakes will always be made.
This is a pretty bad argument. Let me try an clean it up a bit:
A trial is an investigation based on observation, science says it is impossible to observe everything. Perfect knowledge requires observing everything, and so a trial cannot be said to have perfect knowledge
T requires O
S says that OE is impossible
PK requires OE
Thus, while T can have O, it cannot have OE and thus PK.
I have this down right? I'll assume I do, and you can tell me if I missed something later.
You are using a form of equivocation on perfect knowledge and observing everything. Its not exactly that, but a form of it.
In reality courts do not need to observe everything, nor have perfect knowledge in the sense that science rebuts. All a court needs to have is "perfect knowledge" regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused murderer, and that only requires the specific observations necessary to join the murderer to the specific act of murder.
This is not an impossibility, especially from a scientific standpoint. It is only from a sophist-semantic standpoint, or perhaps a metaphysical-religious standpoint, that it is an absolut impossibility.
Your points about agendas is something which is interesting, but ultimately not germaine to the argument. It does not show that the death penalty is inherently going to kill innocents. What this does show is criteria needs to be set to avoid possible frame-ups from landing a person on death row. That is something I already agree with.
And it's non sequitur with a "u." And you meant "strawman," at any rate.
Thanks again. Not sure why you would have to tell me twice in the same reply since its not like you reminded me once and then I repeated it. Of course I am likely to repeat the misspelling anyway. I am not so careful with that.
What I am usually pretty good with is logic. I did not mean strawman as it wasn't a strawman. Whether you believe it is impossible for guilt to be determined 100% is not a misrepresentation of my position. My criticism was that as your argument was constructed pretty much as a non sequitur (heheheh, I almost misspelled it again).
Here it is again...
If we're going to execute people, we need to make certain that it never kills an innocent person ever. And since that is impossible, we can never institute a death penalty
As I said this is constructed as a sort of non sequitur. You have some general principle that it simply "is impossible", which does not come logically from anything else you have presented. It isn't clean cut, but its pretty much that kind of thing.
I guess it may more accurately be called a blank assertion.
Non sequitur.
No, mine was not a non sequitor. I was asking you a question. The argument which many antiDP advocates use is that life in prison is worse for the prisoner than an execution. You were saying that it is better. Why is not important. If a murderer can view his nonDP sentence as less bad than an execution because he has a chance to keep appealing on technicalities, then the argument made by antiDP elements is challenged.
Right...because four people out in the middle of nowhere is such a wonderful model of a multi-million person city. And we have never, ever had a case of four friends going out into the woods and having fewer than four coming back because they got into a fight and one of them got himself killed.
Yawn... Did you bother reading my whole statement? No, you pulled it apart into specific sentences you could attack and mean nothing to the whole.
By the way, with laws in place people get into fights and kill each other, whoops I guess that shows laws don't work. Golly logic sure is fun for sophists.
Insult?
You said and I quote:
Tell that to the 13 people in Illinois who are alive because they didn't get killed.
Yes, that insults me as it suggests that what I was saying would:
1) mean that people are not better off not getting killed
2) not include a recognition that the Illinois justice system (among others) was not adequate for use of the death penalty and that I was indifferent to their plight.
In fact, my support for the death penalty meant I did not take it lighly and agreed with the suspension of executions until cases were reviewed and the system revamped.
Your comment came off as nothing but an insult.
Why is it that nobody has ever found a perfect system before? Have you considered publishing? You could probably get a Nobel Prize out of it.
Nobody has thought of them, or no state has instituted them? I say them because you can have many different systems with equal level of protections. If you honestly think I'd get a Nobel Prize, maybe I will try and publish.
I didn't think it was so hard to find cases of absolute certainty and then figure out what is the difference between them and cases without absolute certainty.
Yes, it does. And those are your words, not mine lest you try to be foolish and claim it is an ad hominem comment. It means you are willing to kill people who are innocent at the earliest opportunity rather than the last. It means you think you can be perfect. Nobody else has ever managed this feat so it would be interesting to see what it looked like.
You really need to check yourself.
Because it is never possible to prove guilt 100% every single time.
Right. In the cases you cannot prove guilt 100% then no death penalty. In the cases you can, then there's a death penalty. Just because you can't do something every single time, does not mean you can't do something at all.
(*blink!*) You did not say that, did you? You think you're perfect?
I'll let you figure out what kind of fallacy that is. On top of being a fallacy it is annoying. Please do not do that.
Then why did you bring it up?
That is also fallacious and annoying.
Please bring a better game to this debate.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2005 4:40 AM Rrhain has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 255 of 302 (198318)
04-11-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by nator
04-11-2005 10:07 AM


Re: Entering the Arena... Re: reasons for/against capital punishment
Are you proposing that it is possible to have a 100% foolproof, airtight, perfect, error-free system in which it is 100% guaranteed to never, ever, for eternity and beyond convict and execute an innocent person?
Yes. Why can't it?
Here's something for you to think about. Jeffrey Dahmer. Is there any question that he was 100% guilty? If you do not think so, I'd love to hear why that is. If so, you cannot think of how to create rules such that only cases as clear cut as these are open for a death sentence?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by nator, posted 04-11-2005 10:07 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by nator, posted 04-11-2005 1:59 PM Silent H has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024