RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime

RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 6:25:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The point I am trying to make is that any possibility higher than 0 invalidates a system set up to promote fairness and justice, etc. I dont really have any emotional investment in whether you agree with me or not. Feel free to continue dodging the question or attacking me, but I want to point out that I am a polite, nice, non-violent pacifist who teaches full-contact self defense. From a psychological or emotional standpoint about me, as Zaphod Beeblebrox pointed out, "I have weirder things in my breakfast cereal than the rest of you are." Then there is no justification for doing anything, because the possibility of a negative outcome is > 0% for anything humans do. Putting an innocent person in prison is a travesty, whether it be for a day, a decade, or a century. They can never have that time back, and they can never be cleansed of the psychological scarring of being wrongfully prosecuted. We know that innocent people go to prison all the time. If error invalidates the system, and humans are incapable of perfection, then convicting anyone of anything is logically invalid. The probability of error is what matters, not the possibility. Everything is possible. Not everything is probable. I would not argue with a person's religious or moral objections to the death penalty. Doing so is unwise and unproductive. If a person says their beliefs indicate that executions are never acceptable, then it doesn't matter whether the error rate is 0% or 100%. They object and that is it. It doesn't make for good discussion material, though! And nobody's attacking you. I have no problem with questions, but the problem with incessant questions is that the questioner is never forced to advocate a position himself. It's also unfair to the questioner, because he/she misses the opportunity to present his/her case and receive feedback.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 6:27:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy It seems to me your argument is based on a simple logical proposition. It is better for a few to suffer for the sake of the majority.......where does that thin end of the wedge lead to, i wonder? Thank you for the compliment, but you're misunderstanding me. It's not that it's better for a few to suffer for the majority. It's that imperfection is human and it is invalid to reject a system because of the possiblity of error. The probabilty of error is vastly more important than what I regard as the inevitability of error.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 6:31:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol PS: Oh! And how I love how you use the expression 'the body politic'! I seldom encounter it. Thank you for having a large language register :-) Shoot, I used "state of nature" in my discussion of Lockean political philosophy. Don't I get a cookie for that? [:D]

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 6:33:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro In my view Sinergy was making arguments appealing to Logos and ethos, not pathos. Synergy doesn't make arguments. He merely reacts and asks questions. I really wish he would make an original argument sometime, backed up with facts and data, so that we can have something to chew on. It's too easy to cast stones at those who originate, imo. This is an attack. Please dont try to pretend it is not, I would assume you are more reasoned and intelligent and cognizant of what you are posting than that. I simply was not interested in bringing it up until you stated later in the thread that you are not attacking me. Sinergy p.s. The name is Sinergy, not Synergy.

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 6:34:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 And nobody's attacking you. I have no problem with questions, but the problem with incessant questions is that the questioner is never forced to advocate a position himself. It's also unfair to the questioner, because he/she misses the opportunity to present his/her case and receive feedback. Yes. I ask questions. You dont answer them. Then you post that I dont respond to what you post. Hrm. Ok. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 6:36:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy It seems to me your argument is based on a simple logical proposition. It is better for a few to suffer for the sake of the majority.......where does that thin end of the wedge lead to, i wonder? Thank you for the compliment, but you're misunderstanding me. It's not that it's better for a few to suffer for the majority. It's that imperfection is human and it is invalid to reject a system because of the possiblity of error. The probabilty of error is vastly more important than what I regard as the inevitability of error. So answer the question of whether your Lockean logic will suffice to keep you from arguing when you are convicted of a crime you did not commit and sentenced to death? Your intellectualizing other people's lives gets a bit tiresome to read. Apply your own standards to your own experience for a change. Sinergy

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 6:39:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy This is an attack. Please dont try to pretend it is not, I would assume you are more reasoned and intelligent and cognizant of what you are posting than that. Well, that was not the intent and I apologize if you took it as such. Also for your name; I came home for lunch and sent that just as I was leaving for work. The intent was to get you to post your own thoughts in an expository manner, rather than the jib-jab that much of this thread has become.

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 6:51:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy This is an attack. Please dont try to pretend it is not, I would assume you are more reasoned and intelligent and cognizant of what you are posting than that. Well, that was not the intent and I apologize if you took it as such. Also for your name; I came home for lunch and sent that just as I was leaving for work. The intent was to get you to post your own thoughts in an expository manner, rather than the jib-jab that much of this thread has become. I have been posting my thoughts in an expository manner. Please feel free to review them. You cite sources which dont disprove what those who disagree with you post, and then refuse to respond intelligently to the questions they ask you about the ethical or moral questions the topic brings up. I personally am not arguing with you that the probability of mistake is low. The point I am making is that the probability of mistake is not 0, and our entire justice system in the United States is built around the standpoint that the innocent are not deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since we make mistakes, we can let people out of jail. It will not give them their life back that was taken in error, but they still have life. If we kill them, they have nothing, and in my mind it makes us no better than the murderers that many keep ranting we should run out and kill. I simply cannot get my head around the idea that we should kill people to teach people that killing people is bad. Sinergy

kittinSol -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 7:03:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 I would not argue with a person's religious or moral objections to the death penalty. Doing so is unwise and unproductive. If a person says their beliefs indicate that executions are never acceptable, then it doesn't matter whether the error rate is 0% or 100%. They object and that is it. It doesn't make for good discussion material, though! And nobody's attacking you. I have no problem with questions, but the problem with incessant questions is that the questioner is never forced to advocate a position himself. It's also unfair to the questioner, because he/she misses the opportunity to present his/her case and receive feedback. Fine then. My belief, independently from facts, statistics and other boring things, is that the death penalty is plain wrong. I find it totally unacceptable. I believe there is cause for unrest as a result of the death penalty being applied. I don't see why doing something is morally more acceptable than not doing it (ie., I don't see why killing somebody is better than not killing somebody). Now, why should YOUR opinion prevail over mine? Please, prove it, and don't forget that this whole argument involves the habeas corpus.

kittinSol -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 7:06:21 PM)
Nope, because "state of nature" is an obsolete expression that belongs to the XVIIIth Century. It's a falacy that Rousseau invented so that he could go and fuck around and lay sprogs all over the place (mostly, near the Swiss Alps).

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 7:08:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy So answer the question of whether your Lockean logic will suffice to keep you from arguing when you are convicted of a crime you did not commit and sentenced to death? Your intellectualizing other people's lives gets a bit tiresome to read. Apply your own standards to your own experience for a change. Just one more, then I gotta play some Counterstrike! I don't think anyone read that piece on Locke, or perhaps I wrote it poorly. It's a reaction to Vendeval's suggestion that I think that laws should be based on math rather than ethics. I stated that the ethics of individuals are not the ethics of governments. There are things that a government may do that an individual may not do--administer justice, facilitate commerce, ensure the general welfare of the people. The death penalty is legitimate so long as the people support it. I support it for economic reasons. Others support it for other reasons, and still others oppose it for various reasons. When more citizens oppose it than support it, it will cease to be. Ethics has nothing to do with its legitimacy as a government policy. So long as the compact is kept (you behave, and you will have X, Y, and Z rights), the policy is legitimate. It was also a reaction to Kittensol's statement that executions are state sponsored murder. People have every right in a state of nature--they may kill each other if they wish. When they go from a state of nature to a state of civilization, they transfer certain rights to the government to be held for the common good. One of these is the right to kill. A state is not capable of murder for this reason, and if it resorts to tyranny then it breaks the compact made with the people. Locke recognizes the right of revolution in that event. In answer to your question: Of course I would argue my own innocence. The question strikes me as nonsensical. I never argued that Lockean philosophy would justify the killing of an innocent. I argued that the state cannot "murder" anyone so long as it abides by the compact. If I was wrongfully executed, it would be a travesty and I would be dead. But I would not have been murdered. There's a difference between killing and murder. Ask any soldier, police officer, or doctor.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 7:12:40 PM)
quote: Fine then. My belief, independently from facts, statistics and other boring things, is that the death penalty is plain wrong. I find it totally unacceptable. I believe there is cause for unrest as a result of the death penalty being applied. I don't see why doing something is morally more acceptable than not doing it (ie., I don't see why killing somebody is better than not killing somebody). Now, why should YOUR opinion prevail over mine? Please, prove it, and don't forget that this whole argument involves the habeas corpus. See, I was even nice enough to delay my CSS game 2 mins to respond here. Congratulations to you and Sinergy for having arrived at all the justification you needed to legitimately oppose the death penalty! It boggles my mind that folks have spent days dancing around when all they needed to say was "I oppose it because I find it immoral." My opinion prevails over yours so long as the number of votes on my side is greater than those on your side. Democracy in action and all that.

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 7:12:50 PM)
[/quote] Fine then. My belief, independently from facts, statistics and other boring things, is that the death penalty is plain wrong. I find it totally unacceptable. I believe there is cause for unrest as a result of the death penalty being applied. I don't see why doing something is morally more acceptable than not doing it (ie., I don't see why killing somebody is better than not killing somebody). Now, why should YOUR opinion prevail over mine? Please, prove it, and don't forget that this whole argument involves the habeas corpus. [/quote] that so sums it up-no opinion prevails over another-we believe what we believe because of deep convictions. you can vote to elect lawmakers that echo your beliefs, you can carry signs proclaiming your opinion, but i do not know of one instance where someone changed their mind on this subject.........again i say [sm=banghead.gif]. i have my opinion and i would fight to defend your right to disagree with me....no amount of statistics is going to change my mind on the death penalty and i am sure you can probably say the same.... the end

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 7:13:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 There's a difference between killing and murder. Ask any soldier, police officer, or doctor. Tell that to Lt. Calley, the US military in Iraq, etc. We as a society give police and military and doctors to do things to protect the public weal. There is no difference between killing and murder. The question becomes relative because one has to make the decision whether the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. But... Killing an innocent person takes this country (the US) to a place the people who founded it never envisioned it going. Sinergy

kittinSol -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 8:02:46 PM)
I can help you with using the quote function successfuly, if you like [:)]

TheHeretic -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 8:10:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol You argument just went and bit its own tail: how can it be appropriate punishment if it's a crime you didn't commit? Because in the eyes of the law, I DID commit that crime. I was convicted by a jury and went through my appeals. That I was found guilty in error doesn't change the fact that I WAS found guilty. The person who actually did that crime deserves to die. It deeply sucks that they've decided I'm him. That the punishment is being carried out on the wrong person is an entirely seperate issue. 411 did a nice job of stating that ANY wrongful conviction is irrevocable a bit up.

TheHeretic -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 8:14:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro I don't think you know what that means. In my view Sinergy was making arguments appealing to Logos and ethos, not pathos. Then your view is wrong, Sugar. How can a question premised on "how would you feel" be anything but pathos? I think you are the one who should look up some words. They translate very well.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 8:30:45 PM)
Then in essence you're saying you think executing you wrongfully would be the appropriate punishment for the crime that someone else committed. It's not what you WANT to say--that's for sure--but it is, alas, what you're saying. Keep trying. If we could guarantee a 100% accurate conviction rate, I'd consider the death penalty at that point. I'd still probably oppose it, but I haven't even thought that far, because the fact is we're nowhere near a 100% accurate conviction rate, and we ain't nevah gonna get there, either. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol You argument just went and bit its own tail: how can it be appropriate punishment if it's a crime you didn't commit? Because in the eyes of the law, I DID commit that crime. I was convicted by a jury and went through my appeals. That I was found guilty in error doesn't change the fact that I WAS found guilty. The person who actually did that crime deserves to die. It deeply sucks that they've decided I'm him.

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 8:39:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Then in essence you're saying you think executing you wrongfully would be the appropriate punishment for the crime that someone else committed. It's not what you WANT to say--that's for sure--but it is, alas, what you're saying. Keep trying. If we could guarantee a 100% accurate conviction rate, I'd consider the death penalty at that point. I'd still probably oppose it, but I haven't even thought that far, because the fact is we're nowhere near a 100% accurate conviction rate, and we ain't nevah gonna get there, either. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol You argument just went and bit its own tail: how can it be appropriate punishment if it's a crime you didn't commit? Because in the eyes of the law, I DID commit that crime. I was convicted by a jury and went through my appeals. That I was found guilty in error doesn't change the fact that I WAS found guilty. The person who actually did that crime deserves to die. It deeply sucks that they've decided I'm him. I found it a rather odd post as well, Lordandmaster. Kinda puts me in the position of arguing why the Government does not have the right to kill somebody willing to take a bullet for a criminal, which I imagine deserves it's own thread. Perhaps under Polls And Random Stupidity. Sinergy

juliaoceania -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/12/2007 8:43:15 PM)
quote: The death penalty is legitimate so long as the people support it. Insert whatever you like being "legitimate as long as the people support it".. genocide? Slavery? Rape? These are but a few things that governments have done with the support of people quote: I support it for economic reasons. Since it is more expensive to execute someone rather than house them for their natural lives, perhaps you should reconsider your economic "reason"

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125