Warcraft Legacy Starcraft Legacy BlizzForums
The Future?

Go Back   BlizzForums > General Forums > Serious Discussion

Serious Discussion Intelligent Debate and Discussion of Important Life Topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes


Old 12-21-2008
 
#91
United States Golgo 13
ಠ_ಠ
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,559
 Golgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too much
Default

Yeah, recompense can be made to someone was was discovered to be wrongly convicted. That's impossible if they're executed.
 
Golgo 13 has 10,559 Posts

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight-of-hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit."

- Josiah Charles, President of the Bank of England & 2nd richest man in Great Britain (1880-1941)
 

Golgo 13 is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 12-21-2008
 
#92
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default

According to DaDaimon thats not a valid argument. He didn't really explain why, but he says so. Oh wait, I think he said something about being on death row gives you oppurtunity to appeal. But of course thats not a valid reply because we're not talking about being on death row, we're talking about being dead.
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 12-22-2008
 
#93
No country specified. To select a country, go to User CP -> Edit Profile -> Country Khushrenada
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,833
 Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaDaimon View Post
I will then re-iterate my point, if you do not accept the death penalty because of the risk that you could execute an innocent, you therefore cannot accept any form of punishment, because any trial and punishment inherently has this risk. This has nothing do with the death penalty but with our ability find out the truth, which is never perfect.
Sidestepping all the moral issues of anybody having the moral ground to kill anyone I'll just go ahead and mention the fact that due to it's very nature the death penalty is somewhat more irreversible than it's other counter parts.

Quote:
Fact of the matter is that you do agree with imprisoning a few innocent people for the rest of their lives. The argument that they stay alive and you could eventually rectify it doesn't matter, because how much would this improve the odds compared to keeping someone on death row for ten years and giving them numerous appeals?
Don't particularly care - the line has to be drawn somewhere and I choose to draw it at the point where we will inevitably sanction the murder of an innocent person.

That coupled with the fact that the death penalty provides no strong tangible benefit when compared to life without parole makes abolishing it to me, the obvious choice.
Quote:
At least the folks on death row got a defense that's better motivated and under a strict time schedule.

In the end you'll have to motivate the death penalty based on its effectiveness within the system as a detterent and a way of consoling the victims families by enacting revenge on their behalf. Justice must be seen to be done.
Console the relatives? Ah ok, so should we only sentence people to death if they have living relatives/loved ones who feel wronged? What if the person murdered some random homeless person who no one knows. What does his death then achieve?

Sorry but seeking revenge based on the feelings of relatives doesn't really factor hugely into it, it's justice not revenge, we're punishing him for what he done because it was wrong not as some sanctioned vengeance, because surely if we're doing it for that reason, how morally questionable the incident is becomes less and less the barometer of how he should be punished as opposed to how bad the survivors feel. Shall we pull off his toe nails because they want to see him suffer?

That and I'm not particularly keen on officially endorsing someones wish for someone else to die.
Quote:
Note: I am not in favour of the death penalty. Though I have to admit that on a very basic level I do feel the need to have people put to death that would do harm unto any of my loved ones.
The legal system is not for revenge. It is a deterrent, an enforcer, a rehabilitator and a rule maker. We dole out punishment for these reasons.

Or would you prefer the government changed to basically an endorsed vigilante style enforcer?

We don't dole out punishments as revenge for any other crime, we in the west aren't particularly fond of killing people or torturing them for what they've done so why is an exception made when it comes to murders?

Does the death penalty actually achieve anything life without parole doesn't?

Deterrent is bullshit, most murders are commited in either moments of high emotion and impulsive action (neither of which make you particularly likely to consider the ramifications) or the mentally disturbed who don't think they'll get caught and would do it regardless of what the punishment is.

Revenge is bullshit because at the end of the day we'll eventually murder one innocent person just to make some people "feel better", we're endorsing killing for personal satisfaction and I'd say that life imprisonment is sufficient enough to "ease their pain" within the realms of a lawful society, otherwise we may as well just say fuck it and allow the victims to brutally torture any convicted person until they feel better again. Fact is that they're only going to get past an event like that with personal development, not killing.

There's just no strong reason to risk even one innocent life I'm afraid.

When you can come up with a tangible reason other than "cos it feels more right" and "cos it makes some people feel better" I'll possibly consider re-thinking my position. Till then I'm happy that we don't have it in the UK, where amazingly we aren't running about killing each other willy nilly because there are "no strong deterrent" and the victims of crime don't disolve into puddles upon hearing a punishment other than "kill the cunt" and perhaps happier in the knowledge that the government isn't occasionally accidentally murdering it's own citizens.
 

Last edited by Khushrenada; 12-22-2008 at 01:07 AM.

Yes I have a blog. Read it newbie. http://sizlay.blogspot.com/
 

Khushrenada is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 12-22-2008
 
#94
United States Golgo 13
ಠ_ಠ
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,559
 Golgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too much
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khushrenada View Post
Revenge is bullshit because at the end of the day we'll eventually murder one innocent person just to make some people "feel better", we're endorsing killing for personal satisfaction and I'd say that life imprisonment is sufficient enough to "ease their pain" within the realms of a lawful society, otherwise we may as well just say fuck it and allow the victims to brutally torture any convicted person until they feel better again. Fact is that they're only going to get past an event like that with personal development, not killing.
You know, a system like that would enable families of victims to get a deeper perspective and insight rather than the voyeuristic approach of watching through a glass window as the person gets silently put to sleep like in the current system.

Which way do you think demand for torturing the offender would go if people had to do it theirselves and get the blood on their own hands, making it as fast or slow as they wanted?
 
Golgo 13 has 10,559 Posts

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight-of-hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit."

- Josiah Charles, President of the Bank of England & 2nd richest man in Great Britain (1880-1941)
 

Golgo 13 is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 12-22-2008
 
#95
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golgo_13
Which way do you think demand for torturing the offender would go if people had to do it theirselves and get the blood on their own hands, making it as fast or slow as they wanted?
Definitely up! I would love to torture somebody who killed my family member!

Well I can't really say that, but I know I would definitely want to be the one pulling the trigger.
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 12-23-2008
 
#96
Netherlands DaDaimon
Socialist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,705
 DaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulz
Default

Khush,

Your two points boil down to:

1) You don't want to risk an irreversible punishment.

2) The criminal justice system isn't made for revenge.


My reply to that is
1) If you don't want to risk an irreversible you shouldn't be doling out punishment in the first place. Every punishment is irreversible when you get down to it. Your problem is with the way we evaluate evidence and the fact that we are fallible, not with the death sentence.

Also the abolishment of the death penalty could have unintended consequences.
For instance there would be more innocent people serving a life sentence who nobody would give a fuck about. Guess how many of them would be freed compared to them serving a death sentence? Seeing the media attention for those serving a death sentence and hardly any for those serving a life sentence, I am guessing none.

2) Distinctive fields within the legal system perform different functions. The civil law is based upon restoring inequities that have arisen due to wrongful actions. Criminal law is based upon adding additional damage. This is based upon the historical role of our criminal system. Revenge.

Tell me why is in every criminal system a strong presence for inflicting pain mental or physical on those convicted? Could it possibly have to do with its history and our need for it? I have personally never lost someone to a brutal murder, however I can perfectly well understand the need for revenge in the case of the victims. Your countering it with 'personal growth' shows to me a lack in empathy. Revenge serves a biological function, the hormones released and the rush give some form of consolence a form of control in the case of the victims, who's control has been taken away.
 
 

DaDaimon is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 12-23-2008
 
#97
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaDaimon
My reply to that is
1) If you don't want to risk an irreversible you shouldn't be doling out punishment in the first place. Every punishment is irreversible when you get down to it. Your problem is with the way we evaluate evidence and the fact that we are fallible, not with the death sentence.

Also the abolishment of the death penalty could have unintended consequences.
For instance there would be more innocent people serving a life sentence who nobody would give a fuck about. Guess how many of them would be freed compared to them serving a death sentence? Seeing the media attention for those serving a death sentence and hardly any for those serving a life sentence, I am guessing none.


If your still alive you can be compensated for a wrongful conviction. Thats not he case when your dead.
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 12-23-2008
 
#98
No country specified. To select a country, go to User CP -> Edit Profile -> Country Khushrenada
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,833
 Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaDaimon View Post
Khush,

Your two points boil down to:

1) You don't want to risk an irreversible punishment.

2) The criminal justice system isn't made for revenge.


My reply to that is
1) If you don't want to risk an irreversible you shouldn't be doling out punishment in the first place. Every punishment is irreversible when you get down to it. Your problem is with the way we evaluate evidence and the fact that we are fallible, not with the death sentence.
How you can equate the death penalty to life imprisonment in terms of reversability truly boggles the mind.

No matter how much you try and equate the two, it is infinitely more possible that a person who has been wrongly accused can be recompensed for this than that of a corpse.

You've rightly said that every punishment comes with the risk of doing it to the wrongly accused, and we dole out larger and larger punishments for this, we have to draw a line somewhere and something which can never be taken back is where I draw the line. That's the main difference.
Quote:
Also the abolishment of the death penalty could have unintended consequences.
For instance there would be more innocent people serving a life sentence who nobody would give a fuck about. Guess how many of them would be freed compared to them serving a death sentence? Seeing the media attention for those serving a death sentence and hardly any for those serving a life sentence, I am guessing none.
How is this a point in your favour in the slightest? Shall we pose another question, how many wrongly accused victims do you think would choose to die rather than serve life in prison considering that there's ever hope they may be freed upon overturn of their charges?

This is without even factoring in that there would be a constant diminishing chance that this would happen which would cease to be upon the last person previously serving the death penalty dying.

I'm sorry but saying that we should keep the death penalty just so that death row inmates get more publicity which apparently will increase their likelihood of being pardoned borders on madness, it is by far the most whimsical argument I've ever heard.
Quote:
2) Distinctive fields within the legal system perform different functions. The civil law is based upon restoring inequities that have arisen due to wrongful actions. Criminal law is based upon adding additional damage. This is based upon the historical role of our criminal system. Revenge.
I'm sorry but it's not It's sometimes a coincidental companion of justice, but justice and revenge are fundamentally different.
Quote:
Tell me why is in every criminal system a strong presence for inflicting pain mental or physical on those convicted? Could it possibly have to do with its history and our need for it? I have personally never lost someone to a brutal murder, however I can perfectly well understand the need for revenge in the case of the victims.
I understand fully the victims desire for revenge but it makes it no less morally questionable.

If this system is all about revenge, if you kill my mother so I kill hers in a similar fashion am I to assume that I will be allowed to walk freely ?

Quote:
Your countering it with 'personal growth' shows to me a lack in empathy.
No it doesn't - it shows a realistic view of how a lawful and moral society must function and someone who hasn't overdosed on shit like Batman. Killing them will give momentary reprieve from the crushing blow of losing someone close or a similar trauma, this wont be solved at all by the killing however. It's purely the way the brains wired, nothing more. They're going to have to grieve and there is nothing anyone can do about that. So I'm sorry revenge isn't a reason because it doesn't actually achieve much of anything either.

Killing the murderer for someone elses personal satisfaction is completely immoral no matter which way you slice it and that's what it boils down to.

Quote:
Revenge serves a biological function, the hormones released and the rush give some form of consolence a form of control in the case of the victims, who's control has been taken away.
I'm sure it does.

We should then by this reasoning legalise murder for pathological psycopaths as they recieve a similar "biological function" from the "hormones and endorphines released and the rush give some form of pleasure".

The victims never had control, they had the illusion of control and I'm sorry I'm not willing to murder someone to make someone else feel better ever.

Much less risk murdering innocent people to do so.

Tell me, if I was with the mother and father of 3 murdered children and I told you behind the glass there was someone who there was a 50/50 chance was guilty who had been convicted would you be keen to flip the switch?

I'm going to hazard a guess and say no.

Can you perhaps provide a reason for any system that will kill someone innocent eventually it's only a matter of time when you would say no to this scenario? Where's the line then? What are your "acceptable losses"? Would a ratio like 100:1 comfort you enough to murder someone? 1000:1?

This is sweeping aside the fact that victims in other nations without the death penalty [e.g the whole of europe, canada, australia and pretty much anyone else in the developped world) do fine without it (bringing us back to the problem being the grieving process and not the momentary benefit of revenge)?
 

Yes I have a blog. Read it newbie. http://sizlay.blogspot.com/
 

Khushrenada is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 12-24-2008
 
#99
Netherlands DaDaimon
Socialist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,705
 DaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khushrenada View Post
How you can equate the death penalty to life imprisonment in terms of reversability truly boggles the mind.

No matter how much you try and equate the two, it is infinitely more possible that a person who has been wrongly accused can be recompensed for this than that of a corpse.

You've rightly said that every punishment comes with the risk of doing it to the wrongly accused, and we dole out larger and larger punishments for this, we have to draw a line somewhere and something which can never be taken back is where I draw the line. That's the main difference.
A life sentence ones elapsed cannot be taken back either, any sentence ones elapsed cannot be taken back either that's the reality of our system. The difference between the two is simply in the amount of time to rectify the wrong and the odds of it being rectified. You state that there is a bigger chance of someone getting out of a life sentence vs a death sentence.

This must imply that 1. the life sentence to death is longer than the death sentence and 2. that odds of people finding out the 'real truth' is bigger.

Tell me how many times have you heard of a life sentence being overturned and the prisoner being released? How many times have you heard of a death sentence being overturned and the prisoner released? I can tell you that the latter is far more likely.

Assuming that the degree of error in each is equal, since we're using the same system to determine guilt this seems reasonable. This means that a lot of people are serving a life sentence whilst being innocent that will never be freed.

According to your logic we should ban life sentences as well, since the likelihood for an innocent person, wrongfully imprisoned, to die in prison is at least the same.

Quote:
How is this a point in your favour in the slightest? Shall we pose another question, how many wrongly accused victims do you think would choose to die rather than serve life in prison considering that there's ever hope they may be freed upon overturn of their charges?

This is without even factoring in that there would be a constant diminishing chance that this would happen which would cease to be upon the last person previously serving the death penalty dying.

I'm sorry but saying that we should keep the death penalty just so that death row inmates get more publicity which apparently will increase their likelihood of being pardoned borders on madness, it is by far the most whimsical argument I've ever heard.
That was hardly the point of the argument, the point of the argument was that according to your logic we should not imprison people for life either, since that would equate for most innocent people with a death sentence.

Quote:
I'm sorry but it's not It's sometimes a coincidental companion of justice, but justice and revenge are fundamentally different.

I understand fully the victims desire for revenge but it makes it no less morally questionable.

If this system is all about revenge, if you kill my mother so I kill hers in a similar fashion am I to assume that I will be allowed to walk freely ?
This is a strawman, I never said that you could take your revenge on an innocent victim. If you want to play by that game fine, but you can play by yourself then.

Quote:
No it doesn't - it shows a realistic view of how a lawful and moral society must function and someone who hasn't overdosed on shit like Batman. Killing them will give momentary reprieve from the crushing blow of losing someone close or a similar trauma, this wont be solved at all by the killing however. It's purely the way the brains wired, nothing more. They're going to have to grieve and there is nothing anyone can do about that. So I'm sorry revenge isn't a reason because it doesn't actually achieve much of anything either.

Killing the murderer for someone elses personal satisfaction is completely immoral no matter which way you slice it and that's what it boils down to.
I never said it should be done for someones personal satisfaction, that's a broad generalization. One of the functions of the criminal justice system is revenge, any law student can tell you that, but let me provide you with a source for it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restitution. Jurisdictions differ on the value to be placed on each.
  • Retribution - Criminals ought to suffer in some way. This is the most widely seen goal. Criminals have taken improper advantage, or inflicted unfair detriment, upon others and consequently, the criminal law will put criminals at some unpleasant disadvantage to "balance the scales." This belief has some connection with utilitarianism. People submit to the law to receive the right not to be murdered and if people contravene these laws, they surrender the rights granted to them by the law. Thus, one who murders may be murdered himself. A related theory includes the idea of "righting the balance."
  • Deterrence - Individual deterrence is aimed toward the specific offender. The aim is to impose a sufficient penalty to discourage the offender from criminal behavior. General deterrence aims at society at large. By imposing a penalty on those who commit offenses, other individuals are discouraged from committing those offenses.
  • Incapacitation - Designed simply to keep criminals away from society so that the public is protected from their misconduct. This is often achieved through prison sentences today. The death penalty or banishment have served the same purpose.
  • Rehabilitation - Aims at transforming an offender into a valuable member of society. Its primary goal is to prevent further offense by convincing the offender that their conduct was wrong.
  • Restitution - This is a victim-oriented theory of punishment. The goal is to repair, through state authority, any hurt inflicted on the victim by the offender. For example, one who embezzles will be required to repay the amount improperly acquired. Restitution is commonly combined with other main goals of criminal justice and is closely related to concepts in the civil law.
Whether or not you accept the death penalty as a punishment should be based upon these objectives.

Quote:
I'm sure it does.

We should then by this reasoning legalise murder for pathological psycopaths as they recieve a similar "biological function" from the "hormones and endorphines released and the rush give some form of pleasure".

The victims never had control, they had the illusion of control and I'm sorry I'm not willing to murder someone to make someone else feel better ever.

Much less risk murdering innocent people to do so.
I am sorry, but this is a strawman again. I never said we should let pathological psychopaths loose upon the population, nor can that be infered by my argument, nor the context of the argument. If your only arguments are strawmen, perhaps you should reconsider your careerchoice and start making scarecrows.

Quote:
Tell me, if I was with the mother and father of 3 murdered children and I told you behind the glass there was someone who there was a 50/50 chance was guilty who had been convicted would you be keen to flip the switch?

I'm going to hazard a guess and say no.

Can you perhaps provide a reason for any system that will kill someone innocent eventually it's only a matter of time when you would say no to this scenario? Where's the line then? What are your "acceptable losses"? Would a ratio like 100:1 comfort you enough to murder someone? 1000:1?

This is sweeping aside the fact that victims in other nations without the death penalty [e.g the whole of europe, canada, australia and pretty much anyone else in the developped world) do fine without it (bringing us back to the problem being the grieving process and not the momentary benefit of revenge)?
That's nice, but that's not how our system works. Beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. That is if the evidence does not convince you must aquit. You're trying to tackle a problem here that's already been tackled in the courtroom.

But that's basically your entire point really, your problem is with the way we weigh the evidence. I have not heard you make one argument in favour of not killing someone who was absolutly guilty of said crime.
 
 

DaDaimon is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 12-27-2008
 
#100
No country specified. To select a country, go to User CP -> Edit Profile -> Country Khushrenada
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,833
 Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaDaimon View Post
A life sentence ones elapsed cannot be taken back either, any sentence ones elapsed cannot be taken back either that's the reality of our system. The difference between the two is simply in the amount of time to rectify the wrong and the odds of it being rectified. You state that there is a bigger chance of someone getting out of a life sentence vs a death sentence.
Yes and I've repeatedly explained that the line must be drawn somewhere and I draw it at the punishment with no tangible benefits that anyone has provided. I agree that you can take neither back, and that's unfortunate, but considering the somewhat final nature of death it diminishes the chances even further, again for a practice which we've yet to demonstrate serves much of a purpose.
Quote:
This must imply that 1. the life sentence to death is longer than the death sentence and 2. that odds of people finding out the 'real truth' is bigger.
Most people who are convicted will live beyond 20 years so what I implied is infact, true. The chances of it coming out are dramatically increased over time, they diminish to somewhat near 0 when the persons dead however.

Again we're noting a lack of notable benefits.
Quote:
Tell me how many times have you heard of a life sentence being overturned and the prisoner being released? How many times have you heard of a death sentence being overturned and the prisoner released? I can tell you that the latter is far more likely.
What a shower of shite. The convicts are released and their charges are overturned because it has come to light that they were innocent, not because they were on the death penalty so can we please stop with this "It's in the prisoners own interests" pish? Innocent people should be released regardless of the punishment or crime so it's really a failing argument.
Quote:
Assuming that the degree of error in each is equal, since we're using the same system to determine guilt this seems reasonable. This means that a lot of people are serving a life sentence whilst being innocent that will never be freed.

According to your logic we should ban life sentences as well, since the likelihood for an innocent person, wrongfully imprisoned, to die in prison is at least the same.
Once again I admit that in a perfect world yes we would never punish the innocent, however in reality we must punish the guilty and in this world that means occasionally punishing innocent people by mistake. Thus we must draw a line somewhere of what is acceptable I draw it at the death penalty since it has no benefits of merit compared with life without parole.

That's of course ignoring the moral quandries of what exactly gives anyone the right to decide who lives and dies of course, or the arrogant assumption that we are fit to make such decisions.


Quote:
That was hardly the point of the argument, the point of the argument was that according to your logic we should not imprison people for life either, since that would equate for most innocent people with a death sentence.
Bullshit, see above - an explanation that's in about 20 of my previous posts as well. I'm assuming your eyesight is perhaps not 20:20.


Quote:
This is a strawman, I never said that you could take your revenge on an innocent victim. If you want to play by that game fine, but you can play by yourself then.
You are the one saying that revenge is a morally acceptable reason to kill someone when you say the death penalty is acceptable. There's no strawman. Revenge is either a strong reason to morally justify killing someone or it isn't, which is it?

And just so we can clear it up - bullshit like "only if their guilty" cos it wont fly. It's either right or wrong - pick one. It's not my fault you don't like the implications of your own opinions pal.


Quote:
I never said it should be done for someones personal satisfaction, that's a broad generalization.
Not really, you are saying the reason we should flip the switch, or at the least a contributing factor is to help the surviving victims.

Your killing to make them feel better. Again - I'm only rewording your own opinions in a less clinical and diplomatic bullshit way. Not my fault you aren't comfortable with them.

Quote:
One of the functions of the criminal justice system is revenge, any law student can tell you that, but let me provide you with a source for it:
Can you read? I've repeatedly stated that although revenge is a commonplace sidekick of justice, it's not the reason we should be doling out the death penalty as opposed to life without parole, because as I've also repeatedly stated - that just boils down to killing for someones pleasure.


Quote:
Whether or not you accept the death penalty as a punishment should be based upon these objectives.
haha are you shitting me ? Wiki?

Quote:
Criminals ought to suffer in some way. This is the most widely seen goal. Criminals have taken improper advantage, or inflicted unfair detriment, upon others and consequently, the criminal law will put criminals at some unpleasant disadvantage to "balance the scales." This belief has some connection with utilitarianism. People submit to the law to receive the right not to be murdered and if people contravene these laws, they surrender the rights granted to them by the law. Thus, one who murders may be murdered himself. A related theory includes the idea of "righting the balance."
So again I pose the question, if I am to kill your mother you are free then to kill mines with impunity?

Revenge comes with justice a lot of the time, but it should not be a contributer to increasing the punishment or far fucking less flip the switch on an electric chair. It's not acceptable on a moral ground. They're either guilty or they're not, that's all that should matter or again we're killing for peoples pleasure.

Quote:
I am sorry, but this is a strawman again. I never said we should let pathological psychopaths loose upon the population, nor can that be infered by my argument, nor the context of the argument. If your only arguments are strawmen, perhaps you should reconsider your careerchoice and start making scarecrows.
It's really not. You are saying that we should kill people becuase some people want them dead. Is this not exactly what you are saying when you list revenge as a reason that the death penalty should exist? You've not touted any other reason for the death penalty other than revenge so again it's not my fault you don't like your own opinion. I just chose to show you an example of how fking ridiculous it is


Quote:
That's nice, but that's not how our system works.
That's exactly how our system works.
Quote:
Beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
Spouting this bullshit reason does not make the mistakes go away.
Quote:
That is if the evidence does not convince you must aquit. You're trying to tackle a problem here that's already been tackled in the courtroom.

But that's basically your entire point really, your problem is with the way we weigh the evidence. I have not heard you make one argument in favour of not killing someone who was absolutly guilty of said crime.
The reason I haven't tackled it is because it's a fictional scenario. There is no way to know which cases are mistakes and which aren't. My opinion on it doesn't matter until the system is flawless - it isn't and it's not going to be for a long time so I feel no need to question what gives anyone the right to end anothers life.

I'll slightly reword the question since your clown powers have managed to subvert the point again.

Quote:
Tell me, if I was with the mother and father of 3 murdered children and I told you behind the glass there was someone who there was a 50/50 chance was either guilty or a mistake was made and he was wrongfully convicted would you be keen to flip the switch?
So I ask again - where is your line? What are your "acceptable" losses.

You champion a system that will kill people it's only a matter of time, any such system is simply unacceptable to me. Especially when we can't really show any decent reason for it to exist. There is nothing anyone has shown me that provides enough of a benefit for me to say "It's unfortunate but it has to be done".

Victims are more than capable of going through the grieving process without the death penalty which is so far all of your reasoning I've seen. So there is no compelling reason for me to murder innocent people.
 

Yes I have a blog. Read it newbie. http://sizlay.blogspot.com/
 

Khushrenada is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 12-28-2008
 
#101
Netherlands DaDaimon
Socialist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,705
 DaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulzDaDaimon did it for teh lulz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Khushrenada View Post
Yes and I've repeatedly explained that the line must be drawn somewhere and I draw it at the punishment with no tangible benefits that anyone has provided. I agree that you can take neither back, and that's unfortunate, but considering the somewhat final nature of death it diminishes the chances even further, again for a practice which we've yet to demonstrate serves much of a purpose.

Most people who are convicted will live beyond 20 years so what I implied is infact, true. The chances of it coming out are dramatically increased over time, they diminish to somewhat near 0 when the persons dead however.

Again we're noting a lack of notable benefits.
Back your claims up please? You have so far given no other reason for the truth of your claims except 'I said so'. This might have worked well in kindergarden, I expect something more.

Quote:
What a shower of shite. The convicts are released and their charges are overturned because it has come to light that they were innocent, not because they were on the death penalty so can we please stop with this "It's in the prisoners own interests" pish? Innocent people should be released regardless of the punishment or crime so it's really a failing argument.
I never claimed it was in the prisoners interest. You were the one using that as the basis of your argument, not mine.

Quote:
Once again I admit that in a perfect world yes we would never punish the innocent, however in reality we must punish the guilty and in this world that means occasionally punishing innocent people by mistake. Thus we must draw a line somewhere of what is acceptable I draw it at the death penalty since it has no benefits of merit compared with life without parole.
You were arguing the benefits of a life without parole vs the death penalty, show them.
I have consistently stated that the benefit is not plausible and thus not a good reason to abolish or to not instate the use of the death penalty.

Quote:
That's of course ignoring the moral quandries of what exactly gives anyone the right to decide who lives and dies of course, or the arrogant assumption that we are fit to make such decisions.
Well it's not like we've really got an alternative do we? If you want a state and not a lawless society you will have to give someone the power to decide, to legislate and to judge.

Quote:
Bullshit, see above - an explanation that's in about 20 of my previous posts as well. I'm assuming your eyesight is perhaps not 20:20.
I see we've progressed from strawmen to ad hominems, I am therefore going to assume you're an idiot, so far this assumption is plausible.

Quote:
You are the one saying that revenge is a morally acceptable reason to kill someone when you say the death penalty is acceptable. There's no strawman. Revenge is either a strong reason to morally justify killing someone or it isn't, which is it?

And just so we can clear it up - bullshit like "only if their guilty" cos it wont fly. It's either right or wrong - pick one. It's not my fault you don't like the implications of your own opinions pal.
Yes it is, this isn't the opinion page of 'The Sun' where you can disregard context and broaden any statement as you see fit.

Quote:
Not really, you are saying the reason we should flip the switch, or at the least a contributing factor is to help the surviving victims.

Your killing to make them feel better. Again - I'm only rewording your own opinions in a less clinical and diplomatic bullshit way. Not my fault you aren't comfortable with them.

Can you read? I've repeatedly stated that although revenge is a commonplace sidekick of justice, it's not the reason we should be doling out the death penalty as opposed to life without parole, because as I've also repeatedly stated - that just boils down to killing for someones pleasure.
I can read, I am wondering whether you can. While you're reading open up a copy of your oxford dictionary and look up what the meaning of 'revenge' is. Revenge is hardly doing something for pleasure. Also personal satisfaction is not the same thing as 'pleasure'. Again you're disregarding any context whatsoever.

Quote:
haha are you shitting me ? Wiki?
Poisoning the well won't make your argument stronger. I'd scan in my law textbooks, but sadly they are in Dutch and since you're already having trouble with your native English this wouldn't exactly be of much help to you.

Quote:
So again I pose the question, if I am to kill your mother you are free then to kill mines with impunity?
Where did I argue for that? Please do show me that? I am all for punishing the criminals not for killing the innocent. What has your mother to do with this anyway, is she a bigger idiot than you? It's criminal, but it hardly warrants a killing.

Quote:
Revenge comes with justice a lot of the time, but it should not be a contributer to increasing the punishment or far fucking less flip the switch on an electric chair. It's not acceptable on a moral ground. They're either guilty or they're not, that's all that should matter or again we're killing for peoples pleasure.
In the criminal justice system it's exactly what it does, it increases the punishment.

Quote:
It's really not. You are saying that we should kill people becuase some people want them dead. Is this not exactly what you are saying when you list revenge as a reason that the death penalty should exist? You've not touted any other reason for the death penalty other than revenge so again it's not my fault you don't like your own opinion. I just chose to show you an example of how fking ridiculous it is
No you are showing why overgeneralization is fucking ridiculous I know context is hard, but picking words that you don't like and harp on and on about them isn't exactly contributing to the discussion.

Quote:
That's exactly how our system works.
No it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, what are you, 4?


Quote:
Spouting this bullshit reason does not make the mistakes go away.
I didn't know you considered beyond the shadow of a doubt as a bullshit reason. Perhaps you don't know how the system works?

Quote:
The reason I haven't tackled it is because it's a fictional scenario. There is no way to know which cases are mistakes and which aren't. My opinion on it doesn't matter until the system is flawless - it isn't and it's not going to be for a long time so I feel no need to question what gives anyone the right to end anothers life.

I'll slightly reword the question since your clown powers have managed to subvert the point again.

So I ask again - where is your line? What are your "acceptable" losses.

You champion a system that will kill people it's only a matter of time, any such system is simply unacceptable to me. Especially when we can't really show any decent reason for it to exist. There is nothing anyone has shown me that provides enough of a benefit for me to say "It's unfortunate but it has to be done".

Victims are more than capable of going through the grieving process without the death penalty which is so far all of your reasoning I've seen. So there is no compelling reason for me to murder innocent people.
It's irrelevant to the question of what kind of penalty we should administer. The way we determine what the truth is, is bound to have errors, whether you put people away for life, for five years, some will be innocent. This has nothing to do with the severity of the punishment to be administered. If we're certain we should administer the punishment.

Whether a punishment is adequate is an issue that should be considered apart from whether or not we're good at finding the truth and whether or not a criminal justice system like ours should function the way it does. In these circumstances, for this question it is a given.

The death penalty should administered if it fullfills the qualities of a punishment we expect from a punishment and these are pretty much universal from criminal justice system to criminal justice system. Do we consider the death penalty proportional to the crime of murdering another human being? Does the victims family feel vindicate? Has justice been done? These are the questions that you should ask.

I am done here everyone that's interested can read my arguments and yours 5 times over. I don't see any use of further trying to convince a sloppy thinker like yourself.
 

Last edited by DaDaimon; 12-28-2008 at 01:30 PM.
 

DaDaimon is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 12-28-2008
 
#102
No country specified. To select a country, go to User CP -> Edit Profile -> Country Khushrenada
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,833
 Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!Khushrenada is unstoppable!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaDaimon View Post
Back your claims up please? You have so far given no other reason for the truth of your claims except 'I said so'. This might have worked well in kindergarden, I expect something more.
You can't be fucking serious? You want proof that most people on death row are killed before they would have naturally? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions ---> select 2008 (or pretty much any year). You will find that with the exclusion of a few people almost all of them are younger than 50 this means that given that the human life expectancy is around the 80-85 mark (it varies in regions etc) that even the oldest of these would naturally be expected to live another 30 years instead of the 20 or so they can expect going through appeals procedure.


Quote:
I never claimed it was in the prisoners interest. You were the one using that as the basis of your argument, not mine.
Sorry did you not imply that they should stay on death row because "the truth is more likely to come out because of the increased media attention" ? Can you please keep track of what you say in future. You brought that shower of pish up, not me.


Quote:
You were arguing the benefits of a life without parole vs the death penalty, show them.
I have consistently stated that the benefit is not plausible and thus not a good reason to abolish or to not instate the use of the death penalty.
Surely if you propose we should have the death penalty the onus is upon you to provide reasoning why it should exist and benefits for it since we already have life without parole as a lesser alternative to the death penalty. I'm saying we should remove the harshest option because there is no logical reasoning for it to exist despite numerous moral questions about it's existence.


Quote:
Well it's not like we've really got an alternative do we? If you want a state and not a lawless society you will have to give someone the power to decide, to legislate and to judge.
And you say I am the one with strawmans?

I say that it's perhaps morally questionable what gives a judge the right to sentence someone else to death and suddenly the only alternative is that we would live in a lawless society.

I'm surprised I've survived this long in the UK, I shall phone the prime minister immediately and let him know the consequences of not having a death penalty.

My mum might go a bit ape shit at all the international calls when I have to inform the rest of the developped world though Save shitloads not having to phone the middle east though since we all know they are beacons of morality already.


Quote:
I see we've progressed from strawmen to ad hominems, I am therefore going to assume you're an idiot, so far this assumption is plausible.
You keep saying the same thing which I've addressed many times, how is it any fault of mine you are unable to read?


Quote:
Yes it is, this isn't the opinion page of 'The Sun' where you can disregard context and broaden any statement as you see fit.
I notice you fail to answer the question Is it right or wrong? Pick a stance :O


Quote:
I can read, I am wondering whether you can. While you're reading open up a copy of your oxford dictionary and look up what the meaning of 'revenge' is. Revenge is hardly doing something for pleasure. Also personal satisfaction is not the same thing as 'pleasure'. Again you're disregarding any context whatsoever.
You're disregarding the context I'm using "personal satisfaction" in to be so pissy about definitions so really it's pot kettle noir here buddy.

The fact is that you are justifying killing someone because someone else wants it done. Someones elses desires, regardless of nature are not often moral indicators.

I want my neighbours computer cos it is better than man, this however doesn't mean I am free to take it, or that it is moral to do so.

Similarly the survivors of a brutal murder may way the person in question killed this however doesn't mean that we are free to do so or that it is moral to do so.

Am I making it clear enough that you can actually tackle the point I'm making instead of low blow efforts to try and dick around with "context".

You don't like the words I'm using because they are not as diplomatic and don't make your position sound as nice as your words do, this is not my fault. Whatever you boil it down to you are justifying killing someone to "please" another.


Quote:
Poisoning the well won't make your argument stronger. I'd scan in my law textbooks, but sadly they are in Dutch and since you're already having trouble with your native English this wouldn't exactly be of much help to you.
So if you truly believe that revenge should be the defining reason that we should increase punishments, should the indicator of the punishment not be how wronged the victim feels as opposed to how awful the crime was?

I'm not saying revenge isn't served in cases, I'm saying we shouldn't be doling out the death penalty as opposed to life without parole based predominantly on this premise. Tell me how life without parole provides no retribution whatsoever?



Quote:
Where did I argue for that? Please do show me that? I am all for punishing the criminals not for killing the innocent. What has your mother to do with this anyway, is she a bigger idiot than you? It's criminal, but it hardly warrants a killing.
You think revenge is a morally acceptable reason to kill someone yes? Seems your having an awfully hard time coming to terms with your own beliefs if they aren't framed in your perfect fantasy of flaw free convictions and completely unbiased legal systems.


Quote:
In the criminal justice system it's exactly what it does, it increases the punishment.
So again - we should increase dramatically the punishment based on how wronged the victims feel. What of cases where there are no victims to claim revenge for, shall we "go easy on them" since no one is really in need to vengeance in that case?

Quote:
No you are showing why overgeneralization is fucking ridiculous I know context is hard, but picking words that you don't like and harp on and on about them isn't exactly contributing to the discussion.
You failing to understand the implications of your far reaching opinions is what I don't like.

Invoking the death penalty on the basis of revenge is killing someone to "please" another, plain and simple. You can airy fairy it up with talking about their grieving process but at the end of the day if your seeking vengeance for them as the only reason for the death penalty, that's what it is.


Quote:
No it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, what are you, 4?
Please explain how that isn't how the system works then if you will? Just because I'm continually having to point out the obvious gaping wounds in your argument and put them in blunter and blunter terms to try and get some through your selective vision implies nothing of my age.


Quote:
I didn't know you considered beyond the shadow of a doubt as a bullshit reason. Perhaps you don't know how the system works?
Because there is no "beyond a shadow of a doubt" because the system that we use to find what may or may not be in doubt is not flawless. What is your major malfunction? No matter how compelling the evidence, no matter how amazing the convictions, it's going to make a mistake again and again, got it? Evidence tampering, administration errors, jury bias, media involvement, blah blah fucking blah. No matter how the case looks we don't know which ones are mistakes and which aren't that's the problem.



Quote:
It's irrelevant to the question of what kind of penalty we should administer. The way we determine what the truth is, is bound to have errors, whether you put people away for life, for five years, some will be innocent. This has nothing to do with the severity of the punishment to be administered. If we're certain we should administer the punishment.
That's not what I asked, I asked what you consider your "acceptable losses" for the death penalty to provide it's numerous peekaboo benefits to us. 1000:1? Does that figure comfort you? Does it justify murdering innocents?
Quote:
Whether a punishment is adequate is an issue that should be considered apart from whether or not we're good at finding the truth and whether or not a criminal justice system like ours should function the way it does. In these circumstances, for this question it is a given.
I think we should take into consideration how good we are at finding the truth when we determine how adequete a punishment.

Quote:
The death penalty should administered if it fullfills the qualities of a punishment we expect from a punishment and these are pretty much universal from criminal justice system to criminal justice system. Do we consider the death penalty proportional to the crime of murdering another human being?
Do we have the right to kill someone while saying it's wrong?
Quote:
Does the victims family feel vindicate?
if not shall we murder some more people? Should we murder people on people's desire for it to happen in the first place? What if theres no family?
Quote:
Has justice been done?
bit generic
Quote:
These are the questions that you should ask.
Along with "what are the consequences of a mistake at this level of punishment?"
Quote:
I am done here everyone that's interested can read my arguments and yours 5 times over. I don't see any use of further trying to convince a sloppy thinker like yourself.

 

Yes I have a blog. Read it newbie. http://sizlay.blogspot.com/
 

Khushrenada is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are the Fundamentals of Islam GnaReffotsirk Chit Chat 108 12-07-2008 11:47 PM
Biggest SC2 problem now - death animation Wankey StarCraft Discussion 32 11-16-2008 02:17 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:35 AM.
Designed by XG3