| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/27/2011 01:52:46 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
By living in this society, you give consent to be judged by the legal system, as imperfect as it is. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved upon like any other construct of society, but you do give consent. |
And so we improve it by removing the death penalty... :P |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 01:56:04 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
By living in this society, you give consent to be judged by the legal system, as imperfect as it is. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved upon like any other construct of society, but you do give consent. |
And so we improve it by removing the death penalty... :P |
LOL No
That's not improving the system that wrongfully convicted someone, it just changes the penalty.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2011 02:06:28 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
By living in this society, you give consent to be judged by the legal system, as imperfect as it is. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved upon like any other construct of society, but you do give consent. |
And so we improve it by removing the death penalty... :P |
LOL No
That's not improving the system that wrongfully convicted someone, it just changes the penalty. |
Sure it does. If we're concerned about innocent death and using that as our measure. Take your plane analogy. It turns out planes have something called a Johnson Rod. At times the Johnson Rod breaks and causes the plane to crash killing those on board. The question of importance is what purpose is the Johnson Rod serving? If the answer is "very little" (let's say it was instrumental in keeping croutons crunchy on the in-flight salads), then the obvious solution is to remove it.
This is how a pragmatic argument works. I don't hear much in the way of moral argument on this thread. Show me why we should have the Johnson Rod.
Message edited by author 2011-09-27 14:07:08. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 02:48:25 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
By living in this society, you give consent to be judged by the legal system, as imperfect as it is. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved upon like any other construct of society, but you do give consent. |
I think you have consent the wrong end around. Good government exists with the consent of the governed, the people are governed by "elective dictatorship" or "modern autocracy". By being born in a country you are subject to the sovereignty of the ruling government, but you have not given consent. You are subject to the laws of that nation, you are not informed of, nor given a choice in the matter, there is no consent asked for. As a citizen you are subject to force de jure and de facto, not through any contract with the state, but by merely existing within it's borders. You are sometimes free to find other borders to live within, but an individual does not consent to governmental power over them, it is not asked for nor given.
The whole argument is pretty academic since nothing changes as far as the individual's rights relative to a government. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:04:00 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
By living in this society, you give consent to be judged by the legal system, as imperfect as it is. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved upon like any other construct of society, but you do give consent. |
And so we improve it by removing the death penalty... :P |
LOL No
That's not improving the system that wrongfully convicted someone, it just changes the penalty. |
Sure it does. If we're concerned about innocent death and using that as our measure. Take your plane analogy. It turns out planes have something called a Johnson Rod. At times the Johnson Rod breaks and causes the plane to crash killing those on board. The question of importance is what purpose is the Johnson Rod serving? If the answer is "very little" (let's say it was instrumental in keeping croutons crunchy on the in-flight salads), then the obvious solution is to remove it.
This is how a pragmatic argument works. I don't hear much in the way of moral argument on this thread. Show me why we should have the Johnson Rod. |
Your assumption is that the death penalty has no benefit like the Johnson Rod. I say it does. Perhaps not as a deterrent, but as a punishment it does provide some relief for the victims.
Personally, if someone murdered my family member I would want them executed, not safe and comfortable in a prison getting free health care, meals, family visits and housing. That's not punishment, that's a vacation.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:05:43 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
By living in this society, you give consent to be judged by the legal system, as imperfect as it is. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved upon like any other construct of society, but you do give consent. |
I think you have consent the wrong end around. Good government exists with the consent of the governed, the people are governed by "elective dictatorship" or "modern autocracy". By being born in a country you are subject to the sovereignty of the ruling government, but you have not given consent. You are subject to the laws of that nation, you are not informed of, nor given a choice in the matter, there is no consent asked for. As a citizen you are subject to force de jure and de facto, not through any contract with the state, but by merely existing within it's borders. You are sometimes free to find other borders to live within, but an individual does not consent to governmental power over them, it is not asked for nor given.
The whole argument is pretty academic since nothing changes as far as the individual's rights relative to a government. |
No.
Citizens give consent to the governemnt to exist; part of that is the consent that agree to be governed by the laws of that government.
Message edited by author 2011-09-27 16:15:45. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:10:18 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Your assumption is that the death penalty has no benefit like the Johnson Rod. I say it does. Perhaps not as a deterrent, but as a punishment it does provide some relief for the victims.
Personally, if someone murdered my family member I would want them executed, not safe and comfortable in a prison getting free health care, meals, family visits and housing. That's not punishment, that's a vacation. |
I wasn't assuming that, I was just asking for an argument supporting some benefit. When the benefits are delineated, we can then make the judgement of whether it is worth the risk of having the Johnson Rod kill an innocent person.
Your argument has certainly been postulated before, but how would you go about showing this? Can you, for example, show that victim families suffer more in non-capital countries? The argument is rational (ie. it's logically consistent), but I'd want more than hunches before I risked killing someone who shouldn't have been. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:17:30 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Your assumption is that the death penalty has no benefit like the Johnson Rod. I say it does. Perhaps not as a deterrent, but as a punishment it does provide some relief for the victims.
Personally, if someone murdered my family member I would want them executed, not safe and comfortable in a prison getting free health care, meals, family visits and housing. That's not punishment, that's a vacation. |
I wasn't assuming that, I was just asking for an argument supporting some benefit. When the benefits are delineated, we can then make the judgement of whether it is worth the risk of having the Johnson Rod kill an innocent person.
Your argument has certainly been postulated before, but how would you go about showing this? Can you, for example, show that victim families suffer more in non-capital countries? The argument is rational (ie. it's logically consistent), but I'd want more than hunches before I risked killing someone who shouldn't have been. |
Can you show they suffer less?
This article discusses the effect the executions have on family members. If I were a family member of a murder victim, know that the killer being alive would gnaw at me endlessly until I saw the them die.
Message edited by author 2011-09-27 16:22:59. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:19:51 PM · #159 |
Interesting to see which countries still use the death penalty list
I believe that the countries which have the most people put to death are:
in statistical order
China
Iran
North Korea
Yemen
United States
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Nice company your keeping :(
|
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:24:26 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Interesting to see which countries still use the death penalty list
I believe that the countries which have the most people put to death are:
in statistical order
China
Iran
North Korea
Yemen
United States
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Nice company your keeping :( |
Been trotted out before in this thread. So? |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:25:42 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Citizens give consent to the governemnt to exist; part of that is the consent that agree to be governed by the laws of that government. |
You notion of consent differs with the common and legal usage then. Traditionally consent is approval, or at least assent after deliberation. By your definition slaves consent to slavery, and serfs consent to monarchy. Consent can not be said to have been given where there is no choice except escape. A new born child can not be said to give consent. Consent must be bi-lateral. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:28:45 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Citizens give consent to the governemnt to exist; part of that is the consent that agree to be governed by the laws of that government. |
You notion of consent differs with the common and legal usage then. Traditionally consent is approval, or at least assent after deliberation. By your definition slaves consent to slavery, and serfs consent to monarchy. Consent can not be said to have been given where there is no choice except escape. A new born child can not be said to give consent. Consent must be bi-lateral. |
Slaves weren't citizens, were they, nor were serfs. Children, don't have the right to give consent, but their parents do.
And at least in this country, there is a choice. Work to change the laws under which you are governed.
Message edited by author 2011-09-27 16:30:22. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:29:19 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Your assumption is that the death penalty has no benefit like the Johnson Rod. I say it does. Perhaps not as a deterrent, but as a punishment it does provide some relief for the victims.
Personally, if someone murdered my family member I would want them executed, not safe and comfortable in a prison getting free health care, meals, family visits and housing. That's not punishment, that's a vacation. |
I wasn't assuming that, I was just asking for an argument supporting some benefit. When the benefits are delineated, we can then make the judgement of whether it is worth the risk of having the Johnson Rod kill an innocent person.
Your argument has certainly been postulated before, but how would you go about showing this? Can you, for example, show that victim families suffer more in non-capital countries? The argument is rational (ie. it's logically consistent), but I'd want more than hunches before I risked killing someone who shouldn't have been. |
Can you show they suffer less?
This article discusses the effect the executions have on family members. If I were a family member of a murder victim, know that the killer being alive would gnaw at me endlessly until I saw the them die. |
I don't need to show they suffer less. You are the one making the argument. If there's no reason for the death penalty, then the obvious answer is the remove it (so as not to risk killing an innocent). I doubt anybody could show one way or the other, but that just means your argument is unfounded (or only founded on your personal feelings).
Message edited by author 2011-09-27 16:29:50. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:34:00 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Your assumption is that the death penalty has no benefit like the Johnson Rod. I say it does. Perhaps not as a deterrent, but as a punishment it does provide some relief for the victims.
Personally, if someone murdered my family member I would want them executed, not safe and comfortable in a prison getting free health care, meals, family visits and housing. That's not punishment, that's a vacation. |
I wasn't assuming that, I was just asking for an argument supporting some benefit. When the benefits are delineated, we can then make the judgement of whether it is worth the risk of having the Johnson Rod kill an innocent person.
Your argument has certainly been postulated before, but how would you go about showing this? Can you, for example, show that victim families suffer more in non-capital countries? The argument is rational (ie. it's logically consistent), but I'd want more than hunches before I risked killing someone who shouldn't have been. |
Can you show they suffer less?
This article discusses the effect the executions have on family members. If I were a family member of a murder victim, know that the killer being alive would gnaw at me endlessly until I saw the them die. |
I don't need to show they suffer less. You are the one making the argument. If there's no reason for the death penalty, then the obvious answer is the remove it (so as not to risk killing an innocent). I doubt anybody could show one way or the other, but that just means your argument is unfounded (or only founded on your personal feelings). |
You can't show it either.
Your answer is no more obvious than it would be to outlaw motor vehicles because people die in crashes. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:53:30 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I use to be pro-capital punishment. No arguments.
Then, as I grew and evaluated some of my other views, I began to see an inconsistency. I don't want to bring up another can of worms in this thread, but suffice it to say that life is life. The system is not perfect, but the imperfections should not be a life or death matter to some. |
Isn't it amazing how many people who believe that abortion is wrong because "all (human) life is sacred" are also in favor of capital punishment? As I understand it, "sacred" means that something is in the provenance of God, and us imperfect mortals had best not meddle or else ...
And of course, I suppose the reverse view can be seen as equally ironic.
Message edited by author 2011-09-27 16:54:47. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 04:56:56 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Your assumption is that the death penalty has no benefit like the Johnson Rod. I say it does. Perhaps not as a deterrent, but as a punishment it does provide some relief for the victims.
Personally, if someone murdered my family member I would want them executed, not safe and comfortable in a prison getting free health care, meals, family visits and housing. That's not punishment, that's a vacation. |
I wasn't assuming that, I was just asking for an argument supporting some benefit. When the benefits are delineated, we can then make the judgement of whether it is worth the risk of having the Johnson Rod kill an innocent person.
Your argument has certainly been postulated before, but how would you go about showing this? Can you, for example, show that victim families suffer more in non-capital countries? The argument is rational (ie. it's logically consistent), but I'd want more than hunches before I risked killing someone who shouldn't have been. |
Can you show they suffer less?
This article discusses the effect the executions have on family members. If I were a family member of a murder victim, know that the killer being alive would gnaw at me endlessly until I saw the them die. |
I don't need to show they suffer less. You are the one making the argument. If there's no reason for the death penalty, then the obvious answer is the remove it (so as not to risk killing an innocent). I doubt anybody could show one way or the other, but that just means your argument is unfounded (or only founded on your personal feelings). |
You can't show it either.
Your answer is no more obvious than it would be to outlaw motor vehicles because people die in crashes. |
Wrong. The benfit of motor vehicles is vast and obvious. True, by getting rid of the vehicles we would avoid the deaths from crashes, but we would also remove the vast benefits. Nearly all people are willing to accept this trade-off and nobody is forcing anybody if they object.
I'm not looking to abandon a highly effective system that has accidental deaths where those who die understood the risk. I'm looking to abandon an ineffective system that has accidental deaths where those who die didn't know they were playing the game. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 05:02:38 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wrong. The benfit of motor vehicles is vast and obvious. True, by getting rid of the vehicles we would avoid the deaths from crashes, but we would also remove the vast benefits. Nearly all people are willing to accept this trade-off and nobody is forcing anybody if they object. |
Interesting side note: according to a report in the LA Times, annual deaths (in the US) from prescription drug overdoses now exceed those from automobile accidents. Discussion on today's Talk Of The Nation program. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 05:19:56 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Your assumption is that the death penalty has no benefit like the Johnson Rod. I say it does. Perhaps not as a deterrent, but as a punishment it does provide some relief for the victims.
Personally, if someone murdered my family member I would want them executed, not safe and comfortable in a prison getting free health care, meals, family visits and housing. That's not punishment, that's a vacation. |
I wasn't assuming that, I was just asking for an argument supporting some benefit. When the benefits are delineated, we can then make the judgement of whether it is worth the risk of having the Johnson Rod kill an innocent person.
Your argument has certainly been postulated before, but how would you go about showing this? Can you, for example, show that victim families suffer more in non-capital countries? The argument is rational (ie. it's logically consistent), but I'd want more than hunches before I risked killing someone who shouldn't have been. |
Can you show they suffer less?
This article discusses the effect the executions have on family members. If I were a family member of a murder victim, know that the killer being alive would gnaw at me endlessly until I saw the them die. |
I don't need to show they suffer less. You are the one making the argument. If there's no reason for the death penalty, then the obvious answer is the remove it (so as not to risk killing an innocent). I doubt anybody could show one way or the other, but that just means your argument is unfounded (or only founded on your personal feelings). |
You can't show it either.
Your answer is no more obvious than it would be to outlaw motor vehicles because people die in crashes. |
Wrong. The benfit of motor vehicles is vast and obvious. True, by getting rid of the vehicles we would avoid the deaths from crashes, but we would also remove the vast benefits. Nearly all people are willing to accept this trade-off and nobody is forcing anybody if they object.
I'm not looking to abandon a highly effective system that has accidental deaths where those who die understood the risk. I'm looking to abandon an ineffective system that has accidental deaths where those who die didn't know they were playing the game. |
You, again, assume there's no benefit to the death penalty. I disagree.
I also disagree that those who are executed didn't know they were playing the game. They knew. They killed anyway.
|
|
|
|
09/27/2011 05:25:40 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
You, again, assume there's no benefit to the death penalty. I disagree.
I also disagree that those who are executed didn't know they were playing the game. They knew. They killed anyway. |
I was obviously referring to the person who didn't kill anybody but who is executed anyway.
Anyhow, I know you disagree. You've told me. Your job, should you wish to undertake it, is to convince me of the error in my thinking. Since this is a pragmatic argument, your best bet is to do so with studies and statistics. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 05:33:11 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Reminds me a bit of
"Kill them all, let God sort them out".
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, August 1209
Better that innocents are slaughtered than to allow the guilty to walk free? |
Not at all. The fact is that people set the standard of acceptability at perfection, nothing any system made by man can ever achieve.
Is it better that 45,000 innocents die every year than to make people walk? |
lols, to kill the innocent is a crime. That makes 12 * 45,000 criminals that walk free. Your logic is skewed. If it is ok to have 12 killers walk free per every innocent, then I would think one killer walking free is 12 less killers instead of 13 killers and 1 dead innocent person.
Message edited by author 2011-09-27 17:43:39. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 05:37:03 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
You, again, assume there's no benefit to the death penalty. I disagree.
I also disagree that those who are executed didn't know they were playing the game. They knew. They killed anyway. |
I was obviously referring to the person who didn't kill anybody but who is executed anyway.
Anyhow, I know you disagree. You've told me. Your job, should you wish to undertake it, is to convince me of the error in my thinking. Since this is a pragmatic argument, your best bet is to do so with studies and statistics. |
I'm ok with you being wrong just disagreeing since you can't seem to do your job of getting me to agree with you either. |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 05:40:40 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Reminds me a bit of
"Kill them all, let God sort them out".
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, August 1209
Better that innocents are slaughtered than to allow the guilty to walk free? |
Not at all. The fact is that people set the standard of acceptability at perfection, nothing any system made by man can ever achieve.
Is it better that 45,000 innocents die every year than to make people walk? |
lols, to kill the innocent is a crime. That makes 12 * 45,000 criminals that walk free. Your logic is skewed. If it is ok to have 12 killers walk free per every innocent, then I would think one guilty walking free is 11 less. |
What on earth are you talking about? |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 05:48:24 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by TheDruid:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Reminds me a bit of
"Kill them all, let God sort them out".
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, August 1209
Better that innocents are slaughtered than to allow the guilty to walk free? |
Not at all. The fact is that people set the standard of acceptability at perfection, nothing any system made by man can ever achieve.
Is it better that 45,000 innocents die every year than to make people walk? |
lols, to kill the innocent is a crime. That makes 12 * 45,000 criminals that walk free. Your logic is skewed. If it is ok to have 12 killers walk free per every innocent, then I would think one guilty walking free is 11 less. |
What on earth are you talking about? |
I played with my statement till I was happy with myself :-) |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 05:54:34 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... I don't hear much in the way of moral argument on this thread. |
The atheist are to blame I tell ya... :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
09/27/2011 06:01:32 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
... Consent can not be said to have been given where there is no choice except escape...Consent must be bi-lateral. |
This viewpoint is one that could be debated ad infinitum.
When one considers issues such as politics, economics and a variety of societal issues, it could be argued that consent is not a clear cut issue.
However, best we save this discussion for another thread.
Ray |
|
