| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/28/2011 10:57:23 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Now if you're upset by the death penalty as a punishment, that's one thing. Trying to justify your objection to it by bringing the possibility of erroneous conviction into it is meaningless. |
Hang on there, your argument slipped a cog.
If a person is upset that the death penalty is imposed is no more relevant than if a person is upset that more people are not given the death penalty. Emotional reaction is not an argument.
The fact that the state has and will continue to put to death wrongfully convicted people is not meaningless. It is the core of the argument against the death penalty. The fact that innocent people are killed by random murderers does not give the state the right to do the same. Our government ought to act in the manner of its best citizens, not its worst. |
So, it's OK to lock people away for the rest of their lives for crimes they didn't commit, but not OK to execute them?
What about the death penalty in cases where the condemned is definitely the person who committed the crime, is that OK? Something like the Petit case where there is no doubt that the two people on trial robbed, terrorized, beat, raped and killed those people in their own home. If the possibility of wrongful conviction is the core of the objection to the death penalty, what are you to do when that core is gone? |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 04:04:43 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[
If an innocent person is put to death deliberately and with premeditation, that's called murder, right? |
Actually, it could be WAR...but I digress.
Ray |
War is chaos within a very odd rule set, the risk of kill or be killed to take and hold territory. You kill the enemy as long as he is trying to kill you. If during a war, you capture an enemy combatant, and then decide to kill that prisoner of war, it is murder, you will be charged with a war crime which is punishable by.....death. When you have command and control over an enemy, they are no longer yours to kill.
From what I have heard of war the terms deliberate and premeditated are rarely used where the bullets are fired. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 04:10:46 PM · #203 |
| How about a volintary death penalty. :-) |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 05:24:53 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[
If an innocent person is put to death deliberately and with premeditation, that's called murder, right? |
Actually, it could be WAR...but I digress.
Ray |
War is chaos within a very odd rule set, the risk of kill or be killed to take and hold territory. You kill the enemy as long as he is trying to kill you. If during a war, you capture an enemy combatant, and then decide to kill that prisoner of war, it is murder, you will be charged with a war crime which is punishable by.....death. When you have command and control over an enemy, they are no longer yours to kill.
From what I have heard of war the terms deliberate and premeditated are rarely used where the bullets are fired. |
That's not quite true, it's far more complex.
As a soldier, you must abide by the ROE or Rules of Engagement. In the old days, it used to be fairly simple, shoot the guys in the other uniform unless they obviously surrender. These days where the enemy hides within and behind the civilian population, the ROE's have gotten more complex. Sometimes soldiers have to just take cover and get shot at because returning fire presents too great a risk to civilians. OTOH, in some situations, taking prisoners may not be practical. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 05:28:13 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[
If an innocent person is put to death deliberately and with premeditation, that's called murder, right? |
Actually, it could be WAR...but I digress.
Ray |
War is chaos within a very odd rule set, the risk of kill or be killed to take and hold territory. You kill the enemy as long as he is trying to kill you. If during a war, you capture an enemy combatant, and then decide to kill that prisoner of war, it is murder, you will be charged with a war crime which is punishable by.....death. When you have command and control over an enemy, they are no longer yours to kill.
From what I have heard of war the terms deliberate and premeditated are rarely used where the bullets are fired. |
Funny you bring that up. The state is in a conflict/ war with the criminals. It is the war and the state/police must adhere to the rules of engagement. Criminals don't have to. They can do whatever they like. To win a war one must first win a battle. Capital punishment is one battle. Give in, and they won.
Every leniency we show them, they view as our weakness. Just look at what is going on in Cartels vs. Mexico. Corruption and leniency over the decades made what is going on now possible. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 06:10:52 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by Basta:
The state is in a conflict/ war with the criminals. It is the war and the state/police must adhere to the rules of engagement. Criminals don't have to. They can do whatever they like. To win a war one must first win a battle. Capital punishment is one battle. Give in, and they won. |
Historically, once a society uses the paradigm of war to combat an internal issue, the results are usually very bad for everyone in that society. If war is the answer, you are asking the wrong question.
The latter part of your statement leaves me puzzled.
To win a war one must first win a battle. Right. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, yadda yadda yadda. Can't have step two without step one.
Capital punishment is one battle Yes it is, however you did not link it in anyway whit your previous point. You could put in any other issue and it would have equal validity. Poverty. Education. Family values. Unemployment. Those are some other battles, also not connected with the previous statement.
Give in, and they won. And this is the phrase of the decade. If you don't take the logical leap with me you are with the enemy. If you didn't go shopping the week after 9-11, then the terrorists have won! That phrase is the empty drum that those who have no connecting argument beat to try to frighten their opponents into a thoughtless action for fear of being branded traitors. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 06:33:27 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The issue of the death penalty being irreversible after execution is true. No other penalty is reversible either. If a man serves time in prison before being found innocent, nothing can reverse that and give him back that time. |
This is a bit of semantics; the sentence is reversed not the penalty already served. Your argument is a red herring. A reversed imprisonment sentence can be rectified at least in part. A death sentence can't be. |
Have you invented time travel? How can time spent incarcerated be returned?
It's irreversible. |
Perhaps you should read my post a little closer; "the sentence is reversed not the penalty already served" As I said your argument is a red hering (you're diverting attention away from an item of significance). No matter how long you debate it, there is some chance of correction in part of a wronful imprisonment. There's no chance for correction of a wrongful execution.
I'm really not trying to change your view but the unavoidable reality is that execution of some innocent people will be the price we pay for use of the death penalty. We need to decide as a society if that price it too high or not. For you the price may be ok for me I'm not so sure.
Message edited by author 2011-09-28 18:48:38. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 06:38:51 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Basta:
The state is in a conflict/ war with the criminals. It is the war and the state/police must adhere to the rules of engagement. Criminals don't have to. They can do whatever they like. To win a war one must first win a battle. Capital punishment is one battle. Give in, and they won. |
Historically, once a society uses the paradigm of war to combat an internal issue, the results are usually very bad for everyone in that society. If war is the answer, you are asking the wrong question.
The latter part of your statement leaves me puzzled.
To win a war one must first win a battle. Right. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, yadda yadda yadda. Can't have step two without step one.
Capital punishment is one battle Yes it is, however you did not link it in anyway whit your previous point. You could put in any other issue and it would have equal validity. Poverty. Education. Family values. Unemployment. Those are some other battles, also not connected with the previous statement.
Give in, and they won. And this is the phrase of the decade. If you don't take the logical leap with me you are with the enemy. If you didn't go shopping the week after 9-11, then the terrorists have won! That phrase is the empty drum that those who have no connecting argument beat to try to frighten their opponents into a thoughtless action for fear of being branded traitors. |
we can call the war a " dance" but that does not make it a dance. how about "prevention of the criminal behavior by use of armed police force against the armed criminals"
you are smart guy , and you can figure out what I was saying, if you wanted to.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2011 06:47:33 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Now if you're upset by the death penalty as a punishment, that's one thing. Trying to justify your objection to it by bringing the possibility of erroneous conviction into it is meaningless. Why not object to life sentences? or 25 year sentences or 10 year prison terms or whatever. Let's say a man is wrongfully convicted of a crime and sentenced to 10 years in prison, but he gets beaten to death by a prison gang before he can be exonerated. How does that differ from a death sentence? Can you reverse that? The state didn't stick the needle in his arm, but they're responsible for his well-being all the same and they made the mistake that resulted in his death. What's the difference? |
To be clear, for me, an innocent person completing a full life sentence is nearly as bad as an innocent person being executed. Both situations would be terrible. The difference between them is that at least one had an unfortunately unrealized chance to have their penalty reduced the other does not.
Your second argument is another red herring though. What you describe could happen and yes I would feel the state would have some responsibility but the fact that the state didn't stick the needle in his arm isn't an insignificant factor. The state failed to protect him they didn't kill him. The result is the same, he's dead, but the culpability is very different.
Message edited by author 2011-09-28 21:39:59. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 07:35:16 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The issue of the death penalty being irreversible after execution is true. No other penalty is reversible either. If a man serves time in prison before being found innocent, nothing can reverse that and give him back that time. |
This is a bit of semantics; the sentence is reversed not the penalty already served. Your argument is a red herring. A reversed imprisonment sentence can be rectified at least in part. A death sentence can't be. |
Have you invented time travel? How can time spent incarcerated be returned?
It's irreversible. |
Perhaps you should read my post a little closer; "the sentence is reversed not the penalty already served" As I said your argument is a red hering (you're diverting attention away from an item of significance). No matter how long you debate it, there is some chance of correction in part of a wronful imprisonment. There's no chance for correction of a wrongful execution.
I'm really not trying to change your view but the unavoidable reality is that execution of some innocent people will be the price we pay for use of the death penalty. We need to decide as a society if that price it too high or not. For you the price may be ok for me I'm not so sure. |
I did read your post. Unless you've invented a time machine, you can't undo time spent incarcerated. You can't unfuck their lives. Just because now, you let the guy out of prison you think all's well? Hardly. Their lives have been ruined. They will likely NEVER recover. And don't be so naive as to think they're getting a big payday from the state either.
And the price for the death penalty isn't always the risk that they didn't commit the crimes they were condemned for. The whole wrongful conviction thing is your red herring. You're focusing on wrongful conviction, yet you're using that to oppose the death penalty. What about the case where there is no dispute that the accused committed the capital crimes of which they are accused? Do you also oppose the death penalty then, or are you just full of crap?
|
|
|
|
09/28/2011 07:39:12 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Now if you're upset by the death penalty as a punishment, that's one thing. Trying to justify your objection to it by bringing the possibility of erroneous conviction into it is meaningless. Why not object to life sentences? or 25 year sentences or 10 year prison terms or whatever. Let's say a man is wrongfully convicted of a crime and sentenced to 10 years in prison, but he gets beaten to death by a prison gang before he can be exonerated. How does that differ from a death sentence? Can you reverse that? The state didn't stick the needle in his arm, but they're responsible for his well-being all the same and they made the mistake that resulted in his death. What's the difference? |
To be clear, for me, an innocent person completing a full life sentence is nearly as bad as an innocent person being executed. Both situations would be terrible. The difference between them is that at least one had an unfortunately unrealized chance to have their penalty reduced the other does not.
Your second argument is another red herring though. What you describe could happen and yes I would feel the state would have some responsibility but the fact that the state didn't stick the needle in his arm isn't a insignificant factor. The state failed to protect him they didn't kill him. The result is the same, he's dead, but the culpability is very different. |
His death is still the result of the state's wrongful conviction. Do you not get that?
You think every argument you don't understand or agree with is a red herring. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 08:26:48 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I did read your post. Unless you've invented a time machine, you can't undo time spent incarcerated. You can't unfuck their lives. Just because now, you let the guy out of prison you think all's well? Hardly. Their lives have been ruined. They will likely NEVER recover. And don't be so naive as to think they're getting a big payday from the state either.
And the price for the death penalty isn't always the risk that they didn't commit the crimes they were condemned for. The whole wrongful conviction thing is your red herring. You're focusing on wrongful conviction, yet you're using that to oppose the death penalty. What about the case where there is no dispute that the accused committed the capital crimes of which they are accused? Do you also oppose the death penalty then, or are you just full of crap? |
To be clear...
- You seem to still be missing that I've agreed with you repeatedly and that the time already incarcerated can't be undone. No time machine is needed
- Yes I agree that even if an innocent person is released there is no guarantee of a happy care free life but your assumption that they will NEVER recover is equally unfounded. For some of the innocent your assumption will definitely be true, others will always be affected by the experience but lead good and relative happy lives none-the-less.
- I haven't said a word about big paydays, another red herring :-)
- The risk I'm speaking of is the risk that innocent people may be executed.
- If the guilt is proven with no doubt (not reasonable doubt) I actually support the death penalty and I haven't said anything to the contrary. Unfortunately, “no doubt” isn't the standard to convict or to sentence someone to death.
- Yes I am focusing on wrongful conviction to oppose the death penalty because it's a valid problem with our imperfect justice system. I believe it was even an argument made in a dissenting opinion of one supreme court justice. It's no red herring (I'm not sure you really understand what a red herring is by the way).
|
|
|
|
09/28/2011 08:32:20 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
His death is still the result of the state's wrongful conviction. Do you not get that? |
Yes I clearly understand your argument (it not that difficult to grasp). It’s just that it has little (actually nothing) to do with whether or not the state should kill innocent people and therefore it's a red herring. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 08:35:54 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
His death is still the result of the state's wrongful conviction. Do you not get that? |
Yes I clearly understand your argument (it not that difficult to grasp). It’s just that it has little (actually nothing) to do with whether or not the state should kill innocent people and therefore it's a red herring. |
You seem to not understand the concept.
Both deaths are the result of wrongful convictions. That's a reason to oppose wrongful convictions, not one to oppose the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
09/28/2011 08:41:51 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I did read your post. Unless you've invented a time machine, you can't undo time spent incarcerated. You can't unfuck their lives. Just because now, you let the guy out of prison you think all's well? Hardly. Their lives have been ruined. They will likely NEVER recover. And don't be so naive as to think they're getting a big payday from the state either.
And the price for the death penalty isn't always the risk that they didn't commit the crimes they were condemned for. The whole wrongful conviction thing is your red herring. You're focusing on wrongful conviction, yet you're using that to oppose the death penalty. What about the case where there is no dispute that the accused committed the capital crimes of which they are accused? Do you also oppose the death penalty then, or are you just full of crap? |
To be clear...
- You seem to still be missing that I've agreed with you repeatedly and that the time already incarcerated can't be undone. No time machine is needed
- Yes I agree that even if an innocent person is released there is no guarantee of a happy care free life but your assumption that they will NEVER recover is equally unfounded. For some of the innocent your assumption will definitely be true, others will always be affected by the experience but lead good and relative happy lives none-the-less.
- I haven't said a word about big paydays, another red herring :-)
- The risk I'm speaking of is the risk that innocent people may be executed.
- If the guilt is proven with no doubt (not reasonable doubt) I actually support the death penalty and I haven't said anything to the contrary. Unfortunately, “no doubt” isn't the standard to convict or to sentence someone to death.
- Yes I am focusing on wrongful conviction to oppose the death penalty because it's a valid problem with our imperfect justice system. I believe it was even an argument made in a dissenting opinion of one supreme court justice. It's no red herring (I'm not sure you really understand what a red herring is by the way). |
Find one person wrongfully convicted, incarcerated for more than a year then later exonerated and freed who has gone on to achieve great success and happiness.
You seem too dim to separate the two issues. Let me explain. Wrongful conviction is a systematic defect in our legal system. The other is a penalty. |
|
|
|
09/28/2011 09:02:26 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
His death is still the result of the state's wrongful conviction. Do you not get that? |
Yes I clearly understand your argument (it not that difficult to grasp). It’s just that it has little (actually nothing) to do with whether or not the state should kill innocent people and therefore it's a red herring. |
You seem to not understand the concept.
Both deaths are the result of wrongful convictions. That's a reason to oppose wrongful convictions, not one to oppose the death penalty. |
Wow, I'll try one last time and then I'm outta here...
- Yes all wrongful convictions are bad (there's no debate there).
- If wrongful convictions were impossible then I support the death penalty (others will disagree for other reasons)
- Wrongful convictions will never be impossible in a human system
- Therefore the death penalty should be opposed.
You can continue to defend the theoretical principle of the death penalty while trying to ignore the unavoidable context of human imperfection. But real world application of death penalty undeniably comes with the risk of that imperfection. You can still decide for yourself if the risk of killing the innocent is worth it but you can’t deny that it’s a factor in the discussion. Denying it is just a semantic fallacy. Feel free to defend the principle if you wish but I'll continue to live in the real world.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2011 05:17:30 AM · #217 |
What makes me laugh is that if there was no death penalty in the US everyone would be bleating on about how barbaric China and Iran are.
The death penalty has been wrapped up and sold to you as a sterile and quick solution. With the chaplain and the last meal, and the final visits from the family, and the candle-light vigils. Almost as if it's some decree from the Almighty.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2011 07:52:03 AM · #218 |
Originally posted by JH:
The death penalty has been wrapped up and sold to you as a sterile and quick solution. With the chaplain and the last meal ... |
Except in Texas ... |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 08:50:04 AM · #219 |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 09:12:04 AM · #220 |
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
His death is still the result of the state's wrongful conviction. Do you not get that? |
Yes I clearly understand your argument (it not that difficult to grasp). It’s just that it has little (actually nothing) to do with whether or not the state should kill innocent people and therefore it's a red herring. |
You seem to not understand the concept.
Both deaths are the result of wrongful convictions. That's a reason to oppose wrongful convictions, not one to oppose the death penalty. |
Wow, I'll try one last time and then I'm outta here...
- Yes all wrongful convictions are bad (there's no debate there).
- If wrongful convictions were impossible then I support the death penalty (others will disagree for other reasons)
- Wrongful convictions will never be impossible in a human system
- Therefore the death penalty should be opposed.
You can continue to defend the theoretical principle of the death penalty while trying to ignore the unavoidable context of human imperfection. But real world application of death penalty undeniably comes with the risk of that imperfection. You can still decide for yourself if the risk of killing the innocent is worth it but you can’t deny that it’s a factor in the discussion. Denying it is just a semantic fallacy. Feel free to defend the principle if you wish but I'll continue to live in the real world. |
Next you'll want to chat about the rainbows and unicorns in your world. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 09:39:28 AM · #221 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
His death is still the result of the state's wrongful conviction. Do you not get that? |
Yes I clearly understand your argument (it not that difficult to grasp). It’s just that it has little (actually nothing) to do with whether or not the state should kill innocent people and therefore it's a red herring. |
You seem to not understand the concept.
Both deaths are the result of wrongful convictions. That's a reason to oppose wrongful convictions, not one to oppose the death penalty. |
Wow, I'll try one last time and then I'm outta here...
- Yes all wrongful convictions are bad (there's no debate there).
- If wrongful convictions were impossible then I support the death penalty (others will disagree for other reasons)
- Wrongful convictions will never be impossible in a human system
- Therefore the death penalty should be opposed.
You can continue to defend the theoretical principle of the death penalty while trying to ignore the unavoidable context of human imperfection. But real world application of death penalty undeniably comes with the risk of that imperfection. You can still decide for yourself if the risk of killing the innocent is worth it but you can’t deny that it’s a factor in the discussion. Denying it is just a semantic fallacy. Feel free to defend the principle if you wish but I'll continue to live in the real world. |
Next you'll want to chat about the rainbows and unicorns in your world. |
why, do you want to put them to death? |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 10:04:59 AM · #222 |
Yep, looks like justice to me. What do you find so offensive about this? She has served 25 years for hiring a hit man to kill the bastard who abused her for years. If she'd been tried today, she probably would have never even been convicted. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 01:49:29 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Yep, looks like justice to me. What do you find so offensive about this? She has served 25 years for hiring a hit man to kill the bastard who abused her for years. If she'd been tried today, she probably would have never even been convicted. |
Are you implying the murder is ok. Execution of a murderer is wrong? |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 02:06:59 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DJWoodward:
Originally posted by Spork99:
His death is still the result of the state's wrongful conviction. Do you not get that? |
Yes I clearly understand your argument (it not that difficult to grasp). It’s just that it has little (actually nothing) to do with whether or not the state should kill innocent people and therefore it's a red herring. |
You seem to not understand the concept.
Both deaths are the result of wrongful convictions. That's a reason to oppose wrongful convictions, not one to oppose the death penalty. |
Wow, I'll try one last time and then I'm outta here...
- Yes all wrongful convictions are bad (there's no debate there).
- If wrongful convictions were impossible then I support the death penalty (others will disagree for other reasons)
- Wrongful convictions will never be impossible in a human system
- Therefore the death penalty should be opposed.
You can continue to defend the theoretical principle of the death penalty while trying to ignore the unavoidable context of human imperfection. But real world application of death penalty undeniably comes with the risk of that imperfection. You can still decide for yourself if the risk of killing the innocent is worth it but you can’t deny that it’s a factor in the discussion. Denying it is just a semantic fallacy. Feel free to defend the principle if you wish but I'll continue to live in the real world. |
Next you'll want to chat about the rainbows and unicorns in your world. |
why, do you want to put them to death? |
Nothing like unicorn stew on a cold day. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 02:41:18 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Nothing like unicorn stew on a cold day. |
And perfect if you're on a weight-loss diet ...
I'm just glad the guy in Texas didn't ask for a bowl of that or I'd have to reconsider my opinion on their last-meal policy. |
|
