Connecticut abolishes death penalty. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=babycake;35724142] The joke is that Nordic prisons are hardly punishments at all.[/QUOTE]And yet it works better than the American system, including the states that do use the ultimate form of punishment: the death penalty. Funny how that works. [QUOTE=babycake;35724142]Plus, outright banning the death penalty would stiff the convicts who don't want to live in prisons for the rest of their lives, like (ironically) Anders Brehvik. [/quote] Wait what? You think because there are some people who would rather die than spend life in prison that we should continue to use a system that relinquishes the lives of those who want their right to life?

[QUOTE=babycake;35724142]The joke is that Nordic prisons are hardly punishments at all.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but that would imply punishment alone is something worth spending money on. Plus even if it was recedivisim rates go down a metric fuckton when you use Norway-style prisons, and I think ensuring that nobody gets killed when you let your prisoner free is an essential part of a successful prison. [QUOTE=babycake;35724142]Plus, outright banning the death penalty would stiff the convicts who don't want to live in prisons for the rest of their lives, like (ironically) Anders Brehvik.[/QUOTE] And that's what we have euthenasia for. But that's a different argument entirely, one that's much more subjective.

[QUOTE=Patriarch;35724815]If though you accept that the notion of free will is false, then it seems silly to punish a lot of these people. Sure, some of them are scared away by threat of punishment, but most aren't. There are so many in U.S prisons right now, in fact the most compared to other countries, so punishment doesn't seem to be working there.[/QUOTE] Accepting the notion that free will is false has to be put in context with the society we live in. We already have unaccountability cases to protect mentally ill convicts, and while I agree that free will is false, there is no way for us to deduce all the factors that determine a choice, and even less way for us to prevent these factors from influencing individuals. On some level, crime isn't avoidable, this should be obvious. And as long as you accept that, you have to punish, if only mildly and exemplarily, criminals to sway the rest of the population from commiting it. Seeing others punished is a factor in the unintelligible process that determines our actions, so it is, in a way, prevention. And in the case of the US, I really don't know. Maybe so many laws in the US are just shit, maybe going to extremes desensitizes people to the exemplary effect of punishment? I have no idea. [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Boxbot219;35724817] Wait what? You think because there are some people who would rather die than spend life in prison that we should continue to use a system that relinquishes the lives of those who want their right to life?[/QUOTE] I love how he's already assuming again that most convicts agree with his idiotic "FREEDOM OR DEATH" claim he made, as if he'd stand his ground and let himself get shot rather than imprisoned, because he's such a heroic murrican, fuck yeah freedom n shit. And how he's assuming most prisoners are like him in that regard.

[QUOTE=Numidium;35724887]Accepting the notion that free will is false has to be put in context with the society we live in. We already have unaccountability cases to protect mentally ill convicts, and while I agree that free will is false, there is no way for us to deduce all the factors that determine a choice, and even less way for us to prevent these factors from influencing individuals. On some level, crime isn't avoidable, this should be obvious. And as long as you accept that, you have to punish, if only mildly and exemplarily, criminals to sway the rest of the population from commiting it. Seeing others punished is a factor in the unintelligible process that determines our actions, so it is, in a way, prevention. And in the case of the US, I really don't know. Maybe so many laws in the US are just shit, maybe going to extremes desensitizes people to the exemplary effect of punishment? I have no idea.[/QUOTE] Yes, crime is unavoidable, but it is also preventable. If you want to take out crime, you remove the source from which it grows. Obviously, it's just about impossible to do this to 100% completion, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it. Punishment, on the other hand, is not a solution. We can see this now, and so we should work towards better methods of dealing with those that commit crimes, such as rehabilitation.

[QUOTE=Patriarch;35724930]Yes, crime is unavoidable, but it is also preventable. If you want to take out crime, you remove the source from which it grows. Obviously, it's just about impossible to do this to 100% completion, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it. Punishment, on the other hand, is not a solution. We can see this now, and so we should work towards better methods of dealing with those that commit crimes, such as rehabilitation.[/QUOTE] Unavoidable means not preventable. You contradict yourself there quite extremely. We're already doing a lot. As I said, exemplary punishment helps. So does rehabilitation, no question. But when you start going down the prevention route, you end up with infringements on personal space on orwellian levels. The solution is a police state dictatorship. We know this. We don't want it.

For the last time, our justice system is NOT a preventative justice system. We address crimes AFTER they happen, not before. Preventative justice has no victim, no evidence and no crime. It is no justice at all. You can talk about what someone HAS done, but you may [I]not[/I] talk about what someone MIGHT do.

The thing is, freedom means people will get hurt. We can do stuff to limit it, and we can do stuff to limit freedom. It's about finding a balance there. Going either extreme is not gonna work. [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;35725012]For the last time, our justice system is NOT a preventative justice system. We address crimes AFTER they happen, not before. Preventative justice has no victim, no evidence and no crime. It is no justice at all.[/QUOTE] This, basically.

I have mixed feelings about this. Human rights should be untouchable, but feeding a prisoner for his whole life with the state's money.. Meh. Here in Italy they give serial killers and mafia leaders more than one life detenction. For real, like, double or triple life detenctions. What is that for, you're going to hunt him down in the afterlife, and even after? Makes no sense to me. Lethal Injection makes perfect sense otherhand.

[QUOTE=lapsus_;35725321]I have mixed feelings about this. Human rights should be untouchable[/QUOTE] End of your position, you have it. What'd you say if your state said they had "mixed" feelings about death penalty? This is one of those black and white switches, by the very nature of human rights.

[QUOTE=lapsus_;35725321]I have mixed feelings about this. Human rights should be untouchable, but feeding a prisoner for his whole life with the state's money.. Meh. Here in Italy they give serial killers and mafia leaders more than one life detenction. For real, like, double or triple life detenctions. What is that for, you're going to hunt him down in the afterlife, and even after? Makes no sense to me. Lethal Injection makes perfect sense otherhand.[/QUOTE] So you're having trouble between HUMAN RIGHTS and how much they cost? Buddy, it shouldn't matter how much money you lose if you give any shits about human rights.

[QUOTE=lapsus_;35725321]Human rights should be untouchable[/QUOTE][QUOTE=lapsus_;35725321]Lethal Injection makes perfect sense otherhand.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=lapsus_;35725321]makes perfect sense[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;35725642][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/[/url] Whoa, how did I miss the part that says we can't kill anyone?

[QUOTE=babycake;35725990][url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/[/url] Whoa, how did I miss the part that says we can't kill anyone?[/QUOTE] Is this an attempt at sarcasm or did you genuinely only now read it?

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35722671]Learn what a morale high horse is before you actually say it thank you.[/QUOTE] [B]moral[/B] mor·al/ˈmôrəl/ Adjective: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Noun: A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience. [B]morale[/B] mo·rale/məˈral/ Noun: The confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time. maybe it's you who should be doing the learning, eh

Well I think it's a great thing. Death penalty certainly is expensive and time consuming so having this abolished even for purely economical reasons is already something I can understand. Plus it may trigger a progressive re-humanization of prisons where people are treated a bit better than dangerous cattle. [editline]27th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=lolwutdude;35726511][B]moral[/B] mor·al/ˈmôrəl/ Adjective: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Noun: A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience. [B]morale[/B] mo·rale/məˈral/ Noun: The confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time. maybe it's you who should be doing the learning, eh[/QUOTE] Will you two stop arguing like that it's almost embarrassing to see you came to the point where you are actually using definitions to prove your points

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35726671] Will you two stop arguing like that it's almost embarrassing to see you came to the point where you are actually using definitions to prove your points[/QUOTE] what point, all i said was it was good that the death penalty was abolished but the prisoners will kill them anyways therefore even the most pro-death penalty people can have their sense of satisfaction then people in the moral high horses who specifically go to this thread to condemn these sort of opinions to get ratings and make themselves feel self-righteous automatically assumed i was one of those 'woo-hoo death penalty kill everyone' bandwagoners without reading what i said ( or did, but lack total reading comprehension), then i proceeded to prove them wrong

[QUOTE=Rents;35721123]You're [I]completely[/I] wrong about that. From [url]http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] Wow, completely taken out of context. Great work. Shows the intelligence on Facepunch. Even in your evidence, it's shown that many prisoners cannot be rehabilitated. Plus, even if they could, often the public has the expectation that they are not rehabilitated and never released. Please, use your eyes next time. [editline]27th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;35721059]and you are qualified to make this assumption because...[/QUOTE] What the fuck? What qualifications do you have to make your opposite assumption? Drop this bullshit.

I surprised Arizona hasn't outlawed the death penalty considering its just a really late abortion.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;35726806]what point, all i said was it was good that the death penalty was abolished but the prisoners will kill them anyways therefore even the most pro-death penalty people can have their sense of satisfaction then people in the moral high horses who specifically go to this thread to condemn these sort of opinions to get ratings and make themselves feel self-righteous automatically assumed i was one of those 'woo-hoo death penalty kill everyone' bandwagoners without reading what i said ( or did, but lack total reading comprehension), then i proceeded to prove them wrong[/QUOTE] Actually even your original point that they will just end up dying because they'll get killed in Prison is retarded and dangerous. If the mere fact of sending someone to prison means he's going to die there is a massive problem about prison that should be fixed rather than simply dealt with.

I bet in the end it will only be Texas left with death penalty. Heard they make up 30% of all the non electric chair/hanging death penalty deaths.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35726925]Plus, even if they could, often the public has the expectation that they are not rehabilitated and never released.[/QUOTE] What the public expects and what's actually in their best interests aren't always the same thing.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35726925] What the fuck? What qualifications do you have to make your opposite assumption? [/QUOTE] a 6th grade education

[QUOTE=Rents;35728638]What the public expects and what's actually in their best interests aren't always the same thing.[/QUOTE] I'm assuming you live in a country where governments, that legislate, are elected democratically? While you might not regard it as the prisoners "best interests", it's sure within the best interests of the public (if they believe so, and the Govt was elected on that platform) that the convicted murderer is never released. [editline]28th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;35728723]a 6th grade education[/QUOTE] Aight, thanks for the insight.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35726925]Plus, even if they could, [B]often the public has the expectation[/B] that they are not rehabilitated and never released. [editline]27th April 2012[/editline] [/QUOTE] Because "the public" is always so right on everything, yeah. And also, [QUOTE=DogGunn;35729383]I'm assuming you live in a country where governments, that legislate, are [B]elected democratically[/B]? [editline]28th April 2012[/editline] [/QUOTE] you seem to forget that democracy is actually elected oligarchy, the people do not rule. They have minor say about which one of a given board of candidates rules, but not much more. Any control the people might have is indirect throughout multiple instances at best, and non-existent at worst. More importantly though, as you're aware, the public doesn't get to vote on how laws are made, and there's a good reason. That's because most of the populace is, as you demonstrated, not sufficiently qualified or informed to make a proper judgement on a given subject. And you can turn it around and say I'm not either, and yeah, I'm not, I'm not a psychologist. But once you've established that neither of us can say something about rehabilitation probability, you might want to simply take it out of your argument and come up with something better.

I was going to post pretty much what Numidium did but less aggressively.

[QUOTE=Numidium;35729715]Because "the public" is always so right on everything, yeah.[/quote] Of course they're not. But why would the public want to take a risk on a person that has murdered another, been convicted and sent to prison? They might commit another crime of such magnitude. The thing is, there are two alternatives: let them out after being rehabilitated, or keep them in prison. The only person who is impacted on the later, is the prisoner. No one else. No reason to care on any sort of human rights perspective. The prisoners rights to live are not being infringed. [QUOTE=Numidium;35729715]And also, you seem to forget that democracy is actually elected oligarchy, the people do not rule. They have minor say about which one of a given board of candidates rules, but not much more. Any control the people might have is indirect throughout multiple instances at best, and non-existent at worst. More importantly though, as you're aware, the public doesn't get to vote on how laws are made, and there's a good reason.[/quote] It does not impact your point on how a ruling government is formed. Not in the slightest. It's so off-topic it's stupid. [QUOTE=Numidium;35729715]That's because most of the populace is, as you demonstrated, not sufficiently qualified or informed to make a proper judgement on a given subject.[/quote] Which would make you think... if the people in the legislature are qualified or informed to make proper judgement on deciding what goals the judicial system should be following, why are they not releasing prisoners that have murdered or raped people? Probably because, while some can be rehabilitated... the public don't want them out. [QUOTE=Numidium;35729715]And you can turn it around and say I'm not either, and yeah, I'm not, I'm not a psychologist. But once you've established that neither of us can say something about rehabilitation probability, you might want to simply take it out of your argument and come up with something better.[/QUOTE] If I cannot definitely state that a person cannot be rehabilitated (which was never the main brunt of my argument), then you cannot definitely state that they can be rehabilitation. Therefore, there is no reason to let a prisoner out of jail. At least we got to the bottom of that stupid argument. [editline]28th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Rents;35729902]I was going to post pretty much what Numidium did but less aggressively.[/QUOTE] Fantastic input to the topic.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35729951]Fantastic input to the topic.[/QUOTE] Well you were replying to me, I was going to reply back but all the points I was thinking of had already been made.

Do I have to repeat myself on every god damn thing I say? What I was trying to tell you with my "off-topic" point, was that your entire argument is useless because the public doesn't get to make these decisions. "the public don't want them out." I just explained why that doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. "If I cannot definitely state that a person cannot be rehabilitated , then you cannot definitely state that they can be rehabilitation. Therefore, there is no reason to let a prisoner out of jail." No. By saying that, you're disregarding the chance that they might be rehabilitated, which you admitted was there. Therefore, neither of us can make a statement on what should happen to prisoners because of a topic we both agree we don't know shit about. What you're saying is that because you don't have a physics degree, and I don't have a physics degree, there's no reason to believe my claim that the earth is round(or flat). Even though neither of us have proof. You're simply repeating the position that you agreed is uninformed. Can you not come up with other reasons to kill people apart from the one you just confirmed you have no basis for? [editline]27th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Rents;35730013]Well you were replying to me, I was going to reply back but all the points I was thinking of had already been made.[/QUOTE] It looks like I have to make em all again so they're understood, maybe you should try as well.

[QUOTE=Numidium;35730036]Do I have to repeat myself on every god damn thing I say? What I was trying to tell you with my "off-topic" point, was that your entire argument is useless because the public doesn't get to make these decisions.[/QUOTE] Take a bloody hint. While, as you said, the government is not directly controlled by the public, they are elected by the public, typically on a platform that takes a certain stance on such crimes. I can assure you that if you took a vox-pop of people out on the street, they would not want to be amongst murderers, rehabilitated or not. Time for you to get some life experience? I think so. [QUOTE=Numidium;35730036]"the public don't want them out." I just explained why that doesn't matter and shouldn't matter.[/QUOTE] No, actually, you never explained why the prisoner should be allowed out of prison. You stated they could be rehabilitated and the public shouldn't decide... you didn't state why you think they should be let out. The welfare of the public is the most important aspect when considering if a person should be released from prison. Second is the wishes of the public. [QUOTE=Numidium;35730036]No. By saying that, you're disregarding the chance that they might be rehabilitated, which you admitted was there. Therefore, neither of us can make a statement on what should happen to prisoners because of a topic we both agree we don't know shit about.[/QUOTE] So what? There are more aims to criminal sanctions then just rehabilitation. There includes elements of deterrence, retribution, protection and others. But nevermind that. Obviously, when the judicial system decides on the criminal sanction that is to be handed out, the only thought the judge makes is one of "can the convicted murderer be rehabilitated?" Such is the depth of the typical Facepunch argument. [QUOTE=Numidium;35730036]What you're saying is that because you don't have a physics degree, and I don't have a physics degree, there's no reason to believe my claim that the earth is round(or flat). Even though neither of us have proof. You're simply repeating the position that you agreed is uninformed.[/QUOTE] I don't even know what this means. It's so convoluted. [QUOTE=Numidium;35730036]Can you not come up with other reasons to kill people apart from the one you just confirmed you have no basis for?[/QUOTE] Kill people? What are you talking about...

As far as I gathered, you're the one that keeps talking about rehabilitation while admitting he knows fuckall about it. "Kill people? What are you talking about..." The death penalty? The fucking topic at hand? "I don't even know what this means. It's so convoluted." I tried to make an analogy to show you how your statement, that both of us knowing nothing about rehabilitation meant makes your point right, is utterly ridiculous. Funny how you generalize all of Facepunch to be unable of deep debate when you struggle with a simple analogy. On the point about other aims of death penalty, in my small argument with Patriarch on last page I mentioned this and he made a good point on how exemplary punishment doesn't prevent crime. I don't think I have to explain why retribution(revenge) isn't justice, Sanius did that already as well. And protection goes back to the rehabilitation point that we just agreed we have to leave out.