[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651358]
i was demodded due to inactivity.[/QUOTE]
67,961 posts. Time between your last mod action and your own ban = 4 months. VNL is more inactive than you and still has mod and her last mod action was 7 months ago.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("off topic?" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651268]
regardless of the emotion involved: killing for killing is not correct. there are no two ways about it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah definitely not stating opinions as facts.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51651363]pragmatism is one approach to ethical issues[/QUOTE]
Thats true, but I'd argue that determining the fate of a human life on the basis of how much taxpayer money their punishment will cost is the wrong way to go about justice.
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;51651385]Yeah definitely not stating opinions as facts.[/QUOTE]
Could you just mentally add 'in my opinion' to the start of every post in this thread so the discussion can carry on please.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651313]then i would argue you have an issue not dissimilar to Dylann's.[/QUOTE]
And you'd be wrong. That's a common overdramatic gesture to wheel out in these debates, "Well then you're just as bad as he is!" Doesn't work that way. Until I go out and murder a bunch of innocent people for no reason, then no, I'm not as bad as he is. I mind my own business, I abide by the law, and I don't kill innocent people.
Your inability to distinguish right from wrong and innocence from guilt is disturbing, and I'm not sure we should be listening to you and your opinions with that in mind.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651313]also do you see how maybe disregarding the rest of the world and only seeing what happens in america of any importance might be a really narrow way of thinking?[/QUOTE]
This is not only an overly-simplistic view of things, it's also presumptuous as hell. How do you know how I feel about law and order in Saudi Arabia? How do you know that I "only see what happens in America to be of any importance"? My point was simply that Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with this conversation. It was stupid for you to try and drag it into it in the first place.
We're talking about Dylann Roof, what he did, and his sentence. That's it.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51651345]Again, why is taxpayer money a primary concern in this? Why are we taking a pragmatic approach to an ethical issue?[/QUOTE]
because the ethical issue doesnt exist in a vacuum. It will ultimately cost more money to feed and house Roof while giving him psychological services than just killing him and being done with him.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51651389]Thats true, but I'd argue that determining the fate of a human life on the basis of how much taxpayer money their punishment will cost is the wrong way to go about justice.[/QUOTE]
as long as resources are limited, the taxpayer cost must figure into the discussion. though it may not be necessarily palatable to discuss it in such ways, that does not change the reality of the situation
[QUOTE=Govna;51651398]And you'd be wrong. That's a common overdramatic gesture to wheel out in these debates, "Well then you're just as bad as he is!" Doesn't work that way. Until I go out and murder a bunch of innocent people for no reason, then no, I'm not as bad as he is. I mind my own business, I abide by the law, and I don't kill innocent people.
Your inability to distinguish right from wrong and innocence from guilt is disturbing.
[/QUOTE]
it's a good thing I didn't say you're as bad as him then isn't it? i said you have a problem that isn't dissimilar as his. i didn't say you were guilty of murder or as bad as him. but i see some inklings of a common line of thought.
[QUOTE=Govna;51651398]This is not only an overly-simplistic view of things, it's also presumptuous as hell. How do you know how I feel about law and order in Saudi Arabia? How do you know that I "only see what happens in America to be of any importance"? [/QUOTE]
because you said that?
[QUOTE=Govna;51651289]I don't care what Saudi Arabia does. It's their country, and it's their business.[/QUOTE]
if that's not what you think, cool. i misinterpreted your words. but you can see how that happened, right?
[QUOTE=Arc Nova;51651383]67,961 posts. Time between your last mod action and your own ban = 4 months. VNL is more inactive than you and still has mod and her last mod action was 7 months ago.[/QUOTE]
if u want to accuse the mod team of being dishonest then it's your call
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651433]because you said that?[/QUOTE]
could you show me where, i think i missed it
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51651428]because the ethical issue doesnt exist in a vacuum. It will ultimately cost more money to feed and house Roof while giving him psychological services than just killing him and being done with him.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51651429]as long as resources are limited, the taxpayer cost must figure into the discussion. though it may not be necessarily palatable to discuss it in such ways, that does not change the reality of the situation[/QUOTE]
The cost that he and other death row prisoners is ultimately insignificant and hardly worth factoring into the discussion. Even less when considering that capital punishment also has costs associated with it.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51651428]because the ethical issue doesnt exist in a vacuum. It will ultimately cost more money to feed and house Roof while giving him psychological services than just killing him and being done with him.[/QUOTE]
no, the cost for death row is [I]really fucking expensive[/I], [URL="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty"]even with the system we have now[/URL], and a rehabilitation focus prison [URL="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/inmates-194495-prison-programs.html"]would actually cut prison cost significantly[/URL]
so if money's your concern, then you should be supporting rehab
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651433]it's a good thing I didn't say you're as bad as him then isn't it? i said you have a problem that isn't dissimilar as his. i didn't say you were guilty of murder or as bad as him. but i see some inklings of a common line of thought.[/quote]
What's the point of bringing that idea up then if you aren't trying to argue that I'm just as bad as he is. "You aren't dissimilar to him" is a very disingenuous way to word things. Also, are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist? I ask because you're seeing things that aren't actually there, and I seriously hope you don't have any power to be making decisions about people's mental health states, personalities, etc.
What's it like hunting for similarities between mass murderers who have been sentenced to die for their crimes and random people on the Internet anyway?
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651433]because you said that?[/quote]
Because they have no relevance lol.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651433]if that's not what you think, cool. i misinterpreted your words. but you can see how that happened, right?[/QUOTE]
I'm still more caught up on the fact that you're trying to bring them into this conversation when they haven't got any relevance here. Again, we're talking about Dylann Roof, his crime, and his sentence-- that's it.
[editline]11th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Blazedol;51651473]no, the cost for death row is [I]really fucking expensive[/I], [URL="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty"]even with the system we have now[/URL], and a rehabilitation focus prison [URL="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/inmates-194495-prison-programs.html"]would actually cut prison cost significantly[/URL]
so if money's your concern, then you should be supporting rehab[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#D.Cost]This isn't actually true when compared against life without parole[/url]. LWOP ends up costing more in general because prisoners can easily spend decades there (compared against most death row inmates; the cases you hear about where they've been awaiting execution for 15 or 20 years are exceptional) before the die of old age, and then there's tens of thousands of dollars in expenses accumulated as they require geriatric care.
Not that money should be the primary concern of the criminal justice system anyway. It should be about maintaining law and order.
My stance on the issue is fairly simple, honestly: Nobody should be allowed to kill anybody else unless it is to directly prevent other deaths. (eg shooting someone who is charging at someone else with a knife or assassinating a terrorist leader who cannot be made to submit). I think we should be very careful with who we say it's 'okay' to kill, and I don't think we should be murdering people who have been rendered effectively harmless to the public through incarceration.
[QUOTE=Govna;51651289]Except it's not. I don't care what Saudi Arabia does. It's their country, and it's their business. They're not relevant here.
Meanwhile, as an American, I'm fine with the execution of mass murderers. It does not bother me in the slightest to see Dylann Roof die.[/QUOTE]
You won't see it. By the time he dies your kids could have gone through multiple schools, and you won't care or know. He might as well rot in prison for the rest of his life.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651313]then i would argue you have an issue not dissimilar to Dylann's.[/QUOTE]
I think this kind of reasoning is short-sighted and fails to see the importance of social constructs in how people perceive death.
The reason there even [I]is[/I] a debate regarding the death penalty is because we spend our lives being told that murder is wrong, so with a little bit of critical thinking it takes someone all of two seconds to see the connection between an execution and murder, and that's how opinions regarding the death penalty are built.
Being apathetic to death isn't some kind of moral or mental issue. It's in rivalry with how we are conditioned to hate the concept of people killing each other, but that doesn't make it an "issue" by default.
I think the whole issue with a lot of people advocating the whole "death penalty is never wrong" concept is that they fail to see this entire aspect of our minds that we only see murder as wrong because we spend our lives in an environment that antagonizes the idea, [I]not[/I] because it's natural for us to hate murder.
[QUOTE=Govna;51651343]Two things:
1) Just because a person is in prison does not mean that they are "no longer a danger". They can still harm people who work in that prison and who have to take care of them, they can harm other inmates, they can even escape and harm others in the process. A lot of people seem to have trouble understanding this for some reason, including you. "Is there a difference if someone's alive in a cell or executed?" Is that a serious question?
2) We execute them to reaffirm the value of the life of their innocent victims, and to reaffirm the value of civilized human life in general (in other words, normal people who don't run out and commit indiscriminate mass murder). We do it to demonstrate that there are severe consequences for killing innocent people. We do it to ensure that the perpetrator will never be an issue to anybody ever again; once they're dead you don't have to worry about them being a threat, you don't have to waste time and resources caring for them, etc. We also do it as a comforting mechanism for the families of victims, to show them that the person who killed their loved ones is gone forever.
The prison system was designed to separate the problematic individuals from the ordinary, law-abiding ones. It exists to rehabilitate and also to punish offenders.[/QUOTE]
In response to those arguments:
1) People take jobs in high security prisons with the expectations of being able to handle dangerous inmates. They need the skills to be able to handle dangerous inmates, and while injuries do happen, it's part of the job in dealing with criminals. Being a prison guard is the same sort of job as being a police officer. They are [B]not[/B] civilians. You take the job knowing the risks, but you also want to benefit society by keeping things under control. Perhaps, if you feel this strongly about the issue, you could argue for putting all the money blown in the death penalty appeal process towards R&D for better means of injury prevention (protective uniforms, therapies and programs to understand someone's violent tendencies, etc) in effort to make the guards' jobs easier. Or should we just execute everyone in maximum security prisons so the guards don't have to worry anymore? There really isn't any way around working with dangerous people.
2) In response to fugitives, this is very rare. People generally don't escape maximum security prisons where such dangerous criminals are kept. [URL="http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/12/the-murky-math-of-counting-prison-escapes.html"]This article [/URL]states that there are only 10.5 escapes to each 10,000 inmates. Most escapes are among minimum security prisons and a lot of reports are inmates not showing up to their jobs. And prison escape has been on a downfall for years.
3) "We also do it as a comforting mechanism for the families of victims, to show them that the person who killed their loved ones is gone forever."
But this is not what the justice system is designed for. It tosses money towards an unneeded extreme. Ending a life as an effort to comfort someone is basically the definition of revenge. Revenge is defined as: to inflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong done to (someone else). It plays on emotion, which was your first argument against being anti-death penalty. It's applying an overemotional reaction to the situation. And that's contradicting your previous argument, the point I was trying to make.
5) ""Is there a difference if someone's alive in a cell or executed?" Is that a serious question?"
Yes, it is. I'm asking how it matter, because either way, they're away from everyone else. I'd rather you try asking yourself "what's the difference if they can't hurt me or my loved ones in either state?"
numerous attempts have been made to civilise the act of execution and to dress it up in a great deal of legal garments and rituals which give it the superficial appearance of being distinct from just killing somebody. given that the justice system is not infallible i struggle to see why we should accept the risk of killing innocent people
effort has gone into expressly laying out how to conduct an execution, but ultimately there's no real difference between giving somebody a last meal, having a priest talk to them, and giving them a lethal injection and that of simply caving in their skull with a large rock
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51651611]numerous attempts have been made to civilise the act of execution and to dress it up in a great deal of legal garments and rituals which give it the superficial appearance of being distinct from just killing somebody. given that the justice system is not infallible i struggle to see why we should accept the risk of killing innocent people[/quote]
How about cases where there is literally no chance of a wrong sentence ?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51651611]effort has gone into expressly laying out how to conduct an execution, but ultimately there's no real difference between giving somebody a last meal, having a priest talk to them, and giving them a lethal injection and that of simply caving in their skull with a large rock[/QUOTE]
Psychology is a big enough thing that those things matter for everyone involved, more than you're claiming.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51651616]How about cases where there is literally no chance of a wrong sentence ?[/quote]
yet there's been numerous examples of innocent people falsely accused and executed?
[quote]Psychology is a big enough thing that those things matter for everyone involved, more than you're claiming.[/QUOTE]
you're still doing the same thing in the end. the only real difference is that these days people pretend (or try to pretend) that they aren't killing somebody
putting somebody in a chair and killing them from behind a wall with a button is not really more civilised no matter how much people claim that it is
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51651616]How about cases where there is literally no chance of a wrong sentence ?[/QUOTE]
the ends don't justify the means.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651433]
if u want to accuse the mod team of being dishonest then it's your call[/QUOTE]
nah im just saying you weren't very inactive at all
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51651635]yet there's been numerous examples of innocent people falsely accused and executed?[/quote]
Never said it wasn't the case. I'm just asking what your opinion would be of a situation where there is no doubt, if you're so willing to put emphasis on the usual doubt surrounding these situations.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51651635]you're still doing the same thing in the end. the only real difference is that these days people pretend (or try to pretend) that they aren't killing somebody[/QUOTE]
You do realize this is something that happens to literally anything that human beings do, right ? From locomotion to eating to sheltering.
[editline]11th January 2017[/editline]
There's good arguments for and against the death penalty but the problem I have with a lot of people being against the death penalty here is that they're basically just appealing to their own emotion without trying to think why they feel that way to begin with and lacking basic critical thinking.
I am glad I live in a country where stupid practices like the death penalty don't exist.
[quote=Ganerumo;51651616]How about cases where there is literally no chance of a wrong sentence ?[/quote]
As long as humans are involved, there are always going to be mistakes. It's not like no one innocent was ever killed by the death penalty, even with a lot of safety measures, which should be more than enough of a reason to abolish it. Prove that the death penalty is going to be infallible forever. If you can't prove it and still want the death penalty, it shows that you don't care about the possibility of someone being innocent.
[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;51651680][B]As long as humans are involved, there are always going to be mistakes.[/B] It's not like no one innocent was ever killed by the death penalty, even with a lot of safety measures, which should be more than enough of a reason to abolish it. Prove that the death penalty is going to be infallible forever. If you can't prove it and still want the death penalty, it shows that you don't care about possible innocents.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty hard to make a mistake regarding the guilt of Dylann Roof in the murder of nine people
Also I've said several times in the past (not necessarily in this thread) that I don't think the death penalty should even be considered if there's as little as an ounce of doubt. But in a situation with so many witnesses, hard evidence, confessions, so on and so forth, there is no mistake.
Dealing in absolutes is hardly ever going to work out for you and death penalty is no different. I think a lot of people who have argued against the concept as a whole have failed to see that repeatedly and are very quick to point fingers and accuse people of condoning the executions of anyone for anything.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51651656]Never said it wasn't the case. I'm just asking what your opinion would be of a situation where there is no doubt, if you're so willing to put emphasis on the usual doubt surrounding these situations.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that all sounds well and nice "oh yeah we totally know you did it, no doubt". But you've just made an exception to a rule. And with exceptions comes loopholes. And with loopholes, innocent people will eventually be sentenced to death unjustly.
How about we just don't kill prisoners, yeah? It's stupid expensive, does little to actually aid in the resolution of any crime and doesn't appear to work well as a deterrent any more so than a standard sentence as you're just going to sit on death row for decades contesting it even if there was 100% proof it was you.
Removing people from society should be more than enough to solve the problem of "we have a killer somewhere around here". Short of a jail break, they're not going anywhere any time soon.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51651685]It's pretty hard to make a mistake regarding the guilt of Dylann Roof in the murder of nine people[/QUOTE]
That's not even the point I was making, but at least you can be smug about your critical thinking. Who says you can be so sure about future cases? You have to write a law which says if someone deserves a death penalty or not. How can you be sure that the law you have written is going to be correctly applied in the future?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51651711]Yeah that all sounds well and nice "oh yeah we totally know you did it, no doubt". But you've just made an exception to a rule. And with exceptions comes loopholes. And with loopholes, innocent people will eventually be sentenced to death unjustly.
How about we just don't kill prisoners, yeah? It's stupid expensive, does little to actually aid in the resolution of any crime and doesn't appear to work well as a deterrent any more so than a standard sentence as you're just going to sit on death row for decades contesting it even if there was 100% proof it was you.
Removing people from society should be more than enough to solve the problem of "we have a killer somewhere around here". Short of a jail break, they're not going anywhere any time soon.[/QUOTE]
How about situations where the prisoner has expressed the will to die ? Something which has happened in the past ?
Also, bringing up the slippery slope fallacy is idiotic. I'm referring to a specific criteria and you're jumping the gun instantly.
[editline]11th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;51651716]That's not even the point I was making, but at least you can be smug about your critical thinking. Who says you can be so sure about future cases? You have to write a law which says if someone deserves a death penalty or not. How can you be sure that the law you have written is going to be correctly applied in the future?[/QUOTE]
Frankly if you need to rely on hypotheses instead of referring to very practical cases like this current one or [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/11324579/Belgian-rapist-and-murderer-to-be-put-to-death-by-lethal-injection.html]this one[/url] then you're already going way too far off-tracks with your argument and you need to rethink your strategy wholesale.
I think some of you are misreading all of this as some kind of asinine defense of the death penalty in its current state and as an overall concept when I'm really just criticizing your incredibly wonky positions and inability to remain consistent for one god damn second. Constantly moving the goalpost around and coming up with pointless rhetoric about hypotheses and misplaced philosophy is going to accomplish nothing short of making you look like you don't actually have anything to say.
Saying "I'm for the death penalty when it's clear the person can't be reformed/is guilty beyond doubt" is as meaningless as the classic "Communism is great in theory!"
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51651656]Never said it wasn't the case. I'm just asking what your opinion would be of a situation where there is no doubt, if you're so willing to put emphasis on the usual doubt surrounding these situations.[/quote]
well generally the point of the law is that it applies equally. let's say you said "ok we have determined without a doubt this is the person" and go on to execute, how does once construct a law which permits this kind of execution while also excluding without a doubt the innocent?
given that making a system which is unable to make a mistake is impossible we should do the next best thing, which is to assume a degree of error in the judgement. you can at least pardon an innocent man, one cannot pardon a corpse
[quote]You do realize this is something that happens to literally anything that human beings do, right ? From locomotion to eating to sheltering.[/QUOTE]
the reason i say it is because there's a lot of people who like to pretend that this kind of death is somehow in a special category because it might be "more just" or "less painful" when they haven't considered the fact that the punishment is still the same in the end
it is the ending of a life, and the means by which you do it are irrelevant in the end if you consider that the result is identical in every instance
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51651721]How about situations where the prisoner has expressed the will to die ? Something which has happened in the past ?
Also, bringing up the slippery slope fallacy is idiotic. I'm referring to a specific criteria and you're jumping the gun instantly.[/QUOTE]
It's not really a slippery slope. It's how every law against something has been exploited by someone in the past. Tax laws are full of weird little exceptions; and wouldn't you know it, people who shouldn't be able to use them can work around the law using said exceptions. It's all a matter of how you define things, and nobody seems capable of defining something to the degree needed to be legally bulletproof.
Though if an inmate does express a genuine will to die rather than serve their sentence. Whatever. Euthanasia isn't the death penalty, it's a consenting ending of your life. Not a forceful ending via a state entity (god that sentence sounded too close to libertarian rhetoric for my liking). After some therapy and counselling to ensure it's a genuine desire and not just mental health problems, I see no issue with euthanasia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
