Death Penalty

[Walsingham]

But the point of this case is that sometimes fallibility of justice is not really at issue. Every possible form of evidence convicted this guy from personal accounts, DNA, tertiary supporting evidence like the damage obviously done to the victims...

 

Once again, and let me be painfully clear if possible: this does not mean the death penalty is correct as a system of law. What it does mean to me is that the death penalty is not always wrong.

 

Looking at things from a slightly different perspective, HM government is felt to be quite within its rights to direct me to shoot someone who it feels is a terrorist or enemy soldier. Surely the crimes this man has committed are vastly worse than those that might possibly be committed by any but the most serious terrorist?

[taks]

But the point of this case is that sometimes fallibility of justice is not really at issue. Every possible form of evidence convicted this guy from personal accounts, DNA, tertiary supporting evidence like the damage obviously done to the victims...

these are rare cases, but from what it seems, this would fit my definition of "beyond and and all doubt" to be an appropriate application of the death penalty.

 

this does not mean the death penalty is correct as a system of law. What it does mean to me is that the death penalty is not always wrong.

yup.

 

Surely the crimes this man has committed are vastly worse than those that might possibly be committed by any but the most serious terrorist?

i tend to stay away from equivalence arguments. they often get applied in the two wrongs make a right situations.

 

i didn't always believe this way, btw. i used to be a pretty staunch defender of the death penalty as a form of justice (though i never agreed with the deterrence argument). after years of listening to borked criminal proceedings, not that there is a large percentage, just that they happen often enough to be noticed, i finally decided that only an ideal justice system is capable of unilaterally implementing something as final as the death penalty. put a man in jail and there is a chance he'll be vindicated if he's innocent (or, not guilty enough). put a needle in his arm and there is no chance. even if it is only one in a million, i find such odds unfathomable. only an ideal system can have zero odds of making a mistake.

 

taks

[Kelverin]

(though i never agreed with the deterrence argument)

taks

Not sure what deterrence argument you are thinking of. But I guarantee a murderer who is put to death will never kill again. But I am sure you realize this already

[Calax]

People who don't support the death penalty confuse me almost as much as socialists do. If you kill someone, you deserve to die, preferably in a worse manner than did the person you killed.

so does that mean we should also kill the executioners? and then kill the executioners of the executioners? Because that's what you're saying.

 

Oh and we should kill every combat trooper in a war because they killed someone.

[taks]

Not sure what deterrence argument you are thinking of. But I guarantee a murderer who is put to death will never kill again. But I am sure you realize this already

um, no. that's silly.

 

the "deterrence argument" is the argument that the death penalty deters others from committing capital crimes. it does not, or at least, there has never been any data suggesting that it does. people think it does, and thus believe it to be true, but nobody can ever pin down why other than "it just seems logical" (forgetting, of course, that the argument involves an emotional response - fear of being executed, which is contrary to logic anyway).

 

taks

[Walsingham]

I don't have faith in the deterrent argument. Organised criminal syndicates often threaten death to their own. It never succeeds in totally preventing the behaviours they don't like. And they're swift and pretty good at finding out.

[Kelverin]

Not sure what deterrence argument you are thinking of. But I guarantee a murderer who is put to death will never kill again. But I am sure you realize this already

um, no. that's silly.

How so?

[Gorgon]

The concept of deterrence is limited to the land of the living, what you are talking about is an extreme form of prevention.

[Kelverin]

The concept of deterrence is limited to the land of the living, what you are talking about is an extreme form of prevention.

%100 percent effective as well!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

If you kill someone, you deserve to die, preferably in a worse manner than did the person you killed.

 

No, no, no - you are completely, utterly wrong.

There are plenty of cases where killing someone might be justified and for you to say that anyone who kills should be murdered is asinine.

[Walsingham]

RAAARGH! This was never meant to resolve the question entirely. I just think it's a powerful piece of supporting data. All it does is support the notion that the death penalty isn't always wrong, not that it is usually right.

[Hell Kitty]

All it does is support the notion that the death penalty isn't always wrong, not that it is usually right.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What does the death being either right or wrong mean?

[Meshugger]

The concept of deterrence is limited to the land of the living, what you are talking about is an extreme form of prevention.

%100 percent effective as well!

 

Why do you trust your government to decide whether its citizens should live or not? It is the very same people that you usually don't even trust to handle your taxes. Suddenly they have the authority to end your life as you know it?

[Kelverin]

The concept of deterrence is limited to the land of the living, what you are talking about is an extreme form of prevention.

%100 percent effective as well!

 

Why do you trust your government to decide whether its citizens should live or not? It is the very same people that you usually don't even trust to handle your taxes. Suddenly they have the authority to end your life as you know it?

Government? Since when are they pulling jury duty?

 

They run the prisons as well no?

Edited May 21, 2009 by Kelverin

[taks]

How so?

quit being obtuse. the argument regarding deterrence has nothing to do with whether or not the person executed will commit any further crimes. furthermore, i clearly stated what the deterrence argument is in the sentence immediately following. this reply is moronic, at best.

 

taks

[Kelverin]

How so?

quit being obtuse. the argument regarding deterrence has nothing to do with whether or not the person executed will commit any further crimes. furthermore, i clearly stated what the deterrence argument is in the sentence immediately following. this reply is moronic, at best.

 

taks

Go **** yourself. Understand or am I being obtuse. Ass

[taks]

I don't have faith in the deterrent argument. Organised criminal syndicates often threaten death to their own. It never succeeds in totally preventing the behaviours they don't like. And they're swift and pretty good at finding out.

true. those same criminal syndicates, walsh, realize that their own people are criminals, and hence, can't really be trusted anyway. ultimately, their goal is to simply eliminate those that do betray what little trust they've been given.

 

people that commit capital crimes don't care about the consequences. obviously they don't rationalize behavior or its consequences the same way normal people do (else they wouldn't be committing such crimes in the first place).

 

taks

[taks]

excuse me?

 

you said:

 

But I guarantee a murderer who is put to death will never kill again.

 

this is silly and i explained why immediately after calling it silly when i said:

 

the "deterrence argument" is the argument that the death penalty deters others from committing capital crimes

 

the deterrence argument has NOTHING to do with the criminal himself, but the effect it has on OTHERS, as i clearly stated. in other words, does threat of the death penalty prevent people from committing capital crimes for fear of the death penalty? no, it does not (which is immaterial to what the argument actually is).

 

so, not only does your comment not address the actual argument i was referring to, the fact that you refused to understand what the argument actually consists of after i made it clear what i was referring to reflects either ignorance or being obtuse for the sake of argument. which is it, kelverin? did you simply fail to understand (ignorance) or were you being obtuse?

 

i'm not the ass here, kelverin, you are.

 

taks

Edited May 21, 2009 by taks

[Meshugger]

The concept of deterrence is limited to the land of the living, what you are talking about is an extreme form of prevention.

%100 percent effective as well!

 

Why do you trust your government to decide whether its citizens should live or not? It is the very same people that you usually don't even trust to handle your taxes. Suddenly they have the authority to end your life as you know it?

Government? Since when are they pulling jury duty?

 

The are instantiating the very laws that makes it possible for them to murder citizens through their institutions.

 

They run the prisons as well no?

 

That has nothing to do with it and you know it.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Meshugger

[Oerwinde]

People who don't support the death penalty confuse me almost as much as socialists do. If you kill someone, you deserve to die, preferably in a worse manner than did the person you killed.

 

I don't support the death penalty because of the many cases where people are found guilty then 10-20 years later are found to actually be innocent. At least at that point they can be released and live out whats left of their lives, if you kill them then the state murdered an innocent.

 

Now what should be looked at is parole. When prisoners are examined at the end of their sentence and are found to be a high risk to reoffend, don't release them.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Oerwinde

[Walsingham]

All it does is support the notion that the death penalty isn't always wrong, not that it is usually right.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What does the death being either right or wrong mean?

 

Probably a fair question. But i don't understand it. Can you rephrase?

[Hell Kitty]

All it does is support the notion that the death penalty isn't always wrong, not that it is usually right.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What does the death being either right or wrong mean?

 

Probably a fair question. But i don't understand it. Can you rephrase?

 

You said the death penalty isn't always wrong. What does that mean?

 

The death penalty is not something that can be sometimes right or wrong. It's always right, unless later proven to be wrong.

 

As taks mentioned, there's always a chance that someone innocent, or at least, not guilty enough, will get executed with most systems. So in my mind either you see the death of these people as being acceptable losses, thus the death penalty is "right", or you see their deaths as unacceptable, thus the death penalty is "wrong".

[Moose]

They should just bung people in prison for life then shoot them when they're old. That way both partys are satisfied.

 

God I'm so smart.

[Walsingham]

I'd accept shooting them when they're young and then keeping them in prison, by way of compromise.

[Walsingham]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ex-profile.html

 

 

I suggest that this is ONE SMALL PIECE of further evidence supporting the death penalty. There is small doubt over guilt, massive evidence of previous violent offending, and negligible hope for reform. And that's leaving aside the justice of ever releasing a man who commits such revolting crimes over a few pounds.