Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 26, 2014 10:58:01 GMT -5
Wouldn't that make it the single most cruel and unusual way to execute somebody ever invented? At least during the inquisition your torture was over in a matter of weeks at the longest.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2014 11:45:00 GMT -5
Wouldn't that make it the single most cruel and unusual way to execute somebody ever invented? At least during the inquisition your torture was over in a matter of weeks at the longest. i have argued that the DP is not really punishment. punishment involves the ability of the punished to reflect on their punishment. is it cruel to extend that reflection a life time? i can't really say.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 26, 2014 11:49:53 GMT -5
I guess. I view the death penalty as a way to make sure that certain people don't ever reenter the general population. Some of them are so psychologically fucked up that they're too dangerous to ever be a part of society. They don't prey on others because they have to. They don't do it out of economic desperation. They do it because they enjoy it. They crave it. They want to kill and hurt other people, and they're too dangerous to ever trust in a free society.
I don't really give a damn whether they find peace with what they've done, reflect on how they've ruined other lives, or try to make amends with the families of their victims. They can reflect in the afterlife, if there is one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2014 11:54:56 GMT -5
I guess. I view the death penalty as a way to make sure that certain people don't ever reenter the general population. LWOPP is also a way to make certain that a person never re-enters the general population.Some of them are so psychologically fucked up that they're too dangerous to ever be a part of society. They don't prey on others because they have to. They don't do it out of economic desperation. They do it because they enjoy it. They crave it. They want to kill and hurt other people, and they're too dangerous to ever trust in a free society. agreed. so, i sense the question you are asking is this: why keep such a person alive? and there are two reasons: the possibility of redemption of some kind the possibility that the justice system made a mistake. i think this argument is going round-and-round, and for good reason. each of us (not you and i, but those that agree with the DP and those that do not) are looking at one half of the problem (or one tenth, more likely). i am looking at cases of questionable guilt, and those that have the possibility of redemption. you are looking at those that are without question guilty, and unredeemable. there is a whole population between those extremes, as well. but my position eventually devolves to this: that the state is a very poor shepherd of the truth. and because of that, i would prefer to think that if i were wrongly accused, i would not be poisoned by the state.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 26, 2014 12:30:55 GMT -5
He hasn't had a chance and why should taxpayers be supporting this piece of offal? Why would you want to bill the taxpayers even more to try and kill him?
www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-state-budgets/
Overall, according to Dieter, the studies have uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole. Since 1983, taxpayers in New Jersey have paid $253 million more for death penalty trials than they would have paid for trials not seeking execution — but the Garden State has yet to execute a single convict
A recent Duke University study of North Carolina's death penalty costs found that the state could save $11 million a year by substituting life in prison for the death penalty
Each death penalty case in Texas costs taxpayers about $2.3 million. That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. ("Executions Cost Texas Millions," Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).
Etc., etc., .......
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jul 26, 2014 12:56:55 GMT -5
And that's why even though I'm not morally opposed to the death penalty, I'd have no problem seeing it go away for monetary reasons. If executing criminals was cheaper and quicker, then whatever, go for it. Since it's not, it's a pretty stupid practice. Why take the chance that you execute an innocent person when you're already paying an extra million or so per case? Just lock them all up and be done with it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2014 13:09:11 GMT -5
Shawn:
i used to think that the ultimate winning argument was executing the innocent. but i have learned on this board that is NOT a winning argument. those that are staunchly in favor of the DP seem pretty OK with a few innocents dying along with the guilty. i find that really surprising, but i have come to terms with it. not everyone is a moral absolutist on this issue. some people are relativists. i get that now.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 26, 2014 14:34:33 GMT -5
The idea that a criminal might be innocent of the crime they are accused of and totally innocent of everything else criminal up to that point is so rare that I'm willing to take that chance. But I realize that most voters would rather piss away tax dollars supporting criminals than killing them. Something I have to live with and not the worst abuse of tax dollars.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2014 15:03:32 GMT -5
The idea that a criminal might be innocent of the crime they are accused of and totally innocent of everything else criminal up to that point is so rare that I'm willing to take that chance. that is not the point. the point is that if they are guilty of a lesser crime, they can still be put to death as if they were guilty of the greater one. if that happens, and they are found guilty of that lesser crime, how is justice restored?But I realize that most voters would rather piss away tax dollars supporting criminals than killing them. Something I have to live with and not the worst abuse of tax dollars. we all have to put up with tax dollar abuse. for me, it is the trillions we spend on wars. i can put up with a few LWOPP's.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 26, 2014 16:45:16 GMT -5
I see that. My idea is that we stop wasting tax dollars on useless people and causes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 7:16:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 17:54:07 GMT -5
Since it wasn't forcible rape, but only due to the unavailability of legal consent (due to age)... punishment by forcible rape to the woman is not warranted. The punishment MUST fit the crime. Not sure what punishment really fits statutory anything. Sex with a minor.
Let's expand the story. The middle aged woman holds a gun to the underage teen boy's head and forces him to have sex with her.
Does she get the sex machine?
You can play the "what if" game to your heart's content.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 7:16:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 17:55:27 GMT -5
That would be "cruel AND unusual"... because what does needles to the eyeball have to do with stealing $1,000? how would it be unusual, if it was the standard punishment for all felonies?And the bolded is what I was saying. Since we seem to agree... why are you arguing your point as if you don't? are we arguing? i was just trying to understand you, Richard. so, we both agree that "cruel and unusual" is a singular thing. do you think TORTURE meets that standard? Depends. Was the victim tortured? If so, then as long as the "torture" is consistent with what the victim had to endure... no. ETA: forgot to address the bolded reply you inserted into my quote... It's "unusual" because it doesn't fit the crime. There was a Star Trek: TNG episode that dealt with that question... "Justice". At the end of the episode, Picard argues:
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 7:16:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 17:56:49 GMT -5
He hasn't had a chance and why should taxpayers be supporting this piece of offal? i don't view LWOPP as "support". i view it as "the death penalty". If he's still breathing... it wasn't a very successful death.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 7:16:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 17:59:52 GMT -5
I guess. I view the death penalty as a way to make sure that certain people don't ever reenter the general population. LWOPP is also a way to make certain that a person never re-enters the general population.Some of them are so psychologically fucked up that they're too dangerous to ever be a part of society. They don't prey on others because they have to. They don't do it out of economic desperation. They do it because they enjoy it. They crave it. They want to kill and hurt other people, and they're too dangerous to ever trust in a free society. agreed. so, i sense the question you are asking is this: why keep such a person alive? and there are two reasons: the possibility of redemption of some kind the possibility that the justice system made a mistake. i think this argument is going round-and-round, and for good reason. each of us (not you and i, but those that agree with the DP and those that do not) are looking at one half of the problem (or one tenth, more likely). i am looking at cases of questionable guilt, and those that have the possibility of redemption. you are looking at those that are without question guilty, and unredeemable. there is a whole population between those extremes, as well. but my position eventually devolves to this: that the state is a very poor shepherd of the truth. and because of that, i would prefer to think that if i were wrongly accused, i would not be poisoned by the state. LWOPP is a great idea... until an escape happens... or some future judge overturns the "no parole" condition... or cryo-prisons (remember the movie "Demolition Man"?) come into use and then he's just frozen for his term (and then released)... or whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 7:16:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 18:04:20 GMT -5
Shawn: i used to think that the ultimate winning argument was executing the innocent. but i have learned on this board that is NOT a winning argument. those that are staunchly in favor of the DP seem pretty OK with a few innocents dying along with the guilty. i find that really surprising, but i have come to terms with it. not everyone is a moral absolutist on this issue. some people are relativists. i get that now. I am "staunchly in favor of the death penalty"... but I am not o.k. with the death of innocents... that why I only support it if guilt is unimpeachable.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 26, 2014 19:02:42 GMT -5
Shawn: i used to think that the ultimate winning argument was executing the innocent. but i have learned on this board that is NOT a winning argument. those that are staunchly in favor of the DP seem pretty OK with a few innocents dying along with the guilty. i find that really surprising, but i have come to terms with it. not everyone is a moral absolutist on this issue. some people are relativists. i get that now. I am "staunchly in favor of the death penalty"... but I am not o.k. with the death of innocents... that why I only support it if guilt is unimpeachable. i think that position is coherent and respectable. i find the position i stated above utterly incoherent and relativistic.
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Jul 27, 2014 4:24:07 GMT -5
You aren't seriously advocating torture machines? WTF
Some people are deranged and lose their sense of humanity....... but that doesn't mean the rest of society have to lose theirs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 7:16:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 4:34:08 GMT -5
You aren't seriously advocating torture machines? WTF Some people are deranged and lose their sense of humanity....... but that doesn't mean the rest of society have to lose theirs. You are correct. I am NOT "seriously advocating torture machines". I am advocating PUNISHMENT that fits the crime. If that punishment requires a machine, then so-be-it. But it would be a PUNISHMENT machine no different than the automatic machine that dispenses the lethal cocktail in a "lethal injection machine". Unless you want to try and argue that the lethal injection machine is a "torture" machine...
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,988
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Jul 27, 2014 4:48:12 GMT -5
....and who decides what sort of punishment fits the crime?
I'm British.....We have various torture machines in our museums. Iron maiden, ducking stool, The Rack, The gibbet. Some of the worst historical criminals....were hung drawn and quartered......with their head stuck on a pole at traitors gate.
We went through a medieval period of people inventing more and more gruesome ways to die. It achieved nothing.
We don't have the death penalty now.....along with most of the developed world. Just put people in prison and throw away the key.
It takes nothing from the humanity in society......and protects the public.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 7:16:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 5:12:58 GMT -5
....and who decides what sort of punishment fits the crime? I'm British.....We have various torture machines in our museums. Iron maiden, ducking stool, The Rack, The gibbet. Some of the worst historical criminals....were hung drawn and quartered......with their head stuck on a pole at traitors gate. We went through a medieval period of people inventing more and more gruesome ways to die. It achieved nothing. We don't have the death penalty now.....along with most of the developed world. Just put people in prison and throw away the key. It takes nothing from the humanity in society......and protects the public. Until they escape... or some judge overturns their "life" sentence, and they get parole... or something else happens that allows them to walk free. As to the question that you started that post with... the criminal decides the punishment... based on what he/she does to the victim. As I said in Post #90: Don't want the punishment... don't do the crime. Seems simple enough to me.
Again though, I only advocate the death penalty in cases of unimpeachable guilt.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 27, 2014 6:02:35 GMT -5
I'm all for throw away the key. This means no food or water until they finally die. I'm on board with that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 9:19:10 GMT -5
I'm all for throw away the key. This means no food or water until they finally die. I'm on board with that. that doesn't comport well with the 8th amendment. so, you would have to over turn that first.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 9:21:29 GMT -5
You aren't seriously advocating torture machines? WTF Some people are deranged and lose their sense of humanity....... but that doesn't mean the rest of society have to lose theirs. You are correct. I am NOT "seriously advocating torture machines". I am advocating PUNISHMENT that fits the crime... most women think that rape is a form of torture. agree or disagree?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 9:23:51 GMT -5
....and who decides what sort of punishment fits the crime? I'm British.....We have various torture machines in our museums. Iron maiden, ducking stool, The Rack, The gibbet. Some of the worst historical criminals....were hung drawn and quartered......with their head stuck on a pole at traitors gate. We went through a medieval period of people inventing more and more gruesome ways to die. It achieved nothing. We don't have the death penalty now.....along with most of the developed world. Just put people in prison and throw away the key. It takes nothing from the humanity in society......and protects the public. Until they escape... or some judge overturns their "life" sentence, and they get parole... or something else happens that allows them to walk free. how many times has that happened for prisoners rightfully sentenced to LWOPP? i believe the answer is "none". it has ONLY happened in cases where prisoners were WRONGFULLY convicted.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 27, 2014 14:16:52 GMT -5
The idea that a criminal might be innocent of the crime they are accused of and totally innocent of everything else criminal up to that point is so rare that I'm willing to take that chance. But I realize that most voters would rather piss away tax dollars supporting criminals than killing them. Something I have to live with and not the worst abuse of tax dollars. You make a really disgusting and dangerous argument- that somehow even if they are not guilty of murder- they are probably guilty of something- so why not kill them anyway.
And a point you completely ignore- is that using the death penalty is pissing away tax dollars. Why do you think it is better to spend a shitpile of extra money trying to kill some of the monsters when you know damn well there are innocent people caught up in this?
What that tells me is your blood lust and need to punish the worst of us is more important than human life in general- which does not surprise me as many on your side of the fence also have no problem and indeed celebrate when someone gets killed for stealing some property- which is also seen as more important than human life.
Morally, how does that make you any better than the people you are killing? Because you are killing the 'right people', MAYBE?
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jul 27, 2014 15:34:35 GMT -5
I'm all for throw away the key. This means no food or water until they finally die. I'm on board with that. Bleeding hearts would consider that cruel & unusual punishment.
People are talking about "millions per execution" - a firing squad of highly trained & skilled marksmen would ensure a quick execution - at minimal cost to the taxpayers.
Yes, supposedly most are equipped with blanks, and only 1 or 2 with live ammunition, but if they're skilled, they'll hit their target to kill - much like a good & experienced hunter can bring down an elk or a bear with a clean, fatal shot.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 27, 2014 16:25:51 GMT -5
I'm all for throw away the key. This means no food or water until they finally die. I'm on board with that. Bleeding hearts would consider that cruel & unusual punishment.
People are talking about "millions per execution" - a firing squad of highly trained & skilled marksmen would ensure a quick execution - at minimal cost to the taxpayers.
Yes, supposedly most are equipped with blanks, and only 1 or 2 with live ammunition, but if they're skilled, they'll hit their target to kill - much like a good & experienced hunter can bring down an elk or a bear with a clean, fatal shot.
Are you missing the point as well? It is not the actual execution that costs- it is the due process involved where the state is paying for both the prosecution and the defense through all of the appeals, and the extra costs of keeping death row running while all of this goes on. Do you have any idea of the amount of appeals involved and the legal work?
And yes- starving people to death violates the 8th amendment, is that one not as important as the rest of them?
Last- only one blank is used in a firing squad- which is silly because in this country we would have no shortage of volunteers stoked up and ready to put a bullet in a criminal- whether or not said criminal is actually guilty or not. So there is no need for someone to go home thinking they fired the blank so they can sleep better knowing they might not have murdered someone on behalf of the government.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 27, 2014 16:35:13 GMT -5
Sex with a minor.
Let's expand the story. The middle aged woman holds a gun to the underage teen boy's head and forces him to have sex with her.
Does she get the sex machine?
You can play the "what if" game to your heart's content. It is fun playing Richard's "fair and reasonable" game. Think of the possibilities and the torturous combinations.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jul 27, 2014 17:18:24 GMT -5
And if a person is found in a court of law to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt, they should not be granted the opportunity of filing appeals.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 27, 2014 17:39:10 GMT -5
I'm all for throw away the key. This means no food or water until they finally die. I'm on board with that. Bleeding hearts would consider that cruel & unusual punishment.
irrelevant. what is relevant is that the SCOTUS would also call it cruel and unusual.
|
|