This thread is for discussion of the Debate on the death penalty between Syzygys and James R.

The discussion is open to all members, but Syzygys and James R may not post in the discussion thread until the debate is finished.

Links to related threads:

Debate thread
Proposal thread

DP is LM (legalized murder), we might aswell call it that.

You posted this in the wrong section, so I repost it here. Anyhow, anything legalized by definition is OK with the society. :)

After all you could call selling tobacco and alcohol as "legalized drugs".

Syzygys: Please read post #1. Damn, now I've done it too.

The discussion isn't really going. In the maintime, for educational purposes I would post the story of the Briley brothers, who escaped from death row:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briley_Brothers#Escape

"Linwood and J.B. Briley were the ringleaders in the six inmate escape from Virginia's death row at Mecklenburg Correctional Center on May 31, 1984. During the early moments of the escape, in which a coordinated effort resulted in inmates taking over the death row unit, both Brileys expressed strong interest in killing the officers that they had taken hostage. They went so far as to douse captive officers in lighter fluid and were prepared to toss in a lit match to complete the action. Willie Lloyd Turner, another death row inmate, stepped in the way of James Briley and forbade him from doing so. Meanwhile, cop killer Wilbert Lee Evans prevented Linwood Briley from raping a female nurse who had been taken hostage while en route to delivering medication to inmates in the unit. These events were featured on I.D. Channel in Escape from Death Row.

Splitting off from their two remaining free escapees at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Brileys went to live with their uncle in the north of the city. They were captured on June 19 by a heavily armed group of FBI agents and police. Returned to Virginia, few sought to plead for their lives to be spared."

Also in 1998 in Texas:

"Shortly after midnight on Nov. 27, seven men awaiting execution in Texas made a run for freedom from the Ellis Unit prison in Huntsville.

Six were stopped by a hail of automatic rifle gunfire by tower guards. Officials say none were injured. But reporters and family members have been barred from seeing the men since their capture.

The six are Gustavo Garcia, Henry Dunn, James Clayton, Howard Guidry, Eric Cathey and Ponchai Wilkerson.

The seventh prisoner--Martin Gerule--made it over two 10-foot perimeter fences topped with razor wire. He has since eluded over 500 law-enforcement officers, dog teams and helicopters."

..and the treatment what imprisonment provides:

"Texas prisons are hell-holes. In 1980, a federal judge declared Texas prisons unconstitutional because of rampant brutality, lack of health care, overcrowding and denial of access to the courts."

I just included this here, because I was asked about proving DP less suffering than prison.

P.S.: This dude passed 4 jail employees with a fake ID, again on death row:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9922969/

My opinion is simple, never give the government the power to kill it's own citizens.

My opinion is simple, never give the government the power to kill it's own citizens.

We don't 'give' the government this power; it has it. The government doesn't need our permission to do something. That's lesson number one!

We don't 'give' the government this power; it has it. The government doesn't need our permission to do something. That's lesson number one!

While they do not require individual permission, in representative governments such as the US, they most certainly require collective permission. It is for this reason that capital punishment has been used by nearly all societies, including throughout the US, but in recent decades most legislatures passed laws against it.

Put simply, the people said "no."

Given the sizeable number of convictions overturned on the basis of DNA and other evidence, I'm inclined to agree with a curtailment until we come up with a far more accurate justice system than the one we have.

We don't 'give' the government this power; it has it. The government doesn't need our permission to do something. That's lesson number one!

Well in Canada "we" took it away. Why don't you try to startup yer dick-tator-ship, so the rest of us can have fun sinking it?

Ooops... I finally read the first thread, and have since joined the debate elsewhere.

- Mugs

My opinion is simple, never give the government the power to kill it's own citizens.

1. This is an opinion, not an argument.
2. So giving the government the power to imprison for life is OK?

By the way this thread should be more about the debate, and I wouldn't mind to hear a little feedback on how we are doing so far...

James, I can't decide if you deliberately missunderstanding my points or just this is your very best. Either way it is bad.
Also I don't get what the difference for me responding to your summary of the website or debating the website itself? Remember, originally I wanted the later, but since you voluntered, I figured it is easier to deal with your summary. I don't see any differences between the 2 approaches. So stop complaining about it. If it makes you happy and when I have the time I can go through the whole website and post a line by line refutal in a separate forum. I am going to have fun with that... Probably under freethoughts to avoid certain moderators...

Syzygys:

You can put all of that in the debate if you want. Bear in mind that I'm not writing my debate posts only for your benefit but for the benefit of people reading the debate and trying to decide who "won" (or rather, who made the best arguments).

Why don't you post your rebuttal in the Debate thread? You hardly need another thread for it.

By the way, we originally agreed to 4 posts each for the debate. Do you want to extend to more posts, or is 4 enough? (You've had 3 already.)

I can post it in the debate thread, but it is a bit late because I bet I already covered at least 80% of it, so it would be just repetition of what I have already said.
I don't have a problem with the number of posts, I guess it is over when we just start to repeat ourselves, which is very soon.(1-2 more posts)

If you think you've covered everything, there's no need to repeat yourself. I claim in the debate that you haven't. People reading it can judge for themselves.

In the formal debate, James R has a massive lead in both style and substance. It's hardly a fair match.

If you think you've covered everything, there's no need to repeat yourself. I claim in the debate that you haven't. People reading it can judge for themselves.

I have just taken a quick look at this website:

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?list=type&type=24

and we have already covered all 10 reasons.

The 2nd website

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/010/2007/en/f45ed09c-d3a2-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/act500102007en.html

is incredibly bad. It is a hodge-podge of emotional arguments and laughable statements. it isn't very well organized like a list of arguments or something what I could go through point by point. Still reading it if I find something extra...

In the formal debate, Syzygys has a massive lead in both style and substance. It's hardly a fair match.

Thank you. Oh, that's not what you said? I hope your opinion is not effected by our little history. Honestly I forgot what our little quarrel was about and I don't really care, but I would hope that everyone bases his/her opinion on what was said and not on the personality of the debater.

I know, one can only hope....

Well, if you've covered everything, post your summing-up. Then I'll post my last post and we're done.

"In the formal debate, James R has a massive lead in both style and substance. It's hardly a fair match. "
Ofc he has,cause his opponent is someone like syzygys.
/debate

Interesting how idiots from my ignore list are coming out, who would have thought? :)

Well, let's make it interesting. Post the argument* that I haven't dealt/refuted and for every WRONGLY posted argument, you guys stay away from the Forum for 6 months. Go....

*That would prove 2 things:

1. You actually read the debate.
2. You have something to back up your opinion.

"In the formal debate, James R has a massive lead in both style and substance. It's hardly a fair match. "
Ofc he has,cause his opponent is someone like syzygys.
/debate

I disagree. James put on a good show, but his arguments were weak and resorted to repeating the same thing without proving it or backing it up; that is typical of James, though. "Agree with me or you're a bigot".

I declare Syz the victor. In my opinion, of course.

"I disagree. James put on a good show, but his arguments were weak and resorted to repeating the same thing without proving it or backing it up; that is typical of James, though. "Agree with me or you're a bigot".
i don't support james,am just saying that anyone can beat syzygys the weakling.
peace be into you ..all the way (:

"Syz the weakling"? What's wrong with Syz?

he's 'special'.

I actually would like to hear a neutral but intelligent opinion on our performance. If you have a grievance with either me or James please don't bother, you are obviously biased.
Now I am not really interested on just hearing "X won the debate" but citing examples why one thinks so. Let's say bringing up some of the good or bad arguments,etc.

Repo-Man and Deicider are staying on my Ignore, so luckily I won't be able to see their I am sure very fair and balanced views. :)

P.S.: I do note that the issue of DP for most people is like a religion and they are most likely won't change their views on it, nevertheless a few good points from the other side still can be acknowledged....Personally I haven't heard any good points what I haven't heard before.

i agree with syz,there should be death penalty in all countries,to erase ppl with the lvl of syzie's iq,they just slow down evolution.
:/

Death Penalty - all the way. Bring it on.

i suggest anyone who surports the death penelty follows the SA oposition leader. She surports the use of tasers so much that she had to have one tried out on herself. I suggest DP advocates follow her lead:p

i suggest anyone who surports the death penelty follows the SA oposition leader. She surports the use of tasers so much that she had to have one tried out on herself. I suggest DP advocates follow her lead

Kay, and in the mean time you can try out life in prison.

Kay, and in the mean time you can try out life in prison.

I wanted to post the exact same. :)

The interesting part is that none of the anti-DP people can come up with just one decent argument for their position. I mean with that much of brainpower if their position had a chance I am sure someone would have been able to find just one by now.

Asguard is the device that one needs when goes to prison for a long time. (pardon my pun) :)

I wasn't really looking, but since I like history and to teach the ignorant:

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF DETERRENCE:

"There are many examples of how the death penalty deters murder, most haven't even been listed on this webpage. But here is an example of how the use of consistent executions have dramatically improved certain societies.

In the 1800s, in English occupied India, there was one of the worst gangs of murdering thieves the world has ever known, the Indian hoodlum band known as the Thuggees. Through the course of their existence, dating back to the 1550s, the Thuggees were credited with murdering more than 2,000,000 people, mostly wealthy travelers. The killer secret society plagued India for more than 350 years. The Thuggees traveled in gangs, sometimes disguised as poor beggars or religious mendicants. Sometimes they wore the garb of rich merchants to get closer to unsuspecting victims. One of their principles was never to spill blood, so they always strangled their victims. Each member was required to kill at least once a year in order to maintain membership in the cult. But they killed in the name of religion. The deaths were conceived of as human sacrifices to Kali, the bloodthirsty Hindustani goddess of destruction. It came to pass that the Thuggees began to kill using pickaxes and knives. According to legend, the Thuggees believed that Kali devoured the bodies of their victims. The story goes that once a member of the society hid behind a tree in order to spy on the goddess. The angry goddess punished the Thuggees by making them bury their victims from then on.

The ruling British government worked very hard to stop the Thuggee religion and its murderous practices. Between 1829 and 1848, the British managed to suppress the Thuggees by means of mass arrests and speedy executions. Indeed, rows and rows of Thuggees were left hanging from the gallows along the roads by the dozens. This not only established a zero recidivism rate, but it also greatly discouraged new membership into the cult. The most lethal practitioner of the cult of Thuggee was Buhram. At his trial it was established that he had murdered 931 people between 1790 and 1840. All had been strangled with his waistcloth. Burham was executed in 1840. Appropriately enough, he was hanged until he strangled. In 1832, the Agent to the Governor-General of India, F. C. Smith had this to say about the Thugees and their deeds.
I have never heard of such atrocities, or presided over such trials, such cold-blooded murders, such heart-rending scenes of distress and misery; such base ingratitude; such a total abandonment of the very principle which binds man to man; which softens the heart and elevates mankind above the brute creation...mercy to such wretches would be the extreme of cruelty to mankind...blood for blood.
In 1882, the British government deemed the problem solved with the hanging death of the last known Thuggee. "

P.S.: For extra credit:

http://www.wesleylowe.com/deathpenaltygraph2.jpg

Exactly; but the death penalty needs to be made apparent and criminals need to know, full well, that society will not tolerate crime. One problem is that it isn't made clear enough; we need to have posters that remind people that they ARE being monitored and WILL be executed if they hurt others.

I am a strict believer in rules; and society must have rules, right? And therefore a logical society will not even BEGIN to bother with people that break the laws. You break the rules, you die. It needs to be that simple. Really.

You do good, you get rewarded. There we go: logical, and absolutely intolerant of what doesn't need to be tolerated: breaking the rules. I invite James to agree with me. Certainly you do, don't you? That rules are necessary.

Hey, anyone recall my example from the debate? Here is the real life version of it:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/12/scotus.sex.offender.law/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/12/scotus.sex.offender.law/story.andrews.martin.courtesy.jpg

"As a teenager in Portsmouth in 1973, Andrews (13) was walking to the store in snowy weather when a van pulled up and the man inside asked the boy whether he wanted to earn some extra money moving furniture. Andrews agreed but instead was taken to a rural area and a metal box dug into the side of a hill.

What followed was days of brutal rapes and beatings. Ausley eventually left, and Andrews would certainly have died if some rabbit hunters had not stumbled upon him after hearing his screams."

My main critique of that debate would be that James put too much emphasis on secondary points, when the debate could begin and end with the issue of execution of innocent people. A big, bureaucratic system like the ones under consideration is going to end up executing innocent people by mistake, and we already have fairly solid evidence that this rate is in the range that many - including myself - consider unacceptable even if the various pro-death-penalty arguments about deterrence, etc. are taken at face value.

Also, one other point that came up:



If the state wants to say "killing is wrong", it can hardly make that point by killing prisoners itself.

Which begs the question: does the state want to send the message "killing is wrong?"

It doesn't seem that it does. All of the states in question spend large sums of money to maintain military forces, whose express purpose is to kill. And the states uniformly regard this killing as legitimate, and go to great lengths to send exactly that message.

An important aspect of a statehood is the monopolization of the use of force, and so all states share a deep vested interested in "sending the message" that state-sanctioned killing is acceptable, while non-state-sanctioned killing is wrong. This is true of every state, whether or not they use the death penalty, pursue an aggressive foreign policy, etc. Statehood is all about emphasizing the legitimacy of state violence while delegitimizing non-state violence.

The message the state is interested in advancing in this context is "murder is wrong." Which is a damned site more specific than "killing is wrong," and not fundamentally in conflict with execution of murderers. On the contrary, if the state can succeed in advancing the "no murder" message through state-sanctioned violence, so much the better (from the state's perspective, that is).

when the debate could begin and end with the issue of execution of innocent people.

Was addressed several times and nicely refuted, although I haven't heard counterargument to the refutal. Also, after reading your post I couldn't even decide which side you are on....(either on the issue or on the debaters) :shrug:

The execution of innocent people is horrible, but it isn't reason in itself to stop administering justice. Especially in cases where guilt can be proven without a doubt; for instance in the case of BTK or the Green River Killer, both of which were cold-blooded psychopaths that showed zero remorse for their actions (BTK was actually amused after he was caught). I see no reason why not to execute these people.

Especially in cases where guilt can be proven without a doubt;

There are no such cases.



for instance in the case of BTK or the Green River Killer,

That would be "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There are no such cases.

Huh?

How about cases where there is video footage or where the person admits to the charges.

~String

My main critique of that debate would be that James put too much emphasis on secondary points, when the debate could begin and end with the issue of execution of innocent people. A big, bureaucratic system like the ones under consideration is going to end up executing innocent people by mistake, and we already have fairly solid evidence that this rate is in the range that many - including myself - consider unacceptable even if the various pro-death-penalty arguments about deterrence, etc. are taken at face value.

Also, one other point that came up:



Which begs the question: does the state want to send the message "killing is wrong?"

It doesn't seem that it does. All of the states in question spend large sums of money to maintain military forces, whose express purpose is to kill. And the states uniformly regard this killing as legitimate, and go to great lengths to send exactly that message.

An important aspect of a statehood is the monopolization of the use of force, and so all states share a deep vested interested in "sending the message" that state-sanctioned killing is acceptable, while non-state-sanctioned killing is wrong. This is true of every state, whether or not they use the death penalty, pursue an aggressive foreign policy, etc. Statehood is all about emphasizing the legitimacy of state violence while delegitimizing non-state violence.

The message the state is interested in advancing in this context is "murder is wrong." Which is a damned site more specific than "killing is wrong," and not fundamentally in conflict with execution of murderers. On the contrary, if the state can succeed in advancing the "no murder" message through state-sanctioned violence, so much the better (from the state's perspective, that is).

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7879/btqcardthumbi.gif (http://img524.imageshack.us/i/btqcardthumbi.gif/)

How about cases where there is video footage or where the person admits to the charges.

Video footage can be faked and confessions coerced or made up (maybe the guy is just crazy). The scenarios you cite would, again, be "beyond reasonable doubt" (supposing there was good evidence that the video was un-tampered-with, or that confessions hadn't been coerced or invented).

There is no such thing as "without a doubt." It's always possible that any set of evidence, no matter how compelling, is all just a huge cosmic accident. It is impossible to remove all such doubts; hence we only worry about the "reasonable" ones.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/7879/btqcardthumbi.gif (http://img524.imageshack.us/i/btqcardthumbi.gif/)

Prescriptive grammarians should remain confined to fictional, humorous digressions in David Foster Wallace novels, where they belong.

There is no such thing as "without a doubt.

Sure there is. Actually, when one says such a thing I tend to say the exact opposite that most of the time it is without a doubt (by the way that is a legal expression showing that THERE IS such a thing).

Most serial killers were without a doubt guilty. When there are human remains in your freezer it is kind of hard to explain... :eek:

Also as I already pointed out in the Debate, this is an anti-punishment argument, not just an anti-DP one. If you truly believe that crap you shouldn't punish anyone...

(after all there is always the possibility that the person's brain was overtaken by alien's personality changing waves, thus he wasn't responsible for the acts)

Sure there is. Actually, when one says such a thing I tend to say the exact opposite that most of the time it is without a doubt (by the way that is a legal expression showing that THERE IS such a thing).

Most serial killers were without a doubt guilty. When there are human remains in your freezer it is kind of hard to explain... :eek:

Also as I already pointed out in the Debate, this is an anti-punishment argument, not just an anti-DP one. If you truly believe that crap you shouldn't punish anyone...

(after all there is always the possibility that the person's brain was overtaken by alien's personality changing waves, thus he wasn't responsible for the acts)

really?

so there is no possablility that say the wife could have put them there? or the children? or that when you went to the butcher you THOUGHT he had wraped up a leg of lamb (which turned out to be a leg of person). There is ALWAYS another possability, wether its reasonable or not is beside the point, its NOT BEHOND ANY DOUBT

Then let's not prosecute criminals at all. There we go; we're so afraid of making mistakes that we're going to halt our whole justice system.

really?

Really.

Then let's not prosecute criminals at all. There we go; we're so afraid of making mistakes that we're going to halt our whole justice system.

The difference between making a mistake in applying the death penalty, and making a mistake when applying any other penalty, is whether you have a chance to make reparations to the wrongly punished afterwards. If you execute someone and then realize it was a mistake, there's nothing you can do to make it up to him. But you can release someone from prison and pay them a bunch of money, which will go at least some distance towards repairing mistaken imprisonment.

really?

so there is no possablility that say the wife could have put them there? or the children? or that when you went to the butcher you THOUGHT he had wraped up a leg of lamb (which turned out to be a leg of person). There is ALWAYS another possability, wether its reasonable or not is beside the point, its NOT BEHOND ANY DOUBT

None. Well, none beyond the same doubt that I have that there will be gravity tomorrow and that we aren't just figments of someone else's imagination, that is. There is no doubt in cases like Dahmer, Manson, Bundy and the BTK. None whatsoever, despite your attempts to show otherwise.


There is no such thing as "without a doubt." It's always possible that any set of evidence, no matter how compelling, is all just a huge cosmic accident. It is impossible to remove all such doubts; hence we only worry about the "reasonable" ones.

Precisely. Which is why, in specific cases like the men I mention above, they deserve to die.

~String

The difference between making a mistake in applying the death penalty, and making a mistake when applying any other penalty, is

...that you actually torture an innocent person with a long term prison sentence. With the DP there is no pain and torture, even if it is mistakenly applied.

Also, what do you say to a 70 year old who spent 40 years in prison innocently? That here is a couple of millions, buy Viagra? That doesn't bring back his wasted years...

Let's face it, there is simply not one good argument against the DP, otherwise somebody would have come up with it by now. I am still waiting for that good one...

None. Well, none beyond the same doubt that I have that there will be gravity tomorrow and that we aren't just figments of someone else's imagination, that is.

Which is not "none," no? There's some real, non-zero level of doubt associated with those assertions, even if a reasonable person would not let it affect his decisions.



There is no doubt in cases like Dahmer, Manson, Bundy and the BTK. None whatsoever, despite your attempts to show otherwise.

Sure there is. Those could all have been faked by some crazy Freemason plot, or something equally wild. It could be that none of those people, or their crimes, even exist - it's all just some media conspiracy. I mean, has anyone here actually laid eyes on any of those guys or their victims?

There is no reasonable doubt about their guilt, certainly. But there is no such thing as "zero doubt," even for events which you directly witness. It could always be that your senses failed you.


Which is why, in specific cases like the men I mention above, they deserve to die.

I can agree that all of those men were, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty of horrendous crimes. And death is a fitting punishment for them, except where mental illness is a factor. But that doesn't mean there cannot be any doubts, however unreasonable, of their guilt.

...that you actually torture an innocent person with a long term prison sentence. With the DP there is no pain and torture, even if it is mistakenly applied.

And yet, most people would prefer a long prison sentence to execution, given the choice. Defendants routinely go to great length to avoid death sentences, even when the likely alternatives are long prison terms.

So it seems there are worse things than torture, if we can call imprisonment that. Like death.



Also, what do you say to a 70 year old who spent 40 years in prison innocently? That here is a couple of millions, buy Viagra? That doesn't bring back his wasted years...

Perhaps not, but it still leaves him a damned site better off than if he were dead, or still in prison and without the millions of dollars.



Let's face it, there is simply not one good argument against the DP, otherwise somebody would have come up with it by now. I am still waiting for that good one...

Maybe you simply lack sufficient acumen when it comes to distinguishing good arguments from bad.

It would explain your obliviousness to good arguments, and persistant advancement of bad ones, at least....

The difference between making a mistake in applying the death penalty, and making a mistake when applying any other penalty, is whether you have a chance to make reparations to the wrongly punished afterwards. If you execute someone and then realize it was a mistake, there's nothing you can do to make it up to him. But you can release someone from prison and pay them a bunch of money, which will go at least some distance towards repairing mistaken imprisonment.

Okay, then as I said: execute only those that are "beyond a resonable doubt".

And further, we can devise ways and means whereby we can commute sentences based on good conduct for inmates, and so innocent people would never be executed because they would always, presumably, carry good conduct. And criminals that refuse to co-operate would be executed, but they should be anyway.

Okay, then as I said: execute only those that are "beyond a resonable doubt".

And further, we can devise ways and means whereby we can commute sentences based on good conduct for inmates, and so innocent people would never be executed because they would always, presumably, carry good conduct. And criminals that refuse to co-operate would be executed, but they should be anyway.

all criminal santions are "behond reasonable doubt" and we still have cases like the lindy chamberlin case. Everyone "knew" she was guilty but she was in actual fact telling the truth, a dingo DID take her baby and she was innocent. That ALONE should be enough to end any use of the death penalty

all criminal santions are "behond reasonable doubt" and we still have cases like the lindy chamberlin case. Everyone "knew" she was guilty but she was in actual fact telling the truth, a dingo DID take her baby and she was innocent. That ALONE should be enough to end any use of the death penalty

And yet there is no shortage of people defending the practice even knowing that innocent people have been executed in the past, and almost certainly will be in the future. I suppose it's easy to chalk it up as the cost of doing business so long as you can assure yourself that it could never happen to you, or anyone you care about. Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

And yet, most people would prefer a long prison sentence to execution, given the choice.

But this is not a wish list, is it? Otherwise they would prefer NO punishment at all.


Defendants routinely go to great length to avoid death sentences, even when the likely alternatives are long prison terms.


And some condemned criminals beg for execution because they had enough of the prison life.


So it seems there are worse things than torture, if we can call imprisonment that. Like death.

Actually that was a non sequitur, it didn't follow from the premise. Death is void, void of life. They prefer tortured prisonlife to void of life, that simple.


Maybe you simply lack sufficient acumen when it comes to distinguishing good arguments from bad.

Maybe, but an evidence would have been nice to back up that opinion. :)

Now people, I would like to state the seemingly obvious:

This thread is supposed to be about the debate, and not really about continuing the topic. Which is fine, in a different thread. I am guilty as charged too, because there was no real comment or constructive criticism about the debaters.

Here is what we would like to hear: Who do you think won and why. And by the why I mean examples, not just saying X won because Y sucked. THEN we could debate the brought up examples.

So far the best criticism was provided by ME (modest man I am) in the Summary of the Debate. Read that again if you don't know how to provide FEEEDBACK....

all criminal santions are "behond reasonable doubt" and we still have cases like the lindy chamberlin case. Everyone "knew" she was guilty but she was in actual fact telling the truth, a dingo DID take her baby and she was innocent. That ALONE should be enough to end any use of the death penalty

Not really. I already provided a mechanism for commuting sentences through good conduct, and there are definitely cases where they are really beyond any doubt. Ever heard of BTK?

But that doesn't mean there cannot be any doubts, however unreasonable, of their guilt.

You're right. Point made.

So, let's get back to reasonable doubt discussion.

~String

The difference between making a mistake in applying the death penalty, and making a mistake when applying any other penalty, is whether you have a chance to make reparations to the wrongly punished afterwards. If you execute someone and then realize it was a mistake, there's nothing you can do to make it up to him. But you can release someone from prison and pay them a bunch of money, which will go at least some distance towards repairing mistaken imprisonment.There are many human endeavers in which mistakes lead to death. The practice of medicine, surgery, building bridges or large buildings, space exploration. mountain climbing, auto racing, driving to work, crossing the street. Do we cease all these activities because they might lead to the death of an innocent? Or do we simply do all that we can to avoid making such mistakes?

Of course not.

We set speed limits knowing that a slower speed would be safer, but we choose to put practicality over safety. People don't wear their seat belts because it might wrinkle their clothes. They put fashion over human life. People risk their lives engaging in sports like skydiving or mountain climbing. Is not justice at least as important as any of these things?

Justice calls for punishment proportional to the crime commited. For the crime of murder, no punishment is adequate short of death. Just as with other activities where life is on the line, we must be careful to protect innocent life. But, like every other human endeaver, we do this knowing that we are not perfect.

There are many human endeavers in which mistakes lead to death. The practice of medicine, surgery, building bridges or large buildings, space exploration. mountain climbing, auto racing, driving to work, crossing the street. Do we cease all these activities because they might lead to the death of an innocent? Or do we simply do all that we can to avoid making such mistakes?


Of course not.

We set speed limits knowing that a slower speed would be safer, but we choose to put practicality over safety. People don't wear their seat belts because it might wrinkle their clothes. They put fashion over human life. People risk their lives engaging in sports like skydiving or mountain climbing. Is not justice at least as important as any of these things?

Justice calls for punishment proportional to the crime commited. For the crime of murder, no punishment is adequate short of death. Just as with other activities where life is on the line, we must be careful to protect innocent life. But, like every other human endeaver, we do this knowing that we are not perfect.

Comparing risky, but voluntary activities to capital punishment is a real stretch. People like to engage in risky activities for the adrenaline rush, so we shouldn't worry about the criminal justice system occasionally executing an innocent person? Voluntarily taking a risk is a very different thing from the government executing people.

Not everyone agrees with your idea of justice. There are a large number of people, many of them highly intelligent and educated, who completely disagree with the idea that the only adequate punishment for murder is death. Other than your say so, what do you have to back up this contention? Very few criminals face the possibility of capital punishment, which is reserved for only the most severe crimes in this country.

There is no chance of all murder becoming a capital offense, so right from the start many (most?) murderers will never be adequately punished from your POV.

Though it very often falls short, the criminal justice system has to be held to a higher standard than other organizations.

Just for a moment, imagine it's you who faces a death sentence even though you are innocent. Would you go to your death peacefully, feeling that your mistaken execution was a small price to pay for living in a country that has such a wonderful criminal justice system? "Ah, no big deal, look at all of the people who die from hang gliding."

Not everyone agrees with your idea of justice. There are a large number of people, many of them highly intelligent and educated, who completely disagree with the idea that the only adequate punishment for murder is death. Other than your say so, what do you have to back up this contention? Very few criminals face the possibility of capital punishment, which is reserved for only the most severe crimes in this country.The idea that the punishment should fit the crime has a long history and is one of the most basic tenets of justice. To quote Immanuel Kant:

if an offender "has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an object of horror in the person of the sufferer)" (Kant 1887, p. 155).


There is no chance of all murder becoming a capital offense, so right from the start many (most?) murderers will never be adequately punished from your POV.That's true, but the idea that because some escape justice all should escape justice isn't very convincing.

Just for a moment, imagine it's you who faces a death sentence even though you are innocent. Would you go to your death peacefully, feeling that your mistaken execution was a small price to pay for living in a country that has such a wonderful criminal justice system? "Ah, no big deal, look at all of the people who die from hang gliding."Of course I would strongly protest the injustice of my particular case; but I doubt it would change my support for the death penalty. Of course, it's pretty hard to say how one would feel in such a circumstance. But I can also tell you I"d not be too happy being wrongly imprisoned either.

But before you say, "but they can correct a mistaken imprisonment"; I say a wrongful death sentence can and often is overturned. It's not like we execute people the day they're convicted. There's plenty of time to correct errors, and I suspect that more resources are devoted to defending guys on death row by anti-death penalty groups than to random guys sentenced to life in prison. So your chances of having a wrongful conviction overturned when sentenced to death may be better than when sentenced to life.

Video footage can be faked and confessions coerced or made up (maybe the guy is just crazy). The scenarios you cite would, again, be "beyond reasonable doubt" (supposing there was good evidence that the video was un-tampered-with, or that confessions hadn't been coerced or invented).

There is no such thing as "without a doubt." It's always possible that any set of evidence, no matter how compelling, is all just a huge cosmic accident. It is impossible to remove all such doubts; hence we only worry about the "reasonable" ones.

beyond reasonable doubt is the same thing.

it is aka what would 'a reasonable person conclude'

as opposed to an unreasonable person.

and a "reasonable" person would have seen lindy chamberlin dead. It was only when new forensic tests were developed that it was realised the red stuff in her car was paint NOT blood

The idea that the punishment should fit the crime has a long history and is one of the most basic tenets of justice. To quote Immanuel Kant:

if an offender "has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death (at all events without any maltreatment which might make humanity an object of horror in the person of the sufferer)" (Kant 1887, p. 155).

That's true, but the idea that because some escape justice all should escape justice isn't very convincing.
Of course I would strongly protest the injustice of my particular case; but I doubt it would change my support for the death penalty. Of course, it's pretty hard to say how one would feel in such a circumstance. But I can also tell you I"d not be too happy being wrongly imprisoned either.

But before you say, "but they can correct a mistaken imprisonment"; I say a wrongful death sentence can and often is overturned. It's not like we execute people the day they're convicted. There's plenty of time to correct errors, and I suspect that more resources are devoted to defending guys on death row by anti-death penalty groups than to random guys sentenced to life in prison. So your chances of having a wrongful conviction overturned when sentenced to death may be better than when sentenced to life.

Retributive justice isn't the only model for justice. That it is "One of the most basic tenets of justice" doesn't mean that it's good, correct, or in any way an effective way of dealing with crime. Transformative justice is the model currently favored in most western countries, who manage to keep order pretty well without appealing to base desires for vengeance.

Our present system for punishing crime is a shambles, and needs to be overhauled from top to bottom. Arguing that you're more likely to have a mistaken death penalty reviewed and overturned than a mistaken life sentence only serves to highlight that. And the possible consequences for not reviewing a capital case in time still outweighs any possible benefit in my mind. And I haven't yet been made aware of any real reason for it, other than appealing to some ethereal notion of balancing the scales of justice.

I see people are unwilling to rate the debate. Anyhow...

Instead of arguing about theorethical cases, let's see some real life ones and argue why the bastard shouldn't get the chair (electric, not massage):

BTK: not innocent, not a minority, no political oppresion and other BS applies. Tell me what do we gain by keeping him around. If we want to study him, let's study him for 1-2 years, (already passed) then execute him. Same with the Green River killer.

Madoff: He caused severe financial harm to hundreds of mostly elderly people, as a result lots of them had to go back to work and they lost their golden years' security. Since Madoff is rather old (71) there is no chance he will ever get free (unless presidential pardon) and most likely we just have to pay for his hospital bills as he gets older and sicker. His execution would be an excellent deterrent.

Aldrich Ames: He is a traitor of his nation, not for political reasons (kind of understandable) but simply for money/GREED. As a direct result of his spying, several people died who were valuable assets for his country and it took years to repair the damage he has done. Why is he still alive? Again, the deterrent factor...

Father Victor Stewart: you can guess, sexual predator of his trusted folks.The best part is that he didn't act alone.Why shouldn't we fry his balls before chopping them off, following by his head?

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_6698.shtml

Thomas A. Sweatt: A serial arsonist, burned down 45 residential homes, 1 including a woman's death. The correct/fair/equal punishment would be to burn him at the stake...

http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/newsletter/060903.php

Now I want to hear some damned good arguments. As you can see I included traitors,arsonists, rapists and financial criminals too, showing that there are many crimes that should be punished by the DP.

Right on, madanthonywayne. Plus, my idea: people on death row could have an option of having their sentence commuted depending on their behavior and on psycho-analytic tests, and so innocent people would not be executed because they wouldn't have had problems to begin with.

It's not like we execute people the day they're convicted. There's plenty of time to correct errors, and I suspect that more resources are devoted to defending guys on death row by anti-death penalty groups than to random guys sentenced to life in prison. So your chances of having a wrongful conviction overturned when sentenced to death may be better than when sentenced to life.

That has as much to do with the extra judicial protections that apply to those sentenced to death (automatic appeals, etc.) as activism, but regardless that's exactly as justice demands it should be: the more severe the punishment imposed, the more time, money and effort the judicial system should expend to be sure of guilt and proper trial/sentencing.

Which has the corollary that any penal system wherein application of the death penalty costs less than life imprisonment is probably unjust. Not that I recall anyone citing the "it's cheaper than life in prison" argument here, but anyway...

An acceptable false conviction rate for petty offenses is probably fairly high (a few percent, maybe?). But the acceptable rate of false convictions for death penalty cases? That's really really low. How many executed innocents would it take before the death penalty isn't worth it any more? Perhaps that number isn't zero, but I'd hazard it's easily less than, say, 10.

Hey, I still haven't heard anybody defending those listed gentlemen! Where is the argument for their lifes to be spared??? Anyhow...



Which has the corollary that any penal system wherein application of the death penalty costs less than life imprisonment is probably unjust.

Or not. I like your usage of "probably", which is an ASSUMPTION without any evidence. I can say the exact opposite and I could be just as correct.(or not)


Not that I recall anyone citing the "it's cheaper than life in prison" argument here, but anyway...

I guess you haven't read the debate. I did make that point that in MOST countries it is actually true and the US is just an exception. So if economy is an issue for you, you should agree that in Albania or Chine the DP is PERFECTLY OK based on economic considerations. :)

Now you guys see why I wanted to debate MYSELF. The anti-DP side is simply unable to come up with logical arguments or be a decent debater and acknowledge when they lost....

By any neutral standard I clearly won the debate, but that was a given from the get go... :)

I have posted my closing arguments in the Debate thread.

The debate is now over.

Here's an up-to-date fact sheet for those interested in the statistics of the Death penalty in the United States. It includes many useful graphs, pie charts and other information.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

For those who are really interested, the whole site is well worth a look:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

What was the point of the next to last post in the Debate? You didn't say anything new but repeated the already refuted old arguments. Honestly, I didn't even read the whole thing....

What is an interesting/curious thing is in this thread that people are affraid to express a decent criticism of the debate (maybe they didn't read it), instead of arguing small, not so relevant issues.

Oh yes, I am still waiting for an argument from ANYONE, why those earlier mentioned criminals should be kept alive?

ANYONE?

I don't wish to lower myself to their level.

I don't wish to lower myself to their level.

This snobish response always give me a chuckle. I suppose when another country attacks your country and starts to kill your fellow citizens you say the same and go silently extinct. :)

The obvious logical fallacy here is when you would say: "but that is different", that it is OK to kill outsiders but not insiders.

Also, are you a vegetarian? Because I have to assume that you wouldn't want to lower yourself to the animals' level of killing each other for food. By the way are all anti-DP people (using this argument) vegetarians?

And for the last, incarcerating them forever is NOT lowering yourself to their level? Me thinks it is just the same....(and as was pointed out repeatedly, you are WAY more of a SADIST, when you incarcerate a sensitive, feeling, social human being for life then simply just killing him.)

1. Get a dictionary and take a long hard look at the definition of snob. Thre is no way in which my repsonse can rationally be categorised as such.
2. You asked for a response. You made no mention that you were applying standards to it.
3. If you are unable to distinguish between state sanctioned killing of criminals and killing in a military context then perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to participate in a grown up forum.
4. Don't erect strawman arguments then assign them to me. I consider everyone on the planet an insider.
5. I am ethically in favour of vegetarianism, but continue to eat meat because it tastes good.
6. I am quite happy to raise myself to the animal level of killing for food as an expression of my innate nature.
7. Nowhere did I say I would incarcerate them for ever. You are creating a false dichotomy. (And as an aside, some of the individuals you would execute have demonstrated themselves to be insensitive, unfeeling and asocial.)

Just quickly...



5. I am ethically in favour of vegetarianism, but continue to eat meat because it tastes good.
6. I am quite happy to raise myself to the animal level of killing for food as an expression of my innate nature.

So why can't you do the same with criminals? What kind of view causes you to look down on criminals (some people) who are inherently inferior to you for any one of a variety of reasons (the very definition of snob) and not wanting to lower yourself to their level?

We are all equal in this matter and there is no lowering, unless you are a snob, end of story....

P.S.: There is nothing inherently wrong with being a sadist or a snob, I just like the anti-DP people acknwoledging themselves as such. :)

So why can't you do the same with criminals? What kind of view causes you to look down on criminals (some people) who are inherently inferior to you for any one of a variety of reasons (the very definition of snob) and not wanting to lower yourself to their level?

We are all equal in this matter and there is no lowering, unless you are a snob, end of story....Here is an online dictionary take on snob.
1 One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association with people regarded as social superiors.
2 One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect

The level I speak of for serious criminals relates to their anti-social behaviour. That is simply not covered by the definition of snob. If you are not a native English speaker accept this simple English lesson gratefully. If you are a native English speaker, shame on you.

Here is the problem with your argument:

You look at it as lowering your level. I don't necesserily look at it and even if I were, who says that lowering your standards are always bad or sometimes isn't necessery? So look at it as a necessity (like killing a cow for a burger) and not as a lowering your standards. Question of POV.

Also as you explained, you don't have a problem with lowering your standards for selfdeffense or culinary statisfaction, so why is this a problem for justice?

P.S.: I used Wiki's definition of snob.
P.S.S.: After giving it another thought, I simply refuse to accept the lowering argument, because there is NO lowering of moral standars. Why? Because the 2 acts are completely different. The criminal killing an innocent victim IS morally completely DIFFERENT than we killing the criminal for justice.

So your view of lowering anything is simply a missjudgement on your behalf and an unacceptable argument. But hey, at least you tried.

By any neutral standard I clearly won the debate, ...

Well, I agree, but how does one vote on it?? I didn't see anything anywhere that would be a vote or whatever. Or is it just a bunch of words for us to read, but not do anythng about?

Baron Max

You just post who do you think won and WHY? A short criticism and summary would be very welcomed for learning purposes and also showing that one actually read the debate. :)

Or not. I like your usage of "probably", which is an ASSUMPTION without any evidence.

No. If it were an assumption, it wouldn't have been necessary to hedge with "probably."

To be more clear, the assertion was that because justice demands that increasingly severe punishments require correspondingly increasing care to avoid false convictions and other improprieties, the death penalty should be presumed to be unjust in any system wherein it costs less to apply than lesser punishments. Which is to say that the burden is on any defenders of said systems to show that the decreased cost does not reflect a violation of the principle that more severe penalties require more care.



I can say the exact opposite and I could be just as correct.(or not)

No.



I guess you haven't read the debate. I did make that point that in MOST countries it is actually true and the US is just an exception. So if economy is an issue for you, you should agree that in Albania or Chine the DP is PERFECTLY OK based on economic considerations. :)

No, the "economic consideration" here is not which system is cheaper, but which one is just. The systems in Albania or China must be presumed to be unjust, under my economic considerations. And, indeed, there seems little doubt that they are unjust, irrespective of what one thinks about the death penalty in general.

Now you guys see why I wanted to debate MYSELF. The anti-DP side is simply unable to come up with logical arguments or be a decent debater and acknowledge when they lost....

By any neutral standard I clearly won the debate, but that was a given from the get go... :)

Your showing in the debate was very poor. Like most everything you post, it was a mess of incomprehension, invalid reasoning and comically-unjustified self-congratulation. I'm not sure how it is that you maintain this delusion that you're a great thinker/debater: you're well-known around here as a kook. The charitable interpretation would be that you do this on purpose, as a joke, but I'm disinclined to be so charitable. In the first place, you aren't funny.

I'm frankly disappointed in James for agreeing to debate you. It's a low tactic to debate an opponent that you know to be grossly ineffectual at reasoning or argumentation (and ridiculously arrogrant to boot). And the level of cheap rhetoric that James produced in the subsequent "debate" suggests that he was only too happy for a punching bag to knock around.

I don't wish to lower myself to their level.

You're not; you have to take into account circumstance. You're no more lowering yourself to their level by executing them than you would be lowering yourself to the level of a kidnapper by arresting them.

They are the ones that broke the law, and we are the ones giving them their due. We are responding, not aggressing.

madanthonywayne:


There are many human endeavers in which mistakes lead to death. The practice of medicine, surgery, building bridges or large buildings, space exploration. mountain climbing, auto racing, driving to work, crossing the street. Do we cease all these activities because they might lead to the death of an innocent?

Those activities all have benefits that must be balanced against the risks. The death penalty has no benefits over, say, life imprisonment.


Justice calls for punishment proportional to the crime commited. For the crime of murder, no punishment is adequate short of death.

Why isn't life imprisonment adequate?


Syzygys:


What was the point of the next to last post in the Debate? You didn't say anything new but repeated the already refuted old arguments. Honestly, I didn't even read the whole thing....

The point was to post some of the stuff you didn't bother addressing from the Amnesty site. And it's not particularly for your benefit so I don't care whether you read it or not.


Max:


Well, I agree, but how does one vote on it?? I didn't see anything anywhere that would be a vote or whatever. Or is it just a bunch of words for us to read, but not do anythng about?

It's just a bunch of words. Since you pretend to be incapable of seeing the value of words, you will have to also pretend not to understand why somebody might wish to engage in such a debate. Yet the very fact that you post on sciforums so much gives your game away.


quadraphonics:


I'm frankly disappointed in James for agreeing to debate you.

I'm not particularly concerned what you think about that. If you believe I agreed to this debate for Syzygys's benefit, you ought to think deeper.


It's a low tactic to debate an opponent that you know to be grossly ineffectual at reasoning or argumentation...

On this topic, about 50% of the American people are grossly mistaken about why they support the death penalty. It is therefore a worthwhile exercise to get some facts out there.


And the level of cheap rhetoric that James produced in the subsequent "debate" suggests that he was only too happy for a punching bag to knock around.

Meh. The usual criticism from somebody who sits on the sidelines and does not engage.

Those activities all have benefits that must be balanced against the risks. The death penalty has no benefits over, say, life imprisonment.

You should have read the debate, commenter. :bugeye:

The point was to post some of the stuff you didn't bother addressing from the Amnesty site. And it's not particularly for your benefit so I don't care whether you read it or not.


It's just a bunch of words. Since you pretend to be incapable of seeing the value of words, you will have to also pretend not to understand why somebody might wish to engage in such a debate. Yet the very fact that you post on sciforums so much gives your game away.



I'm not particularly concerned what you think about that. If you believe I agreed to this debate for Syzygys's benefit, you ought to think deeper.



On this topic, about 50% of the American people are grossly mistaken about why they support the death penalty. It is therefore a worthwhile exercise to get some facts out there.



Meh. The usual criticism from somebody who sits on the sidelines and does not engage.

Hey, James, take a look at what you wrote ...read it again in "the light of day". Now tell me, honestly, why are you being so mean and nasty and condescending and elitist and egotistical and.....well, that kind of way?

Is your reign at Sciforums turning you mean and nasty? I can remember when you were pretty much a nice guy (for a freakin' liberal!). But what happened to you?

Baron Max

Your showing in the debate was very poor.

...and here are the EXAMPLES you provided to back up that opinion:

How come you chastise James for debating me, then you lower yourself and do the same? :)



No, the "economic consideration" here is not which system is cheaper, but which one is just.

I am sorry, but let's not mix the 2 things up. Economic consideration is one thing, justical one is another. Now you seem to be making a leap of faith argument that if the justice system were really just in China it would cost more, thus making the economic argument valid there too.

Unfortunatelly it is just an ASSUMPTION on your behalf and you can not prove that a cheap (cheaper than life in prison) justice system can not be also just.

Also, answer it: Why should we consider economic reasons in justice? (and if we are truly frugal I am ready to open the prison doors and let them all out.) If a country wastes money on pretty much everything justice shouldn't be the one where we start to safe money.

Max:


Hey, James, take a look at what you wrote ...read it again in "the light of day". Now tell me, honestly, why are you being so mean and nasty and condescending and elitist and egotistical and.....well, that kind of way?

Well, gee Max, I don't know. Let's see.

Syzygys accused me of not saying anything new in my second-last post, and also had the ill manners to claim he didn't even bother reading it.

You tried to dismiss the debate as "just a bunch of words", as well as claiming that Syzygys had "won" just because you don't like me.

quadraphonics wrote that I was wrong to participate in this debate at all, also adding an accusation of "low tactics" in debating Syzygys and another one of "cheap rhetoric". All personal snipes with no content, because quadraphonics and I have had words in the past and he doesn't like me either. And for good measure, he had worse personal attacks on Syzygys.

I suggest that if you want to look for "mean and nasty", try quadraphonics, based on his performance here. If you want "condescending and elitist", try quadraphonics again. And if you want egotistical, try Syzygys, yourself or quadraphonics - it really doesn't make much difference.

Max: "Hey, James, take a look at what you wrote ...read it again in "the light of day". Now tell me, honestly, why are you being so mean and nasty and condescending and elitist and egotistical and.....well, that kind of way?"

***


Well, gee Max, I don't know. Let's see.

Syzygys accused me of not saying anything new in my second-last post, and also had the ill manners to claim he didn't even bother reading it.

You tried to dismiss the debate as "just a bunch of words", as well as claiming that Syzygys had "won" just because you don't like me.

quadraphonics wrote that I was wrong to participate in this debate at all, also adding an accusation of "low tactics" in debating Syzygys and another one of "cheap rhetoric". All personal snipes with no content, because quadraphonics and I have had words in the past and he doesn't like me either. And for good measure, he had worse personal attacks on Syzygys.

I suggest that if you want to look for "mean and nasty", try quadraphonics, based on his performance here. If you want "condescending and elitist", try quadraphonics again. And if you want egotistical, try Syzygys, yourself or quadraphonics - it really doesn't make much difference.

So what's all that mean, James? That morality is ...following along with whatever others do? That there's no "right or wrong", just copy-cat actions? "If Joe Bumfuck does it, then, by god, I'm gonna' do it, too!"

And, James, with you lashing out emotionally at everyone, can you now see why and how the Ugandans feel about the gays? They dislike gays just like you dislike those you've noted above. See? Logic and reasoning just don't seem to cut it, does it, James? Easy to understand when you put it into the right perspective, huh?

Oh, and as to the debate and my comment about "just words" is that, like the Ugandan discussion, you've invoked human emotions, then tried to hide the fact by claiming to appeal to logic and reason. Emotions can't be basis for a debate ....and it seems to me that that's exactly what you did.

Baron Max

Syzygys accused me of not saying anything new in my second-last post, and also had the ill manners to claim he didn't even bother reading it.

As a challenge I can go through it line by line and quote the same stuff from earlier posts, do you want me to do it? But as a pay off, you would acknowledge that you lost. :)

The reason I didn't read your next to last post because after reading the first few sentences I realized that we are in Repetition Land and you closed the debate anyway, so unless I continue to respond to it here (again, repetition) there was nothing to be gained by reading it except rising my blood pressure.

And hey, at least I was honest about it....

Now one more thing about debates. One is supposed to acknowledge when the other side makes a good point or I guess the lack of response can be considered as such. I DID acknowledge the sadist argument as the only good one although I still had a good response to it. On the other hand you haven't acknowledged any of my arguments as good ones although you did miss a few and didn't respond to them so I guess I must have made some good points.

I am kind of losing interest in this topic and I don't see much improvement in this thread either, so it is time to move on noting that the issue of DP is like a religion or politics for people, once they took a stand on one side they are unwilling to change their views no matter what...

Max:


So what's all that mean, James? That morality is ...following along with whatever others do? That there's no "right or wrong", just copy-cat actions? "If Joe Bumfuck does it, then, by god, I'm gonna' do it, too!"

More trolling from you. Nothing worthy of a response. You're a waste of my time.

More trolling from you. Nothing worthy of a response. You're a waste of my time.

And yet it was important enough for you to make sure that others could see your "response" ....which means that it WAS NOT a waste of your time. :D

And now that you've admitted that morality is a human construct, very little of what you've been saying, here as well as other topics and threads, is meaningless. The UN declaration of human rights is meaningless if morality is a human construct. It's all just a lie! ...as I've been saying for years. And oddly, James, you've been arguing with me about that very subject for years. Yet now .....even you agree that morality is whatever humans want it to be ...human constucts.

Baron Max

And yet it was important enough for you to make sure that others could see your "response" ....which means that it WAS NOT a waste of your time. :D

More trolling from you.


And now that you've admitted that morality is a human construct, very little of what you've been saying, here as well as other topics and threads, is meaningless.

Correct. Very little of what I've said is meaningless. None of it, in fact.


The UN declaration of human rights is meaningless if morality is a human construct.

What makes you think that?

They are the ones that broke the law, and we are the ones giving them their due. We are responding, not aggressing.I believe - with some justification - that it is better to be proactive than reactive.

Those activities all have benefits that must be balanced against the risks. The death penalty has no benefits over, say, life imprisonment.

It has the benefit of providing justice for capital crimes.



Why isn't life imprisonment adequate?

Because it doesn't fit the crime. Murdering someone is not the same thing as imprisoning them for life.


I'm not particularly concerned what you think about that.

And yet you feel the need to respond to my thoughts on that topic. Odd.



If you believe I agreed to this debate for Syzygys's benefit, you ought to think deeper.

Why would I think that? I was pretty clear that I believe you agreed to this debate (or, specifically, this opponent) for the benefit of your own ego.

What I'd like to see motivate you is the quality of discourse at SciForums. The maintenance of such is one of the responsibilities that comes with your station, after all.



On this topic, about 50% of the American people are grossly mistaken about why they support the death penalty.

? I don't see where 50% of the American people have weighed in about why (or whether) they support the death penalty, here. Sounds like the usual conspiratorial ideation that we see in so many of the pathological posters here.



It is therefore a worthwhile exercise to get some facts out there.

What "out there?" You honestly account the contents of formal debate threads at SciForums as some kind of public outreach? Nothing you do or say here will have any discernable impact on what Americans in general think, or why.



Meh. The usual criticism from somebody who sits on the sidelines and does not engage.

? I'm here now, in the designated thread for discussing the debate in question (which had participation limited to you and szygys, no?), telling you what I think. Where am I avoiding engagement?

It's really very childish to respond with cheap insults. You'd be better off not responding at all, than confirming my allegations of egomania in such a pigheaded fasion. If nothing else, it's a liability for a moderator to be so easily provoked and derailed.

Ah quadraphonics. You're at it again. Ho hum.



Those activities all have benefits that must be balanced against the risks. The death penalty has no benefits over, say, life imprisonment.

It has the benefit of providing justice for capital crimes.

What do you mean by "justice", specifically? Retribution? Compensation? What? Be specific. (Also note that I addressed this in the Debate.)



Why isn't life imprisonment adequate?

Because it doesn't fit the crime. Murdering someone is not the same thing as imprisoning them for life.

Answering murder with murder is barbaric.



I'm not particularly concerned what you think about that.

And yet you feel the need to respond to my thoughts on that topic. Odd.

Well, have a bit of a think about it. Maybe it will come to you.


I was pretty clear that I believe you agreed to this debate (or, specifically, this opponent) for the benefit of your own ego.

Thanks for your unrequested psycholanalysis, quadraphonics. It's always a pleasure to hear from an expert like yourself. :rolleyes:


What I'd like to see motivate you is the quality of discourse at SciForums.

Should I take you as my model of "quality discourse"? How much quality have you contributed lately? Remind me.


I don't see where 50% of the American people have weighed in about why (or whether) they support the death penalty, here.

Don't be disingenuous now. I referred to surveys in the Debate. Go and read it. You might learn something.


Sounds like the usual conspiratorial ideation that we see in so many of the pathological posters here.

Are you a psychiatrist?



It is therefore a worthwhile exercise to get some facts out there.

What "out there?" You honestly account the contents of formal debate threads at SciForums as some kind of public outreach? Nothing you do or say here will have any discernable impact on what Americans in general think, or why.

More expert opinion from you. Do you think it is possible to sway anybody's opinion, ever? Or maybe you think you could do it, but I couldn't possibly do it. Is that it?

You know what I think? I think you've developed a petty dislike for me, so you run around after me like a puppy yapping at my heels.

When I see you engaging in a Formal Debate, or otherwise posting something useful here, then perhaps I'll start to take you seriously. If you want to think of yourself as some kind of role model, you need to get some runs on the board.


I'm here now, in the designated thread for discussing the debate in question (which had participation limited to you and szygys, no?), telling you what I think. Where am I avoiding engagement?

You came in here merely to snipe. As usual. Toddle off and bug somebody else.

Answering murder with murder is barbaric.

Just curious why? I call these arguments the BIG words arguments, they don't really say anything but have some type of emotional meaning for the reader. Logically they are meaningless, unless we agree that barbaric is BAD. (and why shouldn't a barbaric crime be repaid in the same fashion?)

I say answering murder with food and board is stupid.

By the way we never really established why non-murderous crimes can not be punished by death? Surely, blinding or burning let's say a dozen people is worth as much as 1 death....

Syzygys:

I have posted arguments for why crimes shouldn't be punished by death in the Debate.

Apparently, I was still left thirsty for answers, thus your answers probably were not good. (Like the question that you expect or not adequate pay for decent work)
Anyhow, I guess we should lock this thread because it is getting nowhere....

What do you mean by "justice", specifically? Retribution? Compensation? What? Be specific.

It would be retribution in this case, obviously.



Answering murder with murder is barbaric.

Capital punishment isn't murder, and cheap rhetoric about "barbarism" is just that.



Should I take you as my model of "quality discourse"?

Probably not, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take my input seriously.

Which, I suppose, you do. Why else would you respond in such evasive, combative, personal terms?



Don't be disingenuous now. I referred to surveys in the Debate. Go and read it. You might learn something.

Unless I've missed something, there was nothing posted that went to the question of why Americans who support the death penalty do so. The only survey I saw posted discussed what percentage of Americans support the death penalty, and also broke this down by religious affiliation, race, political affiliation, etc. The question of reasons for support was not addressed.


Do you think it is possible to sway anybody's opinion, ever?

Sure. But swaying an individual's opinion (or even, every individual on SciForums) is a very different thing than impacting American thinking and perceptions in general. There's a worrying self-aggrandizement visible in the premise that you pursue debates here to rectify American wrong-headedness.


You know what I think? I think you've developed a petty dislike for me, so you run around after me like a puppy yapping at my heels.

My dislike of you is principled. Your faults have a serious, direct impact on the quality of discourse here, to say nothing of the manifold instances of your disrespect towards me personally.

The pettiness is on your side. After all, you could easily have simply ignored me, or responded in serious, adult terms. Instead we get a mess of cheap shots and raging insecurity.


If you want to think of yourself as some kind of role model, you need to get some runs on the board.

I don't need to think of myself as a role model to see how badly you're screwing up your duties as a mod. I only need to know what an effective mod looks like, and what an ineffective one looks like.

You really need to get your hypersensitive ego in check; it won't do for a mod to be reduced to spasms of cheap, personal invective every time he's criticized. In the first place, it sets a bad example. In the second, it's a liability: it makes it an easy matter for any motivated partisan to derail you.



You came in here merely to snipe.

If you don't like armchair quarterbacking, don't create a thread whose express purpose is criticism of your debate thread. Or, anyway, don't read it. Or, at least, don't complain about it.

quadraphonics:



What do you mean by "justice", specifically? Retribution? Compensation? What? Be specific.

It would be retribution in this case, obviously.

There's more to justice than retribution, as I noted in the Debate.


Capital punishment isn't murder, and cheap rhetoric about "barbarism" is just that.

My use of the term "murder" was the cheap rhetoric there, not the "barbarism" bit.


Unless I've missed something, there was nothing posted that went to the question of why Americans who support the death penalty do so. The only survey I saw posted discussed what percentage of Americans support the death penalty, and also broke this down by religious affiliation, race, political affiliation, etc. The question of reasons for support was not addressed.

No debate of this type can hope to be comprehensive.

The answer to your question is simple, however. Americans support the death penalty because they believe it is an effective method of combating crime. In other words, they believe that it has deterrent value. They believe that it provides "justice" (like you say). In short, they believe many of Syzygys's "arguments". Why do they believe these things? Because they are uninformed. (There are other reasons, too.)


Sure. But swaying an individual's opinion (or even, every individual on SciForums) is a very different thing than impacting American thinking and perceptions in general. There's a worrying self-aggrandizement visible in the premise that you pursue debates here to rectify American wrong-headedness.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. I never talked about making a national impact on the United States or anything like that. It seems you're imagining my self-aggrandizement.


My dislike of you is principled.

Yeah. I can tell. :rolleyes:

You know what I think? I think your ego can't stand occupying the same room with somebody who doesn't automatically defer to your presumed superiority.


I don't need to think of myself as a role model to see how badly you're screwing up your duties as a mod. I only need to know what an effective mod looks like, and what an ineffective one looks like.

You're a real expert on everything, aren't you?


You really need to get your hypersensitive ego in check; it won't do for a mod to be reduced to spasms of cheap, personal invective every time he's criticized. In the first place, it sets a bad example.

You're projecting again.


If you don't like armchair quarterbacking, don't create a thread whose express purpose is criticism of your debate thread. Or, anyway, don't read it. Or, at least, don't complain about it.

I suggest you read the sticky threads at the top of the Formal Debates forum. There, I have helpfully explained how this subforum works.

Answering murder with murder is barbaric.


Yes, but nobody is answering murder with murder; we're answering murder with the death penalty. It is a penalty imposed by the government upon moronic criminals that refused to obey the laws, and thus must be a) swiftly removed from society and b) be given that which they give. Except, it isn't murder in this case because the government is only responding to the external stimuli of crime, and acting with judgement and it is responding to criminals.

Yes, but nobody is answering murder with murder; we're answering murder with the death penalty.

Yes yes. I obviously should have used the word "killing" or something. I was feeling mischievous.


It is a penalty imposed by the government upon moronic criminals...

Only moronic ones?


...that refused to obey the laws, and thus must be a) swiftly removed from society and b) be given that which they give.

(a) is achieved by locking them up. (b) is just Old Testament retribution - a kind of vengeful blood lust.

Yes yes. I obviously should have used the word "killing" or something. I was feeling mischievous. Killing is not necessarily murder; the circumstances are important, you see.


Only moronic ones? They're all moronic.


(a) is achieved by locking them up. (b) is just Old Testament retribution - a kind of vengeful blood lust.

A) Then it is achieved by both means, so let us choose the one most fitting; and besides, that isn't really true; many criminals operate their crime operations from behind bars, attack guards and start riots, rape and harm others, etc

B) Of course it's retribution, but retribution is fair. Like it or not, an eye for an eye is as fair as you're going to get. It's like the Golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. It's a plain and simple instruction as to how to react to the immoral: you give them their own medicine and send them on their merry way. How much simpler can it get?

Norsefire:


Killing is not necessarily murder; the circumstances are important, you see.

I think I'm aware of that, Norsefire.


[Criminals are] all moronic.

Interesting that you think that. Probably you have a stereotypical notion of what a "criminal" looks like. You don't think of white-collar criminals. You don't think of people who look just like you.


A) Then it is achieved by both means, so let us choose the one most fitting; and besides, that isn't really true; many criminals operate their crime operations from behind bars, attack guards and start riots, rape and harm others, etc

I already addressed this point in the Debate.


B) Of course it's retribution, but retribution is fair. Like it or not, an eye for an eye is as fair as you're going to get. It's like the Golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated.

You want to be killed by the state if you commit a crime like financial fraud, as Syzygys advocated in the Debate?

Norsefire:

I think I'm aware of that, Norsefire. Good, and I am not surprised, with you being intelligent and all.



Interesting that you think that. Probably you have a stereotypical notion of what a "criminal" looks like. You don't think of white-collar criminals. You don't think of people who look just like you. Of course I can see criminals as human beings; yes, many of them are driven to their limits by personal problems and such and such. However, that doesn't excuse criminal behavior; and furthermore, we ought to provide criminals with an opportunity to amend their ways and receive an education and counseling if they want to use this opportunity. I have no problem with that. I am not an unforgiving person. However, I am a firm person and I do believe in Justice and the law; and as such, the criminals that refuse to co-operate, show no remorse, and are intent on harming others must be swiftly executed. There is no other alternative, and no reason for apologetics on our part.


I already addressed this point in the Debate.
Not adequately.


You want to be killed by the state if you commit a crime like financial fraud, as Syzygys advocated in the Debate? What does it matter what I want, in that case? If you want to ask a criminal his opinion, he probably doesn't even want to go to jail! Or be caught, for that matter. So it's silly to ask such a question.

There's more to justice than retribution,

Never said there wasn't. Fact remains that the death penalty fulfills retributive aspects of justice, which are considered important by a sizeable chunk of the polities in question here. Hence, from a public policy perspective, the provision of this type of justice is counted as a benefit.

The question is how all of the other benefits and costs stack up. To pretend there are no benefits - even if you personally reject retributive models of justice - is either stupid or disingenuous.



My use of the term "murder" was the cheap rhetoric there, not the "barbarism" bit.

The entire thing was cheap. You think calling people names is classy rhetoric?



No debate of this type can hope to be comprehensive.

? That doesn't mean you can substitute polls on up-or-down support for the death penalty for evidence of reasons for said support.



Americans support the death penalty because they believe it is an effective method of combating crime. In other words, they believe that it has deterrent value.

Except for the ones who support it because of its retributive value, and don't particularly care about deterrence.



They believe that it provides "justice" (like you say).

Except for the ones that are interested in deterrence and prevention of future offenses, and don't care about retributive justice.

There are roughly as many American viewpoints on how the myriad factors involved relate to the question as there are Americans.



In short, they believe many of Syzygys's "arguments".

Oh? I'd be interested in seeing a poll of how many Americans would sign up for each of his arguments.

Weren't you saying something about "projection?"



Why do they believe these things? Because they are uninformed. (There are other reasons, too.)

And here we have the fantasy ideation again. You not only tell us what we think, but also why we think it, and also why we are wrong to think it, all without troubling with any inconvenient facts or other examinations of reality. Nay, you're too busy with the crusade to be bothered with such trifles: Americans support the death penalty, ergo Americans are laboring under misinformation or some other delusions (simple differences in matters of opinion somehow having been excluded), and it's your place to address this, however inconsequentially.

It's quite rude to use people as props in your fantasy.


You've got the wrong end of the stick. I never talked about making a national impact on the United States or anything like that.

When prompted for your motivations for the debate, you supplied the following:


On this topic, about 50% of the American people are grossly mistaken about why they support the death penalty. It is therefore a worthwhile exercise to get some facts out there.

I.e., American ignorance is the motivation for your actions, which are supposed to address this issue. Or is there some other way of reading those sentences? I did ask where "out there" was supposed to be, after all, and if the answer was supposed to be more confined than "the real world," then you've already missed your prompt to let us know.



You know what I think? I think your ego can't stand occupying the same room with somebody who doesn't automatically defer to your presumed superiority.

Good for you.

Except I'm not the one that goes all defensive and childish when criticized.

And we're nowhere near the point of "deference" to "superiority." We're still working on basic questions of respect and good faith.



You're a real expert on everything, aren't you?

? Did I say I was?

I've simply spent enough time exposed to both good and bad moderation - in various places - that I'm able to recognize the difference.

And one telltale sign of a bad mod is that he insults people and generally acts like a child when challenged. For example, he might respond to criticism with deflecting insults, typically demeaning the intelligence of the critic. Unfunny usage of sarcasm - i.e. "sneering" - is another red flag.



You're projecting again.

I don't think so. The insults here are all coming from you.

You're practically an encyclopedia of defense mechanisms, aren't you?

'Chemical Ali' Executed in Iraq

Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali," was executed by hanging Monday in Iraq. Last week, Saddam Hussein's notorious cousin and henchman received his fourth death sentence for crimes against humanity, handed down for his role in the 1988 poison gas attacks that killed more than 5,000 Kurds during a campaign against a Kurdish uprising.

quadraphonics:



There's more to justice than retribution

Never said there wasn't. Fact remains that the death penalty fulfills retributive aspects of justice, which are considered important by a sizeable chunk of the polities in question here.

Yes, that fact remains.


Hence, from a public policy perspective, the provision of this type of justice is counted as a benefit.

That does not follow, because, as I said, there's more to justice than retribution.


The question is how all of the other benefits and costs stack up. To pretend there are no benefits - even if you personally reject retributive models of justice - is either stupid or disingenuous.

It's a good thing I didn't do that then, isn't it?



No debate of this type can hope to be comprehensive.

? That doesn't mean you can substitute polls on up-or-down support for the death penalty for evidence of reasons for said support.

Right. That's why I helpfully expanded on the reasons in my previous reply to you.



Americans support the death penalty because they believe it is an effective method of combating crime. In other words, they believe that it has deterrent value.

Except for the ones who support it because of its retributive value, and don't particularly care about deterrence.

Hey look - I covered that in the very next sentence. Perhaps you should read the entire post before hitting the "reply" button and sounding off reflexively.



They believe that it provides "justice" (like you say).

Except for the ones that are interested in deterrence and prevention of future offenses, and don't care about retributive justice.

Like I said in the previous sentence, you mean? Hehe.


There are roughly as many American viewpoints on how the myriad factors involved relate to the question as there are Americans.

Are there? Are you sure you aren't into "fantasy ideation" here? I don't see too many "inconvenient facts" coming from you on this.



Why do they believe these things? Because they are uninformed. (There are other reasons, too.)

And here we have the fantasy ideation again. You not only tell us what we think, but also why we think it, and also why we are wrong to think it, all without troubling with any inconvenient facts or other examinations of reality.

You really ought to read the Debate, and the sites cited therein. You might even find some of those "inconvenient facts" you're hankering for.


Nay, you're too busy with the crusade to be bothered with such trifles: Americans support the death penalty, ergo Americans are laboring under misinformation or some other delusions (simple differences in matters of opinion somehow having been excluded), and it's your place to address this, however inconsequentially.

Yeah. I'm on a crusade, man! Come and join me. :m:


It's quite rude to use people as props in your fantasy.

Hehe. Nice irony there.


When prompted for your motivations for the debate, you supplied the following:


On this topic, about 50% of the American people are grossly mistaken about why they support the death penalty. It is therefore a worthwhile exercise to get some facts out there.

That was not a reply to any question or comment about my motivations.


I.e., American ignorance is the motivation for your actions, which are supposed to address this issue. Or is there some other way of reading those sentences?

Try reading them literally. What they are is a claim that about 50% of Americans are grossly mistaken about the effectiveness of the death penalty in combating crime. They also claim that it is worthwhile to educate those Americans who are so mistaken.


I did ask where "out there" was supposed to be, after all, and if the answer was supposed to be more confined than "the real world," then you've already missed your prompt to let us know.

"Out there", in this instance, means out there in big wide internet land, instead of in my head. The internet, by the way, is part of the "real world".

You don't think that educating people about the death penalty is a good idea?

Hey, while we're at it, let's just clarify something, shall we? Are you, quadraphonics, personally in favour of or against the death penalty? Please outline your personal position for me, and your reasons for it. Then I'll have a better idea where you're coming from. Will you actually commit to a position on the topic at hand, or are you only interested in sniping at me?


And we're nowhere near the point of "deference" to "superiority." We're still working on basic questions of respect and good faith.

Hehe. How ironic, once again. Please review the first post of yours that I commented on in this thread. You might want to rethink your approach, in terms of basic questions of respect and good faith, next time. Good luck with that!


And one telltale sign of a bad mod is that he insults people and generally acts like a child when challenged. For example, he might respond to criticism with deflecting insults, typically demeaning the intelligence of the critic.

Ooh, poor quadraphonics. I'm demeaning his intelligence. And yet, strangely, you were quite happy to demean Syzygys's intelligence, and to put me down. But when it comes to little old you, a whole different set of standards are suddenly demanded, aren't they? Because you're special.

Just maybe you ought to try practicing what you preach. You'd have a tad more credibility that way.


I don't think so. The insults here are all coming from you.

You think? Heh.


You're practically an encyclopedia of defense mechanisms, aren't you?

Yeah, that's me. Good analysis once again, Sigmund. Keep at it. You're doing well. :rolleyes:

Hey, look how well the prison system protects society:

"An identity thief got an extra 102 days behind bars Monday after he was caught taking out credit card lines in other people's names as he served time."

Last time I checked, no dead man commited CC fraud.

Last time I checked no dead man ever barged in front of me in a queue. Should we impose the death penalty on queue jumpers?

Last time I checked no dead man ever purloined a pencil from the company stationary store. Should we impose the death penalty on petty thieves?

Last time I checked no dead man ever barged in front of me in a queue. Should we impose the death penalty on queue jumpers?

Well, I am willing to do an experience. We put a huge sign saying:

"Queue jumpers will be shot!!" and we will execute anybody on the spot who jumps the line.

We shall see the deterring power of the death penalty. My guess is that after the first person shot, there will be VERY FEW line jumpers.

You wanna bet?

From 'Debate: Death Penalty, Thread #6'

James R: If it would be so easy to reform the death penalty to make it fairer and more workable, why hasn't that been done?

Syzygys: Who said it hasn't been? Your approach is too America -centric.

I think the winner of the debate is James R. If you have a look at the Amnesty International reports about the countries with death penalty, you'll come across cases with mentally ill inmates waiting in death row for up to 40 years.

I agree, there is no need to single out a particular country. It's a global issue.

Hey, it is time to celebrate! After 110 or so posts we have our FIRST poster who didn't just pick a winner but actually brought up an example from the Debate.

Congratulations and please post your email so we can send you a $5 gift certificate and flowers.

Unfortunatelly....


If you have a look at the Amnesty International reports about the countries with death penalty, you'll come across cases with mentally ill inmates waiting in death row for up to 40 years.

...this sentence has not much to do with the quoted material. We were talking about perfecting the DP system and I made a reference that in certain countries it works just fine. So I don't see the signifficance of mentally ill inmates.
Interestingly the mentally ill didn't even come up in the debate, if I recall. I might remember wrong...

But again, thanks for trying and feel yourself priviledged as one who actually did what we asked for...

Hey, it is time to celebrate! After 110 or so posts we have our FIRST poster who didn't just pick a winner but actually brought up an example from the Debate.

Congratulations and please post your email so we can send you a $5 gift certificate and flowers.

Unfortunatelly....



...this sentence has not much to do with the quoted material. We were talking about perfecting the DP system and I made a reference that in certain countries it works just fine. So I don't see the signifficance of mentally ill inmates.
Interestingly the mentally ill didn't even come up in the debate, if I recall. I might remember wrong...

But again, thanks for trying and feel yourself priviledged as one who actually did what we asked for...


It has a lot to do with the quoted material. Since I didn't want to single out a particular country, I kept my quote short. Please go back to your own post (Debate: Death Penalty, post #6) and continue from where I left. Then make a quick search about "Hakamada Iwao" on Amnesty International site. You'll see that it's 41 years, not 40.

Well, I am willing to do an experience. We put a huge sign saying:

"Queue jumpers will be shot!!" and we will execute anybody on the spot who jumps the line.

We shall see the deterring power of the death penalty. My guess is that after the first person shot, there will be VERY FEW line jumpers.

You wanna bet?You didn't answer my question. Should we do it? I was not disputing the outcome of the practice, I was inquiring as to whether or not you would implement it.

You didn't answer my question. Should we do it?

No. I listed the crimes in the debate for what I would give DP.

By the way my point was that no, imprisonment is not perfect as a safety measure against criminals. That's why my point in the debate that only DP can make sure they don't commit more crimes stands.

Also I never got an answer why other crimes than murder shouldn't be punished by DP?

Also I never got an answer why other crimes than murder shouldn't be punished by DP?If one is opposed to the death penalty then one is opposed to the death penalty for all crimes.

If one is opposed to the death penalty then one is opposed to the death penalty for all crimes.

That is true. But why is it an automatic assumption that only murder is the only crime that deserves the DP? We never really established that, that's why I included my suggestion list in the Debate for other crimes....

If we agree that the crime and the punishment should be as equal as they can be, sure heinous offenses against several people is just as bad as murder against one.

Let's say I burn down an orphanage for insurance purposes (greed not psycho) and in the process although nobody dies but 2 dozen kids gets life altering, horrific burns. Since I can be punished only once, shouldn't I get the most serious punishment possible? (even burning me at the stake would be just 1 punishment vs. 2 dozens)

isn't prison like temporary bans, and DP is like a permaban?

Oh yes, about the "society is safe when criminals in prison" shit:

"Amidst the horror and devastation of the massive 7.0 earthquake that has rocked Haiti, almost all of the 4,000 inmates in the capital's main prison have escaped."

We just have to wait when the big one hits California and see how many murderers, rapers, pedophiles get loose....

What do you mean by "justice", specifically? Retribution? Compensation? What? Be specific. (Also note that I addressed this in the Debate.)


"Compensation" would not be achieved, of course, because the victim doesn't actually receive anything of material value, but well targeted "Retribution" is a useful tool for society.

It's about instilling fear in future would-be murderers so they never kill in the first place. For that, you have to set up an example. Waiting in prison for an execution date is at once humiliating and demoralizing, because you know its inevitable. You can do nothing to escape. A future would be murderer experiences that pain by way of imagination of how it would feel if it happened to them. Not everyone is motivated the same by a fear of being in that situation, but many people are. Some would be more afraid of a life sentence.

So the answer is: do both. Whenever a prosecutor perceives that life in prison would be more painful to the defendant, they should ask for life. If they perceive that execution would cause more distress, then they should seek the death penalty. It never hurts to have more tools in your tool box. Some problems are best addressed with a screwdriver. Others require a wrench.



Answering murder with murder is barbaric.

I think a barbaric solution is better than no solution at all. Some people don't respond to civilized approaches.

The death penalty is a must have in any civilised country. It will not stop murder, but it will stop them doing it again.

"The former lord chief justice Lord Woolf presides over a trial of the US death penalty for perverting the course of justice. Two of Britain's leading criminal barristers cross-examine witnesses with intimate knowledge of the American justice system, including a mother who argued against the death sentence for her daughter's murderer. The mock trial was organised by the legal charity Amicus"

Here is the 29 minute video of the trial: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/video/2010/may/13/death-penalty-trial-law-video