beyond reasonable doubt is the same thing.
it is aka what would 'a reasonable person conclude'
as opposed to an unreasonable person.
Discussion: Death penalty
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
beyond reasonable doubt is the same thing.
it is aka what would 'a reasonable person conclude'
as opposed to an unreasonable person.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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...
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)
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...
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)
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...
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
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?
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?
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.)
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
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.)
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...
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....
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.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
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.
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.