For Those Who Oppose The Death Penalty.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 14:43:50 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

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

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.

whatever word you choose, then.  my position is no less moral than yours. 

[Deleted]

May 16, 2014 14:32:41 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

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

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?

Because of the lifestyle I live. I stand a way better chance of winning half a billion on the powerball lottery than being convicted of a child rape and murder. That being said, I would not like it but I would probably die or be imprisoned to prevent 100 pedophile/murderers from not being executed or life imprisoned. Easy to say while sitting by my computer without another human within miles of me in backwoods Arkansas. Not that I would have a choice anyway.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 14:57:01 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 14:32:41 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

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?

Because of the lifestyle I live. I stand a way better chance of winning half a billion on the powerball lottery than being convicted of a child rape and murder. That being said, I would not like it but I would probably die or be imprisoned to prevent 100 pedophile/murderers from not being executed or life imprisoned. Easy to say while sitting by my computer without another human within miles of me in backwoods Arkansas. Not that I would have a choice anyway.

there is no way in hell that i would be that philosophical.  but that is because i am utterly distrusting of the state, and it's raw power to do harm to it's citizens.

what's your excuse?

[Deleted]

May 16, 2014 14:45:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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

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. 

If your guilty under the systems rules no matter that it's not perfect, your guilty. Punishment for your crime is already codified by the majority. Most criminals know what they're in for if caught. The number of falsely convicted is small enough for me to live with when the punishment mechanism is removed from my immediate concern. Like our food supply. How many T-bone steak lovers can pull out the big knife and butcher the cow ? I can.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2014 15:04:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 14:57:01 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Because of the lifestyle I live. I stand a way better chance of winning half a billion on the powerball lottery than being convicted of a child rape and murder. That being said, I would not like it but I would probably die or be imprisoned to prevent 100 pedophile/murderers from not being executed or life imprisoned. Easy to say while sitting by my computer without another human within miles of me in backwoods Arkansas. Not that I would have a choice anyway.

there is no way in hell that i would be that philosophical.  but that is because i am utterly distrusting of the state, and it's raw power to do harm to it's citizens.

what's your excuse?

We are the state.

[Angel!]

This thread is well-timed, I just had a phone survey last night that was all about my feelings on the death penalty.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it & think it is probably good in extreme circumstances.  But, then my state has only executed 1 person in almost 40 years, so they obviously save it for extreme circumstances here.  If I lived in a state that was much more liberal in their executions, then I might feel different (I'm looking at you Texas & Oklahoma  ).

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 15:17:15 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 14:45:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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. 

If your guilty under the systems rules no matter that it's not perfect, your guilty.

that didn't answer the question.  let's say that the system is not only not perfect, let's say it is wrong 99% of the time.  is that OK with you?  or is it ONLY OK when the injustice is "rare"?  and if so, HOW RARE?

Punishment for your crime is already codified by the majority. Most criminals know what they're in for if caught. The number of falsely convicted is small enough for me to live with when the punishment mechanism is removed from my immediate concern. Like our food supply. How many T-bone steak lovers can pull out the big knife and butcher the cow ? I can.

i can't.  but my wife can. 

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 15:19:12 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 15:04:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

there is no way in hell that i would be that philosophical.  but that is because i am utterly distrusting of the state, and it's raw power to do harm to it's citizens.

what's your excuse?

We are the state.

that's right.  so, when it does wrong, we are guilty, right?

[zibazinski]

Yes, we are. We elect those idiots over and over who try to take away our rights and don't listen to the will of the people.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 15:55:00 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Yes, we are. We elect those idiots over and over who try to take away our rights and don't listen to the will of the people.

i totally agree with you, zib.  but realize, as i do, that the system is totally geared against us because of the primary system.  what the primary system does is to limit the number of parties.  it is great if you love Democrats or love Republicans.  it really sucks if you don't like either. 

[zibazinski]

True. Sad but true.

[billisonboard]

May 16, 2014 15:58:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 15:55:00 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Yes, we are. We elect those idiots over and over who try to take away our rights and don't listen to the will of the people.

i totally agree with you, zib.  but realize, as i do, that the system is totally geared against us because of the primary system.  what the primary system does is to limit the number of parties.  it is great if you love Democrats or love Republicans.  it really sucks if you don't like either. 

I would disagree that the "primary system" is the limiting factor. There are state laws which create impediments to ballot access which have that effect.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 16:06:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 16, 2014 15:58:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i totally agree with you, zib.  but realize, as i do, that the system is totally geared against us because of the primary system.  what the primary system does is to limit the number of parties.  it is great if you love Democrats or love Republicans.  it really sucks if you don't like either. 

I would disagree that the "primary system" is the limiting factor. There are state laws which create impediments to ballot access which have that effect.

would you agree that it is A limiting factor?

[billisonboard]

May 16, 2014 16:08:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 16:06:56 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I would disagree that the "primary system" is the limiting factor. There are state laws which create impediments to ballot access which have that effect.

would you agree that it is A limiting factor?

If someone walked me through how it is.

And I guess I would be interested in a discussion of which "primary system" you are talking about specifically.

[zibazinski]

We have incumbents who flat out admit that it's stacked in their favor to always get re-elected.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 16:11:20 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 16, 2014 16:08:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

would you agree that it is A limiting factor?

If someone walked me through how it is.

And I guess I would be interested in a discussion of which "primary system" you are talking about specifically.

i can't take the time to do that right now, but i will later.  election primaries is what i am talking about.  primarily federal.

[Sam_2.0]

So have life in prison, and offer assisted suicide options for those that don't want to live out their days in a prison cell. There are pills that are nearly instantly fatal (think of the guy who took them upon hearing his guilty verdict while back). Just have the pills there if they want them. If not, then they can live in solitary confinement for the rest of their days. Underground prisons with pneumatic tubes to bring daily meals. No windows, no contact with people. Works for me.

[billisonboard]

May 16, 2014 16:12:31 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

We have incumbents who flat out admit that it's stacked in their favor to always get re-elected.

Name recognition is a powerful thing to have going for you in fund raising and elections. Nothing to do with the primary system and Republicans/Democrats. It works for Bernie Sanders in Vermont as well.

[billisonboard]

May 16, 2014 16:17:44 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

So have life in prison, and offer assisted suicide options ...

They did not give the option to live or die to their victims. We shouldn't give it to them.

[billisonboard]

May 16, 2014 16:12:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 16:11:20 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

If someone walked me through how it is.

And I guess I would be interested in a discussion of which "primary system" you are talking about specifically.

i can't take the time to do that right now, but i will later.  election primaries is what i am talking about.  primarily federal.

Look forward to reading it.

btw, there are not federal election primaries.

[Virgil Showlion]

This is somewhat removed from the OP, but the issue came up in another thread: What are your positions on putting animals to death to avoid lawsuits?

For example, the guard dog that bit the neighbours' boy in that ridiculous "hero cat" story has been (or is going to be) put down. What say you to executing animals that step over the line? (I'm looking at the morality of it; not the legality.)

[jkapp]

May 15, 2014 22:50:46 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

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.

So you would prefer these animals get put into prison with all of those innocent people that seem to be cluttering our jails.  And then all of those innocent people can be raped, beaten, and murdered while they are in prison by these same animals?

If that's what makes you feel like a better person...I guess 

[billisonboard]

May 16, 2014 16:55:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

This is somewhat removed from the OP, but the issue came up in another thread: What are your positions on putting animals to death to avoid lawsuits?

For example, the guard dog that bit the neighbours' boy in that ridiculous "hero cat" story has been (or is going to be) put down. What say you to executing animals that step over the line? (I'm looking at the morality of it; not the legality.)

I do not have a problem with the killing of a domesticated animal that engages in behavior that makes it so they can not live outside of a very secure cage because there is no possibility that the animal will ever come to an understanding that what they did was wrong.

The wording of the question first asked, "... to avoid lawsuits" invites a potentially different answer. If the lawsuit being avoided is one of "pet custody" in a brutal divorce - no it is morally correct for one party to kill the animal so they don't have to lose/share custody. I would feel very badly in that situation if it were a "murder"/suicide, badly for the animal. I have to admit that I would probably actually chuckle at the fool who killed themselves.

[Deleted]

I believe in the Death Penalty... but only in circumstances of unimpeachable guilt (recorded video proof {from a security camera, for instance}, for example) OR non-duress confession.

[EVT1]

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.

But the innocence project only examines so many cases.

And what the real truth is that sans the death penalty no one is going free.  It goes from better than 100 go free than 1 innocent dies, to better that 100 spend life in prison than one innocent dies.  Much more palatable.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 16, 2014 18:54:45 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

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.

And what the real truth is that sans the death penalty no one is going free.  It goes from better than 100 go free than 1 innocent dies, to better that 100 spend life in prison than one innocent dies.  Much more palatable.

The analogy here is 100 guilty men receiving an unjust punishment so that one innocent man might be spared an unjust punishment. Life without possibility of parole isn't a just punishment for capital crimes. It's arbitrary, excessive, dehumanizing, expensive, burdensome to victims' families, and generally unfitting of the crime it's intended to punish.

Where the analogy breaks down is that the innocent man "spared unjust punishment" isn't actually spared unjust punishment. He simply receives another unjust punishment--one which I personally believe to be a less tolerable than a quick execution.

But the innocence project only examines so many cases.

And they're not idiots. They look at the cases that are most reasonably contested, where the evidence is the shakiest.

My point was that even if they've only exposed a third of wrongful convictions, the US justice system is still operating within margins that I consider acceptable.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 16:26:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 16, 2014 16:12:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i can't take the time to do that right now, but i will later.  election primaries is what i am talking about.  primarily for federal officeholders*.

Look forward to reading it.

btw, there are not federal election primaries.

what on earth are you talking about?  i think i'd better wait for you to tell me before i spend any more time on this.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 18:54:45 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

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.

But the innocence project only examines so many cases.

And what the real truth is that sans the death penalty no one is going free.  It goes from better than 100 go free than 1 innocent dies, to better that 100 spend life in prison than one innocent dies.  Much more palatable.

i have yet to see a compelling argument for the death penalty, let alone the death penalty for those who are innocent.  i don't buy the 4% rule for ANY crime.  the 0% rule works for me for capital murder.  i am not arguing with you, btw.  i am chiming in.

[chiver78]

May 16, 2014 14:57:01 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 14:32:41 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

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?

Because of the lifestyle I live. I stand a way better chance of winning half a billion on the powerball lottery than being convicted of a child rape and murder. That being said, I would not like it but I would probably die or be imprisoned to prevent 100 pedophile/murderers from not being executed or life imprisoned. Easy to say while sitting by my computer without another human within miles of me in backwoods Arkansas. Not that I would have a choice anyway.

you're right, it is much easier to say from where you sit right now. and I'm sorry, but given that likelihood, I'm not sure I believe you would willingly get strapped down to take a needle to ensure that the 100 other actual pedophiles/murderers would be executed/spend their remaining days in prison. I don't quite see you as a martyr, sorry.

May 16, 2014 15:17:15 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 14:45:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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. 

If your guilty under the systems rules no matter that it's not perfect, your guilty. Punishment for your crime is already codified by the majority. Most criminals know what they're in for if caught. The number of falsely convicted is small enough for me to live with when the punishment mechanism is removed from my immediate concern. Like our food supply. How many T-bone steak lovers can pull out the big knife and butcher the cow ? I can.

and I'm sorry, I can't help but read this as you sitting in your gated property, watching the scum of the earth live out their days outside your safe walls. in my opinion, anybody that is wrongfully convicted is too many.

[djAdvocate]

i was pretty sure that when it could be shown without any doubt that people were wrongfully convicted to death, that the death penalty would crumble under it's own dross and immorality.  but, much to my horror, it has not.

but it will, imo.