• Thousands sign petition to publicly hang West Virginia man accused of raping, murdering baby girl
    248 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;51172649]Can you give us an argument against it?[/QUOTE] Against rehab for him? I'll try. I see it like this we all start on the same playing field, little meat sacks that scream and cry. Now the moment you decided "Hey i'll put my dick in a small child" or some other unforgivable crime then you lose that equal value to me. Don't misunderstand, I mean things like rape and child molestation. I can't help it, I really can't. I respect your views, and I try my damnest to be as open as you guys, but seeing the damage rape and child molestation has down to my girlfriend and so many friends I just can't find it in my heart to think these people should be allowed to live. [editline]8th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51172686]because you're ignorant about where the cost of the death penalty comes from It comes from the appeals process. Without that, then yes, we might as well convict and kill because if there is no appeals, that's what you're fucking doing. It's not putting words in your mouth. It's you not having a clue what words you have in your mouth already.[/QUOTE] You can't detect sarcasm can you? The rope and wood and money thing was a smart ass remark. As in I have heard so many people say "lethal injection money blah blah" I know damn well the process it takes buddy old pal, I'll avoid arguing with you, because for someone who likes to throw the word ignorant around, you're pretty ignorant yourself.
[QUOTE=Daddy-of-war;51172638](and before anyways thinks I'm taking away from your opinion or trying to disrespect I'm not, it just I don't share that idea that all life is equal, and your actions determine your worth in this life. If you do bad things like this you're kinda a worthless meat sack.)[/QUOTE] The problem with this is you can't quantify it, so when you throw out standards of ethics and human rights, you immediately have a world in which someone has to decide subjectively how much someone else's life is worth and thus what level of brutality can be used. There has to be a standard that applies to [I]everyone.[/I] Also, pretty sure the cost thing is a bit more complicated than the lethal injection itself being expensive.
[QUOTE=Daddy-of-war;51172704]Against rehab for him? I'll try. I see it like this[B] we all start on the same playing field[/B], little meat sacks that scream and cry. Now the moment you decided "Hey i'll put my dick in a small child" or some other unforgivable crime then you lose that equal value to me. Don't misunderstand, I mean things like rape and child molestation. I can't help it, I really can't. I respect your views, and I try my damnest to be as open as you guys, but seeing the damage rape and child molestation has down to my girlfriend and so many friends I just can't find it in my heart to think these people should be allowed to live. [editline]8th October 2016[/editline] You can't detect sarcasm can you? The rope and wood and money thing was a smart ass remark. As in I have heard so many people say "lethal injection money blah blah" I know damn well the process it takes buddy old pal, I'll avoid arguing with you, because for someone who likes to throw the word ignorant around, you're pretty ignorant yourself.[/QUOTE] I think this is where the problems start
[QUOTE=Daddy-of-war;51172704]Against rehab for him? I'll try. I see it like this we all start on the same playing field, little meat sacks that scream and cry. Now the moment you decided "Hey i'll put my dick in a small child" or some other unforgivable crime then you lose that equal value to me. Don't misunderstand, I mean things like rape and child molestation. I can't help it, I really can't. I respect your views, and I try my damnest to be as open as you guys, but seeing the damage rape and child molestation has down to my girlfriend and so many friends I just can't find it in my heart to think these people should be allowed to live. [editline]8th October 2016[/editline] You can't detect sarcasm can you? The rope and wood and money thing was a smart ass remark. As in I have heard so many people say "lethal injection money blah blah" I know damn well the process it takes buddy old pal, I'll avoid arguing with you, because for someone who likes to throw the word ignorant around, you're pretty ignorant yourself.[/QUOTE] What am I ignorant of? That you're emotionally charged and you don't want to use logic? No, I'm well aware, what is it that I am actually ignorant of in regards to this Tell me because I'd love to learn.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51172639]So are you saying you do have lots of first hand experience to be making these claims with[/QUOTE] Some as far as cases themselves are concerned, some as far as inmates are concerned (I study psychology; I'm looking to do in-depth work with prisoners in New Mexico next year with a professional friend), lots of experience with lawyers, police officers, and social workers who have dealt with it before and who have been comfortable enough with me to discuss it. Overall, I probably have more experience with it than your average person does. And that's understandable; most people do not find abuse, death, and violence to be particularly comfortable subjects to deal with. It's true that it's not, but it's still necessary. And for psychology, it's interesting (in spite of being disturbing). That's why I love it when people say, "Well this guy just needs to be studied. That's why he should be kept alive for as long as possible." No, he really doesn't. At a glance, he's probably a psychopath (I also would have suspected drugs, but there's nothing in the article that says he was on drugs). There's already plenty of literature available out there on psychopathy, we know there's no effective treatment for it, and this guy isn't particularly interesting anyway as far as case studies go-- there's plenty of others like him out there in the penal system.
[QUOTE=Daddy-of-war;51172704]I know damn well the process it takes buddy old pal, I'll avoid arguing with you, because for someone who likes to throw the word ignorant around, you're pretty ignorant yourself.[/QUOTE] That was not clear in your post at all. To me, that bit looked like the strongest argument you had. The end game is doing what ever best pushes down the risk of future cases like him happening again. For that reason I actually really like J!NX's idea of using him to research how he works.
[QUOTE=Govna;51172756]Some as far as cases themselves are concerned, some as far as inmates are concerned (I study psychology; I'm looking to do in-depth work with prisoners in New Mexico next year with a professional friend), lots of experience with lawyers, police officers, and social workers who have dealt with it before and who have been comfortable enough with me to discuss it. Overall, I probably have more experience with it than your average person does. And that's understandable; most people do not find abuse, death, and violence to be particularly comfortable subjects to deal with. It's true that it's not, but it's still necessary. And for psychology, it's interesting (in spite of being disturbing). That's why I love it when people say, "Well this guy just needs to be studied. That's why he should be kept alive for as long as possible." No, he really doesn't. At a glance, he's probably a psychopath (I also would have suspected drugs, but there's nothing in the article that says he was on drugs). There's already plenty of literature available out there on psychopathy, we know there's no effective treatment for it, and this guy isn't particularly interesting anyway as far as case studies go-- there's plenty of others like him out there in the penal system.[/QUOTE] Cool. I'm always going to say we avoid the death penalty though
[QUOTE=Govna;51172756]That's why I love it when people say, "Well this guy just needs to be studied. That's why he should be kept alive for as long as possible." No, he really doesn't. At a glance, he's probably a psychopath (I also would have suspected drugs, but there's nothing in the article that says he was on drugs). There's already plenty of literature available out there on psychopathy, we know there's no effective treatment for it, and this guy isn't particularly interesting anyway as far as case studies go-- there's plenty of others like him out there in the penal system.[/QUOTE] We haven't reached the end of science, you know.
Psychology being what it is these days, I'm more skeptical of it's methods right now than I ever really have been. We really aren't going to be hurt by doing more research, and doing more investigations in to these things.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51172784]Cool. I'm always going to say we avoid the death penalty though[/QUOTE] Alrighty then I guess? [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51172788]We haven't reached the end of science, you know.[/QUOTE] We've hit a wall with psychopathy, and there is no effective treatment available for it. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Causes]There's not even a consensus among experts on what causes it[/url]. Psychopaths tend not to seek treatment, most even when they're examined forcefully don't [i]want[/i] to be treated moreover (they're fine with being the way they are, even when it comes at our expense), and what treatments we do have (experimental medications as well as traditional therapy techniques) can actually make them worse off than before. It's an immensely complex condition because of the genetic, environmental, and physical influences that can be responsible for it, and we simply do not know how to deal with it. We can't with what's available currently, and in all likelihood, we won't be able to for decades. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51172842]Psychology being what it is these days, I'm more skeptical of it's methods right now than I ever really have been. We really aren't going to be hurt by doing more research, and doing more investigations in to these things.[/QUOTE] Psychopathy is a well-researched phenomenon throughout the medical community in general with regards to biochemistry and neurology. You can be as skeptical as you like and ignore the experts if you want (that seems to be a fashionable trend these days), but what's available in psychology is an amalgamation of studies examining the mental characteristics behind it as well as biochemical and neurological research. There is no cure for it, there are no effective treatments available for it, the prognosis for recovery is extremely poor, and recidivism rates are high for psychopaths. Executing him would not be a terrible loss for scientific research. Actually, it would guarantee he'd never be a threat to anybody again. Like I said before, if you disagree and think he should be studied or given treatment, then you can do it yourself. Go to school, get an education, and do the work. Otherwise, this is a pointless conversation to be having. It's easy to tell other people what they should do and give orders about what should be done in general when you've got no obligations to fulfill on the matter; it's another thing entirely to actually have to go out and deal with it. That's been one of my main points throughout this thread.
[QUOTE=Govna;51172626]I never said that you said I was. Not sure why this is so difficult for you to follow along with.[/quote] You literally said it though. [quote]But that's totally irrelevant to my point since I'm not even saying this guy should be executed publicly, and I made sure to be very clear about that in my original post-- so unless you just have trouble reading, not sure where you picked up the idea that I was in favor of having him executed publicly from.[/quote] [QUOTE=Govna;51172626]Nowhere did I say that they would be in favor of a public execution. I spoke strictly of the current capital punishment system we have today. They are in favor of the system we currently have. I brought it up because this discussion devolved into the tired, old "pro vs. anti-death penalty" shit we've heard plenty of times before.[/quote] It's old, but not tired. The idea that rights can be "revoked" is utter nonsense, they aren't privileges. The idea is that "rights can be revoked when a perpetrator shows a disregard for the rights of the others." What rights does this entail? The right to a fair trial, the right to free speech? Or is the right to live not even a right at all, so it can't be revoked to begin with? So then it doesn't matter if they kill? If I say that the rights of one who disregards the rights of others are now null and void, are my rights void as well? I'm committing the same crime as him. The more you think about this the more confusing this line of reasoning becomes. [QUOTE=Govna;51172626]No, I'm stating fact for fact that this is what goes on with them. And this is how our justice system works. Juries are not meant to function like emotionally-devoid robots; I don't know where people are getting this idea from. Judges are not meant to function like this either. Cops, lawyers, etc. also do not work this way. Strange as it may seem, human beings have emotions, these emotions are perfectly natural, and they are also perfectly relevant and worthy of consideration when it comes to how our society operates and how we react under controlled circumstances-- especially when it comes to passing sentencing for heinous crimes (heinous crimes are in fact legally defined, FYI, even though they're subjective). It's a straightforward matter: they are experts on the subject because they deal in it all the time (it's their job), they know more about it than most people do (especially the ones who try to argue that their first-hand experiences are, for no actual reason, irrelevant), therefore their opinion and professional input matters more than your average person's does. Again, I don't care if you like this or not, and neither do the people who actually deal with this stuff on a consistent basis as part of their job; that's just how it is.[/quote] "Juries are not meant to function like emotionally-devoid robots; I don't know where people are getting this idea from." This is actually entirely wrong. Juries are supposed to only consider the facts when deliberating on a case. This doesn't stop lawyers from trying to emotionally manipulate the jury in practice, of course, and such appeals will sometimes succeed. But to say that they are supposed to give any weight to emotion in a proceeding in the first place is wrong. This also goes for judges. They are meant to examine evidence and come to a verdict. The discussion on their professional opinions also makes no sense to me. The argument goes that appeals to emotion are perfectly acceptable so long as someone has experience in a field when it comes to the discussion of human rights. How does this work? If I become a cop tomorrow will my emotional arguments be suddenly valid, or do I need to put in a minimum of two weeks before they become valid? Do I just need a degree for it to matter? [QUOTE=Govna;51172626]Other people have. I was speaking in reference to them. They've done it in this thread, they've done it in other threads. And their opinion is stupid. Again, it comes from the fact that they have no first-hand experience dealing with dangerous individuals. They've got no hands-on education with this subject, nor do they have a formal education with it either. In other words, they just don't know what they're talking about. How do you reconcile this mindset with the people who disagree with you that are on your side (against the death penalty I mean)? They claim it's torture and that it's inhumane. I'm trying to get a feel for your thought process here.[/quote] My thought process is entirely pragmatic. Some would argue that solitary confinement is torture, but we don't care about human rights in our discussion because some dude with a piece of paper somewhere said it wasn't so whatever, so I won't go into discussing possible alternatives here. All I know is that if even one person gets innocently put down, that's too many. That risk is too great. I also know that the legal proceedings for passing down judgement are exceedingly expensive compared to lifetime incarceration. So putting someone in a box somewhere where they can no longer harm anybody appears to be much less risky and costly than execution with the possibility (however remote that may be) that they may be innocent. And if a person is innocent and in solitary they can be released and then sue the state for damages, whereas if it's an execution there's no undo button on that. [QUOTE=Govna;51172626]They're not "weird edge cases", they're perfect examples of why this idea you brought up that "once they're convicted and imprisoned, they're no longer a danger" is complete nonsense. It's not uncommon for them to attack other people inside prison (inmates as well as staff members), to tear shit up and cause problems for no other reason than because they can, etc. I specifically mentioned cases with escapees because that's the worst case scenario, that they break out and start hurting innocent people again, and because it destroys the idea that they won't ever be a problem again. It's by no means the only critique of that argument, because as I also just said there's all the instances of them doing terrible things in prison that proves they are in fact still a threat. It boils down to this: if they're alive, then they are a threat; if they're dead, then it's impossible for them to be a threat. The idea though that just because they're locked up they're no longer a threat is ridiculous however.[/quote] Ditto above, but also this is not a problem that only relates to people who partake in heinous crimes. The argument is that people in prison can be violent or can attempt escape... What if this is someone who is a repeat offender, maybe a seasoned robber or something, but otherwise didn't murder anybody? What if they get violent and rebel aghast the staff? What if they attack another inmate? These are not problems relating to capital punishment (unless you believe that we should be much, much more lax on administering capital punishment), but problems related to the current prison system itself. It relates to our currently fucked up prison system, our inability to give prison guards the tools they need to protect themselves(it took a prison guard being stabbed to death to give guards protective vests even after the union has been asking for it for a long time before that, for example), and it relates with the treatment of our prisoners. This is such a complex and multifaceted discussion that capital punishment doesn't really relate to it in any meaningful capacity. All this discussion to me says that we need to rethink our prison system. I don't have the answers, but I don't believe that the failings of our prison system justify the use of capital punishment. [QUOTE=Govna;51172626]It actually doesn't happen as often as you and other people seem to think, and that's because (like I pointed out the first time) it takes a lot to go from being charged with a crime to being sentenced to death. In fact, if you look through public criminal records of people who were recently executed or recently sentenced and are currently awaiting execution, you'll find that they usually have a long, well-established criminal background. That's because (strange as it may sound to you and your ilk) the United States doesn't believe in handing out the death penalty like it's not a big deal, and this has especially been true since the introduction of modern investigative forensic techniques. There are historical examples of innocent people being executed, but the idea that this is happening all the time today is bullshit, and the reason why it's not happening all the time is thanks to (again) advanced, modern investigative techniques.[/quote] It doesn't happen as often as I think... So you agree that wrongful executions can and do happen. Are these cases considered acceptable losses on the war on crime? Is this possibility, however remote, worth the risk? [QUOTE=Govna;51172626]Sure, I mean I'm having fun with this. Not only do you not understand that our justice system isn't run like it's being administrated by a bunch of fucking Vulcans/emotionless robots, you also don't know how capital punishment sentencing works, the problems with incarcerating dangerous individuals, all the resources that have to be diverted into caring for those same dangerous individuals, etc. You have no first-hand experience with any of this stuff (cleanup and all that basic shit aside that I talked about earlier with regards to the crimes themselves, you don't even have experience with the logistical side of things-- especially incarceration), so you truthfully don't know what you're talking about... and yet you're still arguing what we should and shouldn't be doing. That's quite entertaining. I know the people who actually deal with this stuff for a living find it just as amusing when people who don't know anything about it start lecturing about it. You could be a politician with that kind of behavior lol.[/QUOTE] Basically just rehashes of everything said above but with an added dose of condescension and holier-than-thou smugness. Just a bunch of appeal to authority with no attempt to rationalize it past "Someone smart said this so it must be true". Not worth discussing.
[QUOTE=Govna;51173003]We've hit a wall with psychopathy, and there is no effective treatment available for it. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Causes"]There's not even a consensus among experts on what causes it[/URL]. Psychopaths tend not to seek treatment, most even when they're examined forcefully don't [I]want[/I] to be treated moreover (they're fine with being the way they are, even when it comes at our expense), and what treatments we do have (experimental medications as well as traditional therapy techniques) can actually make them worse off than before. It's an immensely complex condition because of the genetic, environmental, and physical influences that can be responsible for it, and we simply do not know how to deal with it. We can't with what's available currently, and in all likelihood, [B]we won't be able to for decades[/B].[/QUOTE] Then lets put more focus into it, and the faster we get there. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A"]Walls are meant to be teared down.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Govna;51173003]We've hit a wall with psychopathy, and there is no effective treatment available for it. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Causes]There's not even a consensus among experts on what causes it[/url]. Psychopaths tend not to seek treatment, most even when they're examined forcefully don't [i]want[/i] to be treated moreover (they're fine with being the way they are, even when it comes at our expense), and what treatments we do have (experimental medications as well as traditional therapy techniques) can actually make them worse off than before. It's an immensely complex condition because of the genetic, environmental, and physical influences that can be responsible for it, and we simply do not know how to deal with it. We can't with what's available currently, and in all likelihood, we won't be able to for decades. [...] Psychopathy is a well-researched phenomenon.[/QUOTE] Dude, what. You just wrote a fairly detailed explanation on how we don't know squat shit and definitely need more research on psychopathy and psychology in general, and then immediately followed up by saying it's well researched?
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;51172227]From the Scully thread. That constitutes as putting him back into the normal society, doesn't it? And before you go "oh but that's from another child murderer thread", his opinions remain the same every time.[/QUOTE] Wow you didn't even try to understand what he said lol.
They didn't in that thread either
[QUOTE=Govna;51172626]No, I'm stating fact for fact that this is what goes on with them. And this is how our justice system works. Juries are not meant to function like emotionally-devoid robots; I don't know where people are getting this idea from. Judges are not meant to function like this either. Cops, lawyers, etc. also do not work this way. Strange as it may seem, human beings have emotions, these emotions are perfectly natural, and they are also perfectly relevant and worthy of consideration when it comes to how our society operates and how we react under controlled circumstances-- especially when it comes to passing sentencing for heinous crimes (heinous crimes are in fact legally defined, FYI, even though they're subjective).[/QUOTE] I think you're forgetting that reactions being natural doesn't make them necessarily righteous and that there are plenty of natural reactions that are also pretty morally ugly. You know, like rape and murder. Also, what are you going to say if a hypothetical juror's natural reaction to this is that this dude shouldn't be publicly hanged? Not everyone shares the same mindset as you and is just hiding their true emotions.
[QUOTE=Daddy-of-war;51172638] Or keep him locked up, so he can live a comfortable life in a cell with 3 meals a day, and medical care. [/QUOTE] Just a note for future discussions but when you say this it makes it really obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;51170864]Or you can see it as the taxes going to keeping society safe? Maybe you should complain about the flaws of the justice system before you start advocating using it for systematic killing.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's precisely what I'm doing.
Wrong thread, my bad.
[QUOTE=Skerion;51173593]I think you're forgetting that reactions being natural doesn't make them necessarily righteous and that there are plenty of natural reactions that are also pretty morally ugly. You know, like rape and murder. Also, what are you going to say if a hypothetical juror's natural reaction to this is that this dude shouldn't be publicly hanged? Not everyone shares the same mindset as you and is just hiding their true emotions.[/QUOTE] It doesn't make them necessarily wrong either. Rape and murder aren't natural reactions to an ordinary person. Anger over rape and murder being committed is a natural reaction, and that's because most human beings have an innate moral compass that tells them, "Hey that's wrong to do to people." A species can't survive if it's running around raping and killing itself all the time, and we've evolved to reflect this (study the psychology of conscience). Anger over a child being raped and murdered is also a perfectly natural reaction, and there's nothing wrong about that either. So long as you don't let things devolve to the point of where you're advocating running out and lynching people on the spot without first examining the case and the evidence (you know, proper legal proceedings), then there's no problem with wanting him dead. The point being that feeling emotions is fine and perfectly natural (again, human beings are not meant to be numb robots, and if you feel numb, then you need help), and the only thing that matters is not letting them dictate [i]everything[/i] you do. But in a case like this where the person clearly committed the crime, where it's a heinous crime, where there's a distinct line between right and wrong and his actions clearly cross way over that line, then it's fine to factor them in to determining what his sentence should be. And I wouldn't care at all if your hypothetical juror felt that way and was apprehensive about the death penalty. Jurors don't have the power to determine the sentence, they can only make recommendations to the judge. Those recommendations mean nothing however; the judge is the final word. Fortunately, there's a lot of judges out there who don't feel that people like this should be pointlessly kept alive-- they'd rather execute them and be done with the matter forever. [QUOTE=Trebgarta;51173056]This means we need to do more research[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51173109]Dude, what. You just wrote a fairly detailed explanation on how we don't know squat shit and definitely need more research on psychopathy and psychology in general, and then immediately followed up by saying it's well researched?[/QUOTE] The problem isn't information about psychopathy itself-- we've got mountains of data about symptoms, possible genetic links, connections between it and brain damage/physical anomalies in the brain's structure, environmental factors common for the development of psychopathy, etc.; the problem is that (again) we've hit a wall because the technologies and observational techniques we've used to gather all this data about it simply are not capable of doing anything more than they already have at this time. So what it actually means is that we need new neuroimaging technologies, new technologies and techniques to study biochemistry and molecular biology, we need to learn more about genetics and environment influencing personality development (as well as how they influence each other), etc. That's the wall we've run into: we're not that sophisticated yet, and we're probably not going to be for a very long time. You say keep studying it, but that's not going to reveal anything we don't already know because (again) we have yet to overcome this wall that's keeping us stuck where we are. The stuff that's being done with medications for it is basically the equivalent of throwing shit at a wall and hoping something worthwhile will materialize out of it. Nothing has. In fact, again, it's often made patients worse than they were before. If you all know something we don't about some new neuroimaging technique or whatever, please share. It'll be a massive revelation for our corner of the scientific community. We know that psychopathy is a really complex condition, so you also have to consider the possibility that it can't be fixed. We can't fix it today, that's already a given, but we also may never have the technology and medical knowledge to fix it. There's no drugs or therapies that can just magically give a person empathy and make their personality pull a 180; again, emotional states and personalities develop and function in a bit more complicated fashion than that. People are always searching for that mythical elixir or that eureka moment that will change everything and make anything possible, but oftentimes reality doesn't work that way, and that elixir or that moment simply does not exist because it cannot exist. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]You literally said it though.[/quote] You said this: [quote]Then go on to argue that the poor people who deal with this shit and clean up corpses and patrol prisons and treat victims and arrange funerals are so sickened by it, so they believe that public execution by hanging . . . Your argument is also based in the idea that these people must be killed in order to protect the sanctity of our society[/quote] I never said that they were going to be in favor of publicly executing people, nor that I was in favor of publicly executing people the way that you implied with that post, so I responded with this: [quote][b]Nowhere did I say that they would be for a public execution, that's a nonsense claim by you. I said that they would be in favor of capital punishment[/b]. And no, for the record, you're wrong to claim that public execution "goes against the Constitution"; historically, we executed people in public (like every other country at the time did) well into the 1930s. We stopped because it was considered to be in bad taste, Kentucky being the last state deciding to conduct executions privately (interestingly, the Governor of Kentucky regretted this afterwards). But that's totally irrelevant to my point since I'm not even saying this guy should be executed publicly, and I made sure to be very clear about that in my original post-- so unless you just have trouble reading, not sure where you picked up the idea that I was in favor of having him executed publicly from.[/quote] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]It's old, but not tired.[/quote] It's both. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]The idea that rights can be "revoked" is utter nonsense, they aren't privileges. The idea is that "rights can be revoked when a perpetrator shows a disregard for the rights of the others." What rights does this entail? The right to a fair trial, the right to free speech? Or is the right to live not even a right at all, so it can't be revoked to begin with? So then it doesn't matter if they kill? If I say that the rights of one who disregards the rights of others are now null and void, are my rights void as well? I'm committing the same crime as him. The more you think about this the more confusing this line of reasoning becomes.[/quote] It really isn't that confusing, you're just trying to make it more complex than it is. If you commit a crime, and you're convicted, you can have your rights revoked. We do it all the time, and it's perfectly legal and justified. The right to vote, for example, does not exist for inmates and convicts out on probation or parole; they are ineligible to vote. That right has been revoked for them. I don't know how to spell it out any more clearly. If you want a more extreme example, the Fourth Amendment-- the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure-- is revoked for prisoners as well. Staff and officials are allowed to monitor and regulate the movement of inmates, watch them in their cells, they can freely search their cells as they please. [url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/468/517]The Supreme Court has upheld this decision in fact[/url]. Rights [i]can[/i] be revoked for prisoners, they can be transformed into privileges, that's how the system works. Sorry, but again, you have no idea what you're talking about here when you say that this is "nonsense". This is how it fucking works lol, as any educated person will tell you. You may disagree, but you are wrong, and your disagreements do not change how the system functions. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]"Juries are not meant to function like emotionally-devoid robots; I don't know where people are getting this idea from." This is actually entirely wrong. Juries are supposed to only consider the facts when deliberating on a case. This doesn't stop lawyers from trying to emotionally manipulate the jury in practice, of course, and such appeals will sometimes succeed. But to say that they are supposed to give any weight to emotion in a proceeding in the first place is wrong. This also goes for judges. They are meant to examine evidence and come to a verdict.[/quote] Juries exist to render impartial verdicts, impartial meaning free from prejudice and bias. That's it. For purposes relevant to this discussion (meaning I'm excluding a lecture about civil juries), we have criminal juries and civil juries in the United States. Criminal juries consist of grand juries, which decide whether or not trials should be held (they have no power to convict, it's a yes or no question decision over indictments and trials for them), and petit juries, which are the standard juries probably most people think about in a situation like this that determine whether or not the defendant (the person indicted and brought to trial) is guilty of violating the law. Juries consider the evidence when deliberating, and on that note, opinions (including emotional statements) are relevant and admissible as testimony. This is exactly what [url=http://victimsofcrime.org/help-for-crime-victims/get-help-bulletins-for-crime-victims/victim-impact-statements]victim impact statements[/url] are lol; victims are allowed to give their opinions and descriptions of... -emotional damages caused -physical damages caused (with regards to the above two things, they can also give descriptions of medical and psychological treatments they've had to undergo as a result) -financial costs inflicted -their views on the crime and the offender -their views on the appropriate sentence for the offender (etc.) ...for the court to hear (also parole boards). Again, I don't know how to make this any clearer: courts do not have to function as emotionless entities, which is exactly the reason why opinions and testimony about emotions and victim impacts are admissible in the first place lol. Your argument is complete shit, and it just continues to prove how little you know about our [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]The discussion on their professional opinions also makes no sense to me. The argument goes that appeals to emotion are perfectly acceptable so long as someone has experience in a field when it comes to the discussion of human rights.[/quote] A statement about emotional impact as evidence, which is what this is about, is not an appeal to emotion-- not legally, not in a general philosophical sense either. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]How does this work? If I become a cop tomorrow will my emotional arguments be suddenly valid, or do I need to put in a minimum of two weeks before they become valid? Do I just need a degree for it to matter?[/quote] Why would becoming a cop [i]tomorrow[/i] suddenly make your arguments valid? Why would two weeks of working as a cop make your arguments valid? What's the logic behind these standards you're setting? It's clear you're having trouble here understanding the distinction between somebody who is a seasoned veteran, as in someone who has a significant amount of valuable experience accumulated over a period of time, and someone who does not; between someone who knows vs. someone who does not know. This kind of thinking reminds me of a student who thinks he knows better than a qualified, educated, and proven teacher. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]My thought process is entirely pragmatic. Some would argue that solitary confinement is torture, but we don't care about human rights in our discussion because some dude with a piece of paper somewhere said it wasn't so whatever, so I won't go into discussing possible alternatives here.[/quote] Okay. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]All I know is that if even one person gets innocently put down, that's too many. That risk is too great. I also know that the legal proceedings for passing down judgement are exceedingly expensive compared to lifetime incarceration. So putting someone in a box somewhere where they can no longer harm anybody appears to be much less risky and costly than execution with the possibility (however remote that may be) that they may be innocent. And if a person is innocent and in solitary they can be released and then sue the state for damages, whereas if it's an execution there's no undo button on that.[/quote] Actually, death row winds up being cheaper than lifetime incarceration. Up front costs are higher, but long-term costs are significantly cheaper because your average death row inmate simply spends less time incarcerated before execution than an inmate imprisoned for life does; then there's all the medical care costs, upkeep costs, etc. that have to be factored into this as well which say the same thing. And the innocence argument is inconsistent with the facts. Again, in general it takes a lot to wind up on death row, including a long, well-established criminal background. Forensic investigative techniques have also become so sophisticated that it's easier than ever before to exonerate innocent persons who are already incarcerated-- never mind simply making sure their case never makes it to trial, or if it does that they're not convicted. [url=http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#A.Innocence]We've known about this for a while now[/url]. [quote]A. THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT Great effort has been made in pretrial, trial, appeals, writ and clemency procedures to minimize the chance of an innocent being convicted, sentenced to death or executed. Since 1973, legal protections have been so extraordinary that 37% of all death row cases have been overturned for due process reasons or commuted. Indeed, inmates are six times more likely to get off death row by appeals than by execution. (“Capital Punishment 1995", BJS, 1996). And, in fact, many of those cases were overturned based on post conviction new laws, established by legislative or judicial decisions in other cases. Opponents claim that 69 "innocent" death row inmates have been released since 1973. ("Innocence and the Death Penalty", Death Penalty Information Center, July, 1997). Just a casual review, using the DPIC’s own case descriptions, reveals that of 39 cases reviewed (Sec. A, B, & C, pg. 12-21), that the DPIC offers no evidence of innocence in 29, or 78%, of those cases. Incredibly, the DPIC reviews "Recent Cases of Possible Mistaken Executions" (p 23-24), wherein they list the cases of Roger Keith Coleman, Leonel Herrera, and Jesse Jacobs - 3 cases which helped solidify the anti-death penalty movements penchant for lack of full disclosure and/or fraud. For the fourth case, therein, that of Coleman Wayne Gray, the DPIC makes no effort to claim innocence. Furthermore, the DPIC and most opponents fail to review that the role of clemency and appeals in such cases is to judge the merits of death row inmates claims regarding innocence and/or additional trial error. Indeed, the release of those 69 inmates proves that such procedures worked precisely, and often generously, as intended. Also contrary to opponents claims, clemency is used generously to grant mercy to death row murderers and to spare inmates whose guilt has come into question. In fact, 135 death row inmates have been spared by clemency or commutation from 1973-95 (ibid.). This represents 43% of the total of those executed during that time - a remarkable record of consideration and mercy. . . . D. THE COST OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE VS THE DEATH PENALTY Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ("LWOP") at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases. *table* (1) The $34,200 is conservative, if TIME Magazine's (2/7/94) research is accurate. TIME found that, nationwide, the average cell cost is $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr. (as of 12/95). Opponents claim that LWOP should replace the DP. Therefore, any cost calculations should be based specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed the exact same category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are valid only if you compare the costs of DP-equivalent LWOP cases to the cost of DP cases. The $34,200/yr. cell cost assumes that only 20% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in maximum security cost cells and that 80% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in average cost cells. A very conservative estimate. The $60,000/yr., for those on death row, assumes that such cells will average a cost equal to 80% of the $75,000/yr. for the most expensive maximum security cells. A very high estimate. Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant. (2) U.S. Vital Statistics Abstract, 1994 and Capital Punishment 1995, BJS 1996. (3) Annual cost increases are based upon: 1) historical increases in prison costs, including judicial decisions regarding prison conditions, and the national inflation rate; 2) medical costs, including the immense cost of geriatric care, associated with real LWOP sentences; 3) injury or death to the inmate by violence; 4) injury or death to others caused by the inmate (3 and 4 anticipate no DP and that prisoners, not fearing additional punishment, other than loss of privileges, may increase the likelihood of violence. One could make the same assumptions regarding those on death row. The difference is that death row inmates will average 6 years incarceration vs. 50 years projected for LWOP); 5) the risk and the perceived risk of escape; and 6) the justifiable lack of confidence by the populace in our legislators, governors, parole boards and judges, i.e. a violent inmate will be released upon society. (4) $75,000 for trial and appeals cost, for DP-equivalent LWOP cases, assumes that the DP is not an option. We believe this cost estimate is very low. We have over-estimated that DP cases will cost twenty times more, on average, or $1.5 million. Our exaggerated estimate states that the DP will have twenty times more investigation cost, defense and prosecution cost, including voir dire, court time, guilt/innocence stage, sentencing stage and appellate review time and cost than DP equivalent LWOP cases. Even though we have greatly exaggerated the cost of DP cases, DP cases still prove to be significantly less expensive, over time, than the DP equivalent LWOP cases. (5) 6 years on death row, prior to execution, reflects the new habeas corpus reform laws, at both the state and federal levels. Some anti-death penalty groups speculate that such time may actually become only 4 years. If so, then DP cases would cost even that much less than the DP equivalent LWOP cases. However, the average time on death row, for those executed from 1973-1994, was 8 years (Capital Punishment 1994, BJS, 1995). Therefore, 6 years seems more likely. Even using the 8 year average, the DP equivalent LWOP cases are still $1 million more expensive than their DP counterparts ($2 million @ 2% annual increase). One of the USA’s largest death rows is in Texas, with 442 inmates, of which 229, or 52%, have been on death row over 6 years - 44, or 10%, have been on for over 15 years, 8 for over 20 years. 60 inmates, nationwide, have been on death row over 18 years. (as of 12/96). NOTE - 10/19/00 - We received a post which located a flaw within our cost evaluation. The reader stated that we should "present value" all the costs of both a life sentence and the death penalty and that, if we do so, a life sentence is cheaper than a death sentence. Using the numbers in our analysis, such is a good point. It should be noted that we were intentionally generous in minimizing life costs within our analysis. Please review we have not included 1)the recent studies on geriatric care at about $70,000/year/prisoner in today's dollars , or 2) the recent explosion of Hepatitis C and AIDS within the prison system, or 3) the cost savings to jurisdictions based on plea bargains to maximum life sentences, which can only occur due solely to the presence of the death penalty. Such should accrue as a cost benefit of the death penalty, and 4) none of the above have been included in our cost analysis. All of which either increase the cost of a life sentence or accrue as a cost credit to the death penalty, and 5) And we have been extremely generous to the anti death penalty position with our numbers to begin with. I suspect that an average life without parole sentence costs closer to $150,000-$300,000, for all pre-trial, trial and appeals, as opposed to the $75,000 used in our study.[/quote] You're also failing to account for the possibility that they'll be sentenced to life imprisonment and never be released even if they are innocent; they'll die inside. Why is this outcome more acceptable? And you have not refuted (because you can't) the fact that even when they're locked up that they still are a risk to others. They are. I gave examples proving that they're still dangerous, there's plenty of other examples you can Google for yourself where they hurt and/or killed other inmates and staff members when they were incarcerated. Incarceration does not guarantee anything about their ability to harm and kill others, as anybody who works in a prison will tell you. Shit happens. Sometimes they get out. Sometimes opportunities come up for them to do things to other people. Unless you actually lock them inside of a box and don't ever bother caring for them or checking on them (something which will never happen FYI), then there's always this risk. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]Ditto above, but also this is not a problem that only relates to people who partake in heinous crimes. The argument is that people in prison can be violent or can attempt escape... What if this is someone who is a repeat offender, maybe a seasoned robber or something, but otherwise didn't murder anybody? What if they get violent and rebel aghast the staff? What if they attack another inmate? These are not problems relating to capital punishment (unless you believe that we should be much, much more lax on administering capital punishment), but problems related to the current prison system itself. It relates to our currently fucked up prison system, our inability to give prison guards the tools they need to protect themselves(it took a prison guard being stabbed to death to give guards protective vests even after the union has been asking for it for a long time before that, for example), and it relates with the treatment of our prisoners. This is such a complex and multifaceted discussion that capital punishment doesn't really relate to it in any meaningful capacity.[/quote] It does relate to it. We're talking specifically about death row inmates here and problems with them relating to violence. Violent prisoners in general should not be tolerated because of the risk they pose to innocent people, both in the general population and as far as workers in the prisons they're incarcerated in are concerned, as well as other inmates. If that means segregating the lower risk ones from the rest and imposing harsh restrictions on their ability to move and interact with other people, fine. I don't find that inhumane, but lots of people think solitary is wrong (not that their opinion matters much anyway). The higher risk ones, the ones who are in there in the first place for particularly brutal offenses and heinous acts of violence, should not be given any tolerance or consideration whatsoever; get rid of them. And for the lower risk ones, there should be no tolerance for violent behavior either. We're not talking hypotheticals about robbers and shit like you're trying to, because this should be a reality-based discussion. Even if we were, there should be very little mercy extended to a person like that, and there should be absolutely none for one who kills or attacks a staff member. If you don't want to be punished for it, my suggestion would be don't do it in the first place; again, it's really not a difficult social contract to grasp. Don't attack guards and staff members, and you won't be killed. It's basically the same principle with cops: don't kill a cop, or else the others won't have any qualms about killing you. It's a perfectly fair and sensible mindset to have. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]All this discussion to me says that we need to rethink our prison system. I don't have the answers, but I don't believe that the failings of our prison system justify the use of capital punishment.[/quote] Well like you said, you don't have the answers. So thanks for admitting that at least. Makes this argument easier. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]It doesn't happen as often as I think... So you agree that wrongful executions can and do happen. Are these cases considered acceptable losses on the war on crime? Is this possibility, however remote, worth the risk?[/quote] Have happened in the past. Just as there have been prisoners who were innocent who have died while incarcerated under life sentences before. Is that an acceptable outcome? The link Trebgarta posted to a list of exonerated prisoners is interesting because it demonstrates the rift between executions before and after the introduction of proper, modern forensic investigative techniques (notice the numbers prior to 2000 for recent examples, and how many were convicted back in the 1970s and 1980s). DNA analysis has done wonders for the criminal justice system, for obvious reasons. Surveillance methods have also improved. Also, refer to the JFA study excerpt posted above. A lot of exonerations haven't even been granted because innocence was proven, they've been granted because of legal technicalities that have excused the convicted. We reserve capital punishment sparingly for a reason, especially today, and that's exactly how things ought to be. You can look at a list of persons currently sentenced to die and awaiting execution today to see this for yourself, as can anybody else reading this. [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51173027]Basically just rehashes of everything said above but with an added dose of condescension and holier-than-thou smugness. Just a bunch of appeal to authority with no attempt to rationalize it past "Someone smart said this so it must be true". Not worth discussing.[/QUOTE] So basically everything I got from you in the beginning and then some. Sorry if you find actual authority figures (as in experts) on the subject worth considering, but I really don't care, and neither do they. I especially don't care because, and you admitted it yourself, you "don't have the answers". You also apparently know very little about how rights work, how they can be revoked, how courts and proceedings operate, what constitutes evidence, etc.... So yeah, with all that in mind, it really isn't worth discussing anymore.
Obviously the chances of this guy getting rehabilitated are hard to spot even with a microscope, but why not - instead of using a bunch of money on a billion years of appeals and sitting on death row - you let him learn to repair bicycles or whatever, and let him work in prison. Offer some low pay to buy snacks, better food, tvs whatever. Sure, you can sit and be angry that he's getting "better" treatment than many Americans, but maybe that problem actually lies elsewhere *wink wink*. The economically sound decision isn't to just let him sit in his fat ass all day, at least. Unless you can't get over your "let's hang him publically"-revenge fantasy, I don't see what's so bad about it. Also holds the door open of him (or anyone else who would otherwise get the death penalty) actually being found not guilty down the line if new evidence or methods come up. Basically the only argument you need against the death penalty is that there will always be a certain number of innocents being murdered as a result. A small one, perhaps, but is it really okay to murder someone innocent just to satisfy your lust for revenge?
I wonder if they will find a website to live-stream it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.