For Those Who Oppose The Death Penalty.

[OldCoyote]

In this case a firing squad would to easy on the criminals.

www.nydailynews.com/news/national/new-jersey-mother-kidnapped-buried-alive-authorities-article-1.1793665

[EVT1]

So what makes you think the horror of a particular crime should be reason enough to support a government system that has a history of putting innocent people on death row?

Is the death of some monster worth the death of an innocent person to you?

Going to put you into the vengeance category- and I agree if we caught someone like this red handed putting them down like an animal would be appropriate- BUT that is not the case when it comes to death row.

People oppose the death penalty for different reasons- but the people for it seem to be on the same page.

[EVT1]

Life in jail has to be worse than a last meal and an injection- over quick (at least it used to be )

Some of us are going to die much worse than that- so how is that even really a punishment compared to locking someone away for a LONG time.  That's why McVeigh took the shot.

[Tennesseer]

Fortunately/unfortunately, the death penalty in New Jersey is forbidden by state law.  So they will suffer in prison for the rest of their lives if convicted.

[EVT1]

And Tennesseer dodges the issue

[Virgil Showlion]

I found his reply exceptionally diplomatic.

"I am against all those things that people hate."
    - Futurama Politician

[Tennesseer]

When ever there are discussions about the death penalty, my mind always recalls a 1963 episode of 'The Outer Limits' titled The Zanti Misfits .  And I always end up asking myself are we right to put to death criminals.  I end up with sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Opening narration

“Throughout history, compassionate minds have pondered the dark and disturbing question: what is society to do with those members who are a threat to society, those malcontents and misfits whose behavior undermines and destroys the foundations of civilization? Different ages have found different answers. Misfits have been burned, branded and banished. Today, on this planet Earth, the criminal is incarcerated in humane institutions.....or he is executed. Other planets use other methods. This is the story of how the perfectionist rulers of the planet Zanti attempted to solve the problem of the Zanti misfits.

[/span]

Plotline

Military forces have cordoned off a ghost town, aptly named Morgue, located in a remote section in the deserts of California while awaiting the arrival of a spacecraft from the planet Zanti. The perfectionist rulers of that planet, after making radio contact with our government, have decided that the Earth is the "perfect place" to exile their undesirables and criminals. They threaten total destruction if their penal ship is attacked, or if their privacy is not maintained. During the negotiations, Ben Garth, a bank robber on the run, along with his reluctant, morally-deficient accomplice/girlfriend, Lisa, cross the cordon, and run down an armed sentry during the approach of the Zanti ship, while triggering a jailbreak as Ben climbs a small mesa to investigate the landing site.

Following Ben's murder by a Zanti regent, and its subsequent pursuit of Ben's now-terrified accomplice, along with the soldiers believing that the Zanti's privacy was violated, the remaining prisoners commandeer the penal ship and land it atop the roof of an abandoned building in Morgue where the military had established its command post. When the Zanti prisoners attack Earth's nervous soldiers, a brutal firefight ensues, and all of the aliens are massacred. The soldiers and airmen anxiously await the expected reprisals, but, instead, they receive a message of thanks from the Zanti leader who explains that they were incapable of executing members of their own species so they sent them into the hands of a race who possessed no qualms about killing — the human race, referring to us as "practiced executioners".

Closing narration:

“Throughout history, various societies have tried various methods of exterminating those members who have proven their inability or unwillingness to live sanely amongst their fellow men. The Zantis tried merely one more method; neither better, nor worse than all of the others, neither more human, nor less human than all others, perhaps merely- non-human."

The Zanti Misfits

[/div]

[Deleted]

My belief is that to execute such an offender, sending them to the other side, is a reward.
Letting them rot in a 6 by 8 foot cell with Bubba for the rest of their lives here, is real punishment.

[Virgil Showlion]

The Star Trek series has a few episodes railing against the death penalty too.

This from a series where being a junior officer on an away mission basically guaranteed death in any conceivable circumstances. No need for the death penalty; just enlist criminals in Starfleet and send them on an away mission.

Hollywood has some interesting ideas, but that's all they are: interesting ideas. Dime-a-dozen, morally presumptuous, philosophically flawed, practically untenable, skin-deep-with-a-veneer-of-legitimacy interesting ideas.

[djAdvocate]

better that a hundred guilty are set free than one innocent man put to death.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2014 11:14:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

better that a hundred guilty are set free than one innocent man put to death.

Even if they're pedophiles that murder and satisfied their urges on your young family members? That you got to watch on a security camera playback?

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 12:43:37 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 11:14:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

better that a hundred guilty are set free than one innocent man put to death.

Even if they're pedophiles that murder and satisfied their urges on your young family members? That you got to watch on a security camera playback?

pedophilia is not a capital offense, jma.  but nice sensationalism. 

edit: to answer your question succinctly, i am against the DP in all instances, including the death of my own family members. 

[zibazinski]

It isn't? OMG. That's sicker than the pervert.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 13:03:31 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

It isn't? OMG. That's sicker than the pervert.

the only way a pedophile would get the DP is if he killed one of his sex victims.  otherwise, the maximum sentence is the OTHER death penalty: LWOPP.  and actually, that would be very rare, as well.  typically, pedophiles would be eligible for parole.  unfortunately.

[Virgil Showlion]

Better that 25-or-so guilty men are set free than one innocent man is put to death. A type-II/type-I error ratio of 25:1 is more than generous enough.

The Innocence Project has produced 18 exonerations out of 1,400 executions, making the current ratio 78:1, more than three times greater than the highest ratio I consider reasonable. The US is operating well within acceptable error margins.

A 100:1 ratio makes for a nice sound bite but it's ultimately nothing more than an arbitrary number pulled out of a hat by an ancient philosopher. Big. Round. Meritless.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 13:21:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Better that 25-or-so guilty men are set free than one innocent man is put to death. A type-II/type-I error ratio of 25:1 is more than generous enough.

The Innocence Project has produced 18 exonerations out of 1,400 executions, making the current ratio 78:1, more than three times greater than the highest ratio I consider reasonable. The US is operating well within acceptable error margins.

A 100:1 ratio makes for a nice sound bite but it's ultimately nothing more than an arbitrary number pulled out of a hat by an ancient philosopher. Big. Round. Meritless.

we are not talking, but i wasn't citing Franklin.  i was paraphrasing.  Franklin was talking about ALL crimes, not capital cases.

as far as i am concerned, NOBODY should be put to death, so the point is moot. 

edit: i might make an exception for war criminals like Bush or Obama.  but nobody else. 

[zibazinski]

May 16, 2014 13:18:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 13:03:31 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

It isn't? OMG. That's sicker than the pervert.

the only way a pedophile would get the DP is if he killed one of his sex victims.  otherwise, the maximum sentence is the OTHER death penalty: LWOPP.  and actually, that would be very rare, as well.  typically, pedophiles would be eligible for parole.  unfortunately.

That just makes me ill. Of course that's how DFs former stepdaughter's perp got out to get more victims. I just thought it was a bad state for victims. 

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 13:29:34 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

May 16, 2014 13:18:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the only way a pedophile would get the DP is if he killed one of his sex victims.  otherwise, the maximum sentence is the OTHER death penalty: LWOPP.  and actually, that would be very rare, as well.  typically, pedophiles would be eligible for parole.  unfortunately.

That just makes me ill. Of course that's how DFs former stepdaughter's perp got out to get more victims. I just thought it was a bad state for victims. 

given the amount of recidivism in sex crime cases, i would be all for LWOPP for a very low threshold of crime.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2014 12:58:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 12:43:37 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Even if they're pedophiles that murder and satisfied their urges on your young family members? That you got to watch on a security camera playback?

pedophilia is not a capital offense, jma.  but nice sensationalism. 

edit: to answer your question succinctly, i am against the DP in all instances, including the death of my own family members. 

Pedophiles that murder are a capital offense.  (see the first six words of my pevious post)  Kudo's for a nice try at a runaround on the question.  Care to try again?

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 13:38:43 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 12:58:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

pedophilia is not a capital offense, jma.  but nice sensationalism. 

edit: to answer your question succinctly, i am against the DP in all instances, including the death of my own family members. 

Pedophiles that murder are a capital offense. 

the pedophila was neither necessary nor sufficient.  THAT was my point.

(see the first six words of my pevious post)  Kudo's for a nice try at a runaround on the question.  Care to try again?

no.  i answered the question succinctly.  look again*.  then apologize for saying that i ran you around. 

*at the EDIT i made just under an hour ago, and OVER HALF AN HOUR before you made your post.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2014 13:49:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 13:38:43 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Pedophiles that murder are a capital offense. 

the pedophila was neither necessary nor sufficient.  THAT was my point.

(see the first six words of my pevious post)  Kudo's for a nice try at a runaround on the question.  Care to try again?

no.  i answered the question succinctly.  look again*.  then apologize for saying that i ran you around. 

*at the EDIT i made just under an hour ago, and HALF AN HOUR before you made your post.

But you didn't run me around No apology coming. I was referencing to your 100 guilty as pedophile/murderers making use of your young family members. Still want to let them go ? They know where you live now, so no human traps.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 14:01:15 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 13:49:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

no.  i answered the question succinctly.  look again*.  then apologize for saying that i ran you around. 

*at the EDIT i made just under an hour ago, and HALF AN HOUR before you made your post.

But you didn't run me around

no.

No apology coming.

why not?

I was referencing to your 100 guilty as pedophile/murderers making use of your young family members. Still want to let them go ? They know where you live now, so no human traps.

oh, i see what you are getting at now, jma.  your logic is twisted on this.  let me explain why:

the presumption of innocence is what the principle is based on.  if it can't be shown that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then YES, i am absolutely ok letting them go free, EVEN IF THEY ARE GUILTY.

but one might presume that the video would be damning. 

i am puzzled as to why our resident "absurdity cop" is not calling you out on it.

[djAdvocate]

incidentally, that was a reducio ad absurdum, but i am not complaining.  i love reducio ad absurdum argumentation. 

edit: just so we understand each other, the principle does not REQUIRE that guilty people are set free.  the principle posits that it is a preferable outcome to having the wrongly accused go to prison.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2014 14:09:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 14:01:15 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

But you didn't run me around

no.

No apology coming.

why not?

I was referencing to your 100 guilty as pedophile/murderers making use of your young family members. Still want to let them go ? They know where you live now, so no human traps.

oh, i see what you are getting at now, jma.  your logic is twisted on this.  let me explain why:

the presumption of innocence is what the principle is based on.  if it can't be shown that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then YES, i am absolutely ok letting them go free, EVEN IF THEY ARE GUILTY.

but one might presume that the video would be damning. 

i am puzzled as to why our resident "absurdity cop" is not calling you out on it.

If I came home to a raped and murdered child family member, and then viewed it on my security system. I could not let them go. Killing them by my hand or the state's is acceptable to me. Even if there was one innocent mixed in with another 99 committing the same crime. To me it's the lesser of two evils decision. As long as these type of people exist, it's a decision that has to be made.

[chiver78]

May 16, 2014 12:43:37 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 11:14:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

better that a hundred guilty are set free than one innocent man put to death.

Even if they're pedophiles that murder and satisfied their urges on your young family members? That you got to watch on a security camera playback?

in cases like that, I put my faith in the general prison population to mete out the appropriate justice. it doesn't usually take long, either.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2014 14:15:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

incidentally, that was a reducio ad absurdum, but i am not complaining.  i love reducio ad absurdum argumentation. 

edit: just so we understand each other, the principle does not REQUIRE that guilty people are set free.  the principle posits that it is a preferable outcome to having the wrongly accused go to prison.

I also would not want a wrongly accused punished, But since no system of man is perfect. I feel forced to choose what I view as the lesser evil.

[chiver78]

May 16, 2014 14:29:14 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 14:15:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

incidentally, that was a reducio ad absurdum, but i am not complaining.  i love reducio ad absurdum argumentation. 

edit: just so we understand each other, the principle does not REQUIRE that guilty people are set free.  the principle posits that it is a preferable outcome to having the wrongly accused go to prison.

I also would not want a wrongly accused punished, But since no system of man is perfect. I feel forced to choose what I view as the lesser evil.

let me ask you this, since we're speaking hypothetically - would you still feel this way if you were an innocent man sitting in jail, having been convicted wrongly of a crime like one you described earlier?

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 14:24:53 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 14:09:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

oh, i see what you are getting at now, jma.  your logic is twisted on this.  let me explain why:

the presumption of innocence is what the principle is based on.  if it can't be shown that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then YES, i am absolutely ok letting them go free, EVEN IF THEY ARE GUILTY.

but one might presume that the video would be damning. 

i am puzzled as to why our resident "absurdity cop" is not calling you out on it.

If I came home to a raped and murdered child family member, and then viewed it on my security system. I could not let them go. Killing them by my hand or the state's is acceptable to me. Even if there was one innocent mixed in with another 99 committing the same crime. To me it's the lesser of two evils decision. As long as these type of people exist, it's a decision that has to be made.

that is your choice.  i am not going to condemn you for it.  but i would appreciate it if you would not condemn me for mine.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2014 14:38:42 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 14:24:53 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

If I came home to a raped and murdered child family member, and then viewed it on my security system. I could not let them go. Killing them by my hand or the state's is acceptable to me. Even if there was one innocent mixed in with another 99 committing the same crime. To me it's the lesser of two evils decision. As long as these type of people exist, it's a decision that has to be made.

that is your choice.  i am not going to condemn you for it.  but i would appreciate it if you would not condemn me for mine.

Condemned ? I view everything here as a side of a discussion. No personal condemnations intended.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 14:29:14 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 14:15:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

incidentally, that was a reducio ad absurdum, but i am not complaining.  i love reducio ad absurdum argumentation. 

edit: just so we understand each other, the principle does not REQUIRE that guilty people are set free.  the principle posits that it is a preferable outcome to having the wrongly accused go to prison.

I also would not want a wrongly accused punished, But since no system of man is perfect. I feel forced to choose what I view as the lesser evil.

that is how most people justify the death penalty, given the obvious flaws of that system.  i am obliged to point out, however, that this is a utilitarian argument, jma.  the problem becomes: where do you draw the line?  if your objective is to let NO guilty men free, then you stand for the possibility that 99 innocents will be killed for every one guilty.  does that still work for you?  and if not, where do you draw the line?

my reason for opposing the death penalty is absolute, so really this whole argument is pointless.  but part of the reason i have adopted an absolute position is that i find the utilitarian principle untenable.  however, i am particularly puzzled by why you and others who seem to believe in small government and the inherent fallibility of bureaucracy would feel comfortable empowering them not only to be the arbiter of life and death, but to do so given the demonstrated record of that system wrongly sentencing innocent people to that punishment.