For Those Who Oppose The Death Penalty.

[billisonboard]

May 16, 2014 21:00:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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

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.

All elections are state elections.

[djAdvocate]

May 16, 2014 23:12:48 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 16, 2014 21:00:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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.

All elections are state elections.

i was speaking about the election of federal officials.  you know- guys that sit in DC and cast votes for the federal government?

look, i think i have had enough nit picking this last week at the hands of Virgil.  if you decide you want to hear my position on this, let me know, but i am really not prepared for another round of technicalities with you or anyone else.

buono notte.

[Virgil Showlion]

Muh ha ha! My plan to slowly drive billis insane is working perfectly!

[billisonboard]

May 17, 2014 0:46:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 16, 2014 23:12:48 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

All elections are state elections.

i was speaking about the election of federal officials.  you know- guys that sit in DC and cast votes for the federal government?

look, i think i have had enough nit picking this last week at the hands of Virgil.  if you decide you want to hear my position on this, let me know, but i am really not prepared for another round of technicalities with you or anyone else.

buono notte.

Entirely up to you on whether you wish to support your claim.

I was just attempting to point out the challenge you will face in doing so since each state has its own "primary system".

[billisonboard]

May 17, 2014 6:50:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Muh ha ha! My plan to slowly drive billis insane is working perfectly!

You have arrived a little late to that party.

[zibazinski]

[djAdvocate]

May 17, 2014 8:02:06 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 17, 2014 0:46:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i was speaking about the election of federal officials.  you know- guys that sit in DC and cast votes for the federal government?

look, i think i have had enough nit picking this last week at the hands of Virgil.  if you decide you want to hear my position on this, let me know, but i am really not prepared for another round of technicalities with you or anyone else.

buono notte.

Entirely up to you on whether you wish to support your claim.

yep.  and it is entirely up to me whether i want to play nitpick, too.

I was just attempting to point out the challenge you will face in doing so since each state has its own "primary system".

so, you DID know what i meant by primaries.  thought so.

primary systems tend to favor party loyalists and mainstream candidates rather than crossover candidates that have more universal appeal.  in other words, a liberal Republican would almost certainly lose a primary battle, but he might conceivably win a general election- particularly in a blue district.  likewise, a conservative Democrat would almost certainly lose a primary, but might conceivably win in a general election.  but it is even worse than that, of course.

candidates with views that are decidedly outside the mainstream are not allowed to siphon votes away from major candidates in the general election when they are eliminated in the primary.  so, what we GENERALLY end up with is not only mainstream candidates, but milquetoast candidates with no vibrant ideas.

it is even worse with presidential elections.  3rd party candidates are consigned to spoiler roles even when they get significant vote share.

the primary and electoral college system are ways of eliminating competing ideas and parties in favor of mainstream ones.

[billisonboard]

May 17, 2014 10:36:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 17, 2014 8:02:06 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Entirely up to you on whether you wish to support your claim.

yep.  and it is entirely up to me whether i want to play nitpick, too.

I was just attempting to point out the challenge you will face in doing so since each state has its own "primary system".

so, you DID know what i meant by primaries.  thought so.

primary systems tend to favor party loyalists and mainstream candidates rather than crossover candidates that have more universal appeal.  in other words, a liberal Republican would almost certainly lose a primary battle, but he might conceivably win a general election- particularly in a blue district.  likewise, a conservative Democrat would almost certainly lose a primary, but might conceivably win in a general election.  but it is even worse than that, of course.

candidates with views that are decidedly outside the mainstream are not allowed to siphon votes away from major candidates in the general election when they are eliminated in the primary.  so, what we GENERALLY end up with is not only mainstream candidates, but milquetoast candidates with no vibrant ideas.

it is even worse with presidential elections.  3rd party candidates are consigned to spoiler roles even when they get significant vote share.

the primary and electoral college system are ways of eliminating competing ideas and parties in favor of mainstream ones.

Here is your original statement.:

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

... 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. 

You have done an excellent job of explaining how the primary system used in some states effects the choice of candidates within each party. I read nothing explaining how any of the various types of primaries currently done in any of the states limit the number of parties.

The Washington state top two primary system could actual benefit less mainstream candidates by splitting the vote enough to allow non-traditional candidates to receive enough votes to be in the top two. 

[djAdvocate]

May 17, 2014 13:54:03 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 17, 2014 10:36:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Here is your original statement.:

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

... 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. 

You have done an excellent job of explaining how the primary system used in some states effects the choice of candidates within each party. I read nothing explaining how any of the various types of primaries currently done in any of the states limit the number of parties.

do 3rd parties participate in primaries?  news to me.

The Washington state top two primary system could actual benefit less mainstream candidates by splitting the vote enough to allow non-traditional candidates to receive enough votes to be in the top two. 

not following that.  but i ran out of coffee today, so don't bother explaining it.

[billisonboard]

May 17, 2014 16:38:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 17, 2014 13:54:03 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Here is your original statement.:

You have done an excellent job of explaining how the primary system used in some states effects the choice of candidates within each party. I read nothing explaining how any of the various types of primaries currently done in any of the states limit the number of parties.

do 3rd parties participate in primaries?  news to me.

The Washington state top two primary system could actual benefit less mainstream candidates by splitting the vote enough to allow non-traditional candidates to receive enough votes to be in the top two. 

not following that.  but i ran out of coffee today, so don't bother explaining it.

Thank you

[djAdvocate]

May 17, 2014 16:47:28 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 17, 2014 16:38:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

not following that.  but i ran out of coffee today, so don't bother explaining it.

Thank you

yw.  we are way off topic, anyway......

[EVT1]

We can merge it- make the primaries a death-match.  

But no doubt the system is rigged by the two parties to keep it that way. 

[OldCoyote]

Here is another example of an convicted killer where a firing squad would to good.

www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/national/missouri-condemned-man-fears-painful-execution/article_8f3ad2f5-6d34-5b06-8770-6016cc2125a9.html

He's afraid that his death will be painful.  Read what this man had done to his victims and I'm not to worried about him being an innocent.

[Tennesseer]

May 18, 2014 7:25:49 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Here is another example of an convicted killer where a firing squad would to good.

www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/national/missouri-condemned-man-fears-painful-execution/article_8f3ad2f5-6d34-5b06-8770-6016cc2125a9.html

He's afraid that his death will be painful.  Read what this man had done to his victims and I'm not to worried about him being an innocent.

I read your link.  No where ìn it does the convicted killer claim he ìs innocent of the crimes.  Do you have some other source where he claims he is innocent of the crimes?

[Virgil Showlion]

May 18, 2014 9:34:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

May 18, 2014 7:25:49 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

Here is another example of an convicted killer where a firing squad would to good.

www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/national/missouri-condemned-man-fears-painful-execution/article_8f3ad2f5-6d34-5b06-8770-6016cc2125a9.html

He's afraid that his death will be painful.  Read what this man had done to his victims and I'm not to worried about him being an innocent.

I read your link.  No where ìn it does the convicted killer claim he ìs innocent of the crimes.  Do you have some other source where he claims he is innocent of the crimes?

I think OldCoyote is speaking to the concerns about executing innocent men. He's certain this man isn't innocent.

[Tennesseer]

May 18, 2014 10:02:18 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 18, 2014 9:34:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I read your link.  No where ìn it does the convicted killer claim he ìs innocent of the crimes.  Do you have some other source where he claims he is innocent of the crimes?

I think OldCoyote is speaking to the concerns about executing innocent men. He's certain this man isn't innocent.

Ohhhhhh.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2014 15:52:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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

We are the state.

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

Yes. Now would be the time for the song "Land of Confusion" by Genesis, but I don't know how to post that like billisonboard does.

[Deleted]

May 16, 2014 21:21:28 GMT -5 chiver78 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.

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:

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.

Your right, I would never be the martyr in that situation because that hypothetical situation has almost a zero chance of happening to me. As an aside I never argue a hypothetical situation against a reality situation because the maybe this, maybe that, can be as endless as a persons creative fictional story ability. Yes I'm very insulated financially and physically from what you call the scum, but I have also donated millions to local shelters over the last 14 years helping your scum. My stance on the wrongfully convicted only exists because I can't think of any way to improve the system at our current level of technology. Today I still would not let 100 pedophile murderers go to save one wrongly convicted. (I refer to a pedophile murderer as a pedophile that kills his victim after satisfying his urges, to cover his crime.) There have been three that I remember in the last year or so, not that far from where I live. One did his 12 year old niece then dumped her body in a remote sinkhole in Missouri. I can not let 100 of these go unpunished to save one innocent. Are you that removed from this type of crime to not see the horror of what it is ? Life being unfair is a given to me, so I go by the numbers. States with death penalties are currently doing what I would vote for.

[djAdvocate]

May 20, 2014 9:02:47 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 15:52:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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

Yes. Now would be the time for the song "Land of Confusion" by Genesis, but I don't know how to post that like billisonboard does.

do you think this applies to foreign wars, too? 

[chiver78]

May 20, 2014 9:49:10 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 16, 2014 21:21:28 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

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.

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.

Your right, I would never be the martyr in that situation because that hypothetical situation has almost a zero chance of happening to me. As an aside I never argue a hypothetical situation against a reality situation because the maybe this, maybe that, can be as endless as a persons creative fictional story ability. Yes I'm very insulated financially and physically from what you call the scum, but I have also donated millions to local shelters over the last 14 years helping your scum. My stance on the wrongfully convicted only exists because I can't think of any way to improve the system at our current level of technology. Today I still would not let 100 pedophile murderers go to save one wrongly convicted. (I refer to a pedophile murderer as a pedophile that kills his victim after satisfying his urges, to cover his crime.) There have been three that I remember in the last year or so, not that far from where I live. One did his 12 year old niece then dumped her body in a remote sinkhole in Missouri. I can not let 100 of these go unpunished to save one innocent. Are you that removed from this type of crime to not see the horror of what it is ? Life being unfair is a given to me, so I go by the numbers. States with death penalties are currently doing what I would vote for.

we are going to have to agree to disagree then. one innocent person wrongfully convicted is unacceptable to me.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 20, 2014 11:45:27 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

May 20, 2014 9:49:10 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Your right, I would never be the martyr in that situation because that hypothetical situation has almost a zero chance of happening to me. As an aside I never argue a hypothetical situation against a reality situation because the maybe this, maybe that, can be as endless as a persons creative fictional story ability. Yes I'm very insulated financially and physically from what you call the scum, but I have also donated millions to local shelters over the last 14 years helping your scum. My stance on the wrongfully convicted only exists because I can't think of any way to improve the system at our current level of technology. Today I still would not let 100 pedophile murderers go to save one wrongly convicted. (I refer to a pedophile murderer as a pedophile that kills his victim after satisfying his urges, to cover his crime.) There have been three that I remember in the last year or so, not that far from where I live. One did his 12 year old niece then dumped her body in a remote sinkhole in Missouri. I can not let 100 of these go unpunished to save one innocent. Are you that removed from this type of crime to not see the horror of what it is ? Life being unfair is a given to me, so I go by the numbers. States with death penalties are currently doing what I would vote for.

we are going to have to agree to disagree then. one innocent person wrongfully convicted is unacceptable to me.

You mean one innocent person wrongly executed is unacceptable to you. An innocent person wrongly convicted and imprisoned for life obviously is acceptable to you, unless you believe that nobody should face life in prison as a possible punishment.

[chiver78]

May 20, 2014 11:56:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 20, 2014 11:45:27 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

we are going to have to agree to disagree then. one innocent person wrongfully convicted is unacceptable to me.

You mean one innocent person wrongly executed is unacceptable to you. An innocent person wrongly convicted and imprisoned for life obviously is acceptable to you, unless you believe that nobody should face life in prison as a possible punishment.

I'm not a fan of sending innocent people to prison, either. so no, I expressed my thoughts correctly. but thanks.

[Deleted]

May 20, 2014 11:17:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 20, 2014 9:02:47 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Yes. Now would be the time for the song "Land of Confusion" by Genesis, but I don't know how to post that like billisonboard does.

do you think this applies to foreign wars, too? 

I have most of Genesis' musical work on disc but have never seen that video. Most of the caricatures were lost on me except for Collins and Rutherford. I would have to say it's about mans penchant for self destruction including wars.

[Deleted]

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.)

Most dogs in their limited intelligence have an instinctive fear of humans, with good cause. There is a small % that do not. It does not matter what the breed is. Once a dog attacks a human it will do so again in most cases. If you value the safety of humans over the dog you should either kill the dog or eliminate it's contact with humans (Zoo?). I was told this years ago by a man in West Chicago who trained attack dogs and patrol dogs for the suburbs around Chicago. His name was Frank Arena and might be long retired. Doesn't answer the morality question, but that's all I have.

[djAdvocate]

May 20, 2014 12:04:35 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

May 20, 2014 11:17:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

do you think this applies to foreign wars, too? 

I have most of Genesis' musical work on disc but have never seen that video. Most of the caricatures were lost on me except for Collins and Rutherford. I would have to say it's about mans penchant for self destruction including wars.

no, i mean the idea of national guilt, jma.  if it applies to the DP, does it also apply to foreign wars?  in other words, are unjust wars ALSO a moral hazard for citizens of a nation?

[mmhmm]

What the hey, folks?  Let's just kill 'em all and let some dude on a message board sort 'em out, eh? 

[Virgil Showlion]

May 20, 2014 11:57:49 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

May 20, 2014 11:56:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

You mean one innocent person wrongly executed is unacceptable to you. An innocent person wrongly convicted and imprisoned for life obviously is acceptable to you, unless you believe that nobody should face life in prison as a possible punishment.

I'm not a fan of sending innocent people to prison, either. so no, I expressed my thoughts correctly. but thanks.

I'll clarify.

We've already established in this thread that the justice system isn't flawless. We cannot discern between guilty men and innocent men with perfect accuracy. You know as well as the rest of us that the only possible way to avoid sending even one innocent man to prison is to not send anyone at all to prison. As soon as we start sending men to prison, some small percentage of that group is going to be wrongly convicted men.

Hence: Do you accept that men convicted of serious crimes should go to prison? If you do accept this, you clearly do so despite knowing it will lead to the wrongful incarceration of innocent men. Wrongful incarceration isn't a deal-breaker for you. It's an acceptable concession in the overall policy. This stands in contrast to (for example) EVT's stance on the death penalty, where a single man being executed isn't acceptable and is therefore a deal-breaker.

If by "acceptable" you meant "desirable", then my only question is: Who in their right mind would think otherwise?

[chiver78]

May 20, 2014 17:02:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 20, 2014 11:57:49 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

I'm not a fan of sending innocent people to prison, either. so no, I expressed my thoughts correctly. but thanks.

I'll clarify.

We've already established in this thread that the justice system isn't flawless. We cannot discern between guilty men and innocent men with perfect accuracy. You know as well as the rest of us that the only possible way to avoid sending even one innocent man to prison is to not send anyone at all to prison. As soon as we start sending men to prison, some small percentage of that group is going to be wrongly convicted men.

Hence: Do you accept that men convicted of serious crimes should go to prison? If you do accept this, you clearly do so despite knowing it will lead to the wrongful incarceration of innocent men. Wrongful incarceration isn't a deal-breaker for you. It's an acceptable concession in the overall policy. This stands in contrast to (for example) EVT's stance on the death penalty, where a single man being executed isn't acceptable and is therefore a deal-breaker.

If by "acceptable" you meant "desirable", then my only question is: Who in their right mind would think otherwise?

having one innocent (wo)man executed is an unacceptable number that I won't ever consider okay. do I think that nobody should ever go to prison? please show me where I ever said that. it's still unacceptable that innocent people go to prison for wrongful convictions. that's why there are groups that I fully support = like The Innocence Project and the Center on Wrongful Convictions. if I had the qualifications to give my time to either of those groups, I would do so in a heartbeat.

have I made my position clear enough for you now?

[djAdvocate]

May 20, 2014 19:49:30 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

May 20, 2014 17:02:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'll clarify.

We've already established in this thread that the justice system isn't flawless. We cannot discern between guilty men and innocent men with perfect accuracy. You know as well as the rest of us that the only possible way to avoid sending even one innocent man to prison is to not send anyone at all to prison. As soon as we start sending men to prison, some small percentage of that group is going to be wrongly convicted men.

Hence: Do you accept that men convicted of serious crimes should go to prison? If you do accept this, you clearly do so despite knowing it will lead to the wrongful incarceration of innocent men. Wrongful incarceration isn't a deal-breaker for you. It's an acceptable concession in the overall policy. This stands in contrast to (for example) EVT's stance on the death penalty, where a single man being executed isn't acceptable and is therefore a deal-breaker.

If by "acceptable" you meant "desirable", then my only question is: Who in their right mind would think otherwise?

having one innocent (wo)man executed is an unacceptable number that I won't ever consider okay. do I think that nobody should ever go to prison? please show me where I ever said that. it's still unacceptable that innocent people go to prison for wrongful convictions. that's why there are groups that I fully support = like The Innocence Project and the Center on Wrongful Convictions. if I had the qualifications to give my time to either of those groups, I would do so in a heartbeat.

have I made my position clear enough for you now?

i think the problem is that some people seem to think that agreeing with the outcome is the same as agreeing with the principle.  that is completely false, and you could probably come up with a thousand examples.

if i know that letting my son drive will expose him to the risk of having an accident, does that mean i think accidents are OK?
of course not.

when there is a miscarriage of justice, you don't have to believe in the miscarriage to believe in justice.  that is just hogwash.

[chiver78]

thank you for explaining that better than I think I managed to do.