NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2005-03-17-2

With interesting tidbits like this, is it about time we end the death penalty?

Why do we have trials anymore? We should just let that computer decide.

Why do we have trials anymore? We should just let that computer decide.
MACHINE SUPERIOR TO PUNY HU-MAN.

I always root for the guilty people, in hopes that they don't get the death penalty. It should be done away with for good.

Why do we have trials anymore? We should just let that computer decide.

That is just a great idear... what could possible go wrong?

Harry "The Bastard" (English is not my native language)

That is just a great idear... what could possible go wrong?

Harry "The Bastard" (English is not my native language)

The answer to your question is "Nothing."

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2005-03-17-2

With interesting tidbits like this, is it about time we end the death penalty?
Really. Actually, it would throw doubt on the whole judicial system. So now we don't need to have "trials by our peers," since obviously our peers can't be trusted. The death penalty line is a cop-out. if those factors affect a death-penalty case, they probably affect all cases. In that case, I should have won my trial. Yeah. You go tell that to a judge.

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2005-03-17-2

With interesting tidbits like this, is it about time we end the death penalty?
Yes. Yes it is.

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2005-03-17-2

With interesting tidbits like this, is it about time we end the death penalty?

I dont like the death penalty for other reasons. This program does not yet persent any serious problems with the death penalty system. It simply poses a very preliminary hypothesis. We havent been told what data this program uses to make its decision, so we really dont know how it is going about finding out who will recieve a death penalty and who will not. It is very plausible that what the program actually does is accurately identify the profile of an individual who is more likely to commit a crime deserving of the death penalty. We have known for the last 40+ years that there are certain crimes which lend themselves to being committed by people fitting a certain profile. That profile often includes things such as race, level of education, employment, and other such things. If youve read anything about the FBI behavioral science unit, then you know what I am reffering to (and if you havent, I highly recommend the book "Mind Hunter" which is actually written by the person who started the behavioral science unit). So, the question remains what is the computer really measuring? Is it measuring jury bias? or is it comparing the suspect to an accurate profile of someone who would commit a crime worthy of the death sentence? At this point we really do not know the answer to this. In fact, it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to figure out which is the correct answer.

Why do we have trials anymore? We should just let that computer decide.That is just a great idear... what could possible go wrong?Open the pod bay doors HAL!”
“I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that....

:D

Seems to me that a computer without AI (that we don't have yet) wouldn't have the capacity for moral judgement.
So if this computer can predict guilt and death sentences with only statistical data... That's not justice.
That's a formula. Creepy, and indicative that something is currently very wrong with the system.

Open the pod bay doors HAL!”
“I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that....

:D
http://www.kennislink.nl/upload/116041_962_1092317642343-hal-9000.jpg
~"GUILTY!"

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2005-03-17-2

With interesting tidbits like this, is it about time we end the death penalty?

Why am I not surprised?

It is high time this outdated savagery was outlawed in the US, so that they can finally join the rest of the First world in terms of human rights.

http://www.kennislink.nl/upload/116041_962_1092317642343-hal-9000.jpg
~"GUILTY!"

Haha! :D

Ever seen "Minority Report" or "I, Robot" or "The Matrix"?

"My logic is flawless."
"Yes, but it just seems too heartless."

Those who say the death penalty is wrong because sometimes it puts innocent people to death are as sick as those who support it (they're just sick people with open eyes).
Putting guilty people to death is still barbaric, animal, criminal. Those who respond to crime by crime are animals.

Those who say the death penalty is wrong because sometimes it puts innocent people to death are as sick as those who support it.
Putting guilty people to death is still barbaric, animal, criminal. Those who respond to crime by crime are animals.

*pees on your carpet*

*pees on your carpet*
*craps in your fridge*

*craps in your fridge*

YAY! :D

Why does America still have the death penalty anyways?

Why does America still have the death penalty anyways?

To sell newspapers.

Why does America still have the death penalty anyways?
Because it distracts the masses from the real problems. This way people get some entertainment (if they are into this) or a perpetual target to protest against. It's archaic and unnecessary, but in a "superior" nation with the "greatest" democracy and the "best" system of government, this surely cannot be a flaw. Think about the horrendous costs these criminals cause if they are imprisoned for life... tsk tsk... totally incompatible to capitalism.

Ein Deutscher']Because it distracts the masses from the real problems. This way people get some entertainment (if they are into this) or a perpetual target to protest against. It's archaic and unnecessary, but in a "superior" nation with the "greatest" democracy and the "best" system of government, this surely cannot be a flaw. Think about the horrendous costs these criminals cause if they are imprisoned for life... tsk tsk... totally incompatible to capitalism.

Perhaps they should use the remains for fuel. That would be so much more... efficient. (*shudders*)

Ein Deutscher']Because it distracts the masses from the real problems. This way people get some entertainment (if they are into this) or a perpetual target to protest against. It's archaic and unnecessary, but in a "superior" nation with the "greatest" democracy and the "best" system of government, this surely cannot be a flaw. Think about the horrendous costs these criminals cause if they are imprisoned for life... tsk tsk... totally incompatible to capitalism.

I'd hate to think of people being killed just to save money.

Why does America still have the death penalty anyways?
It is not just America. I think there are still 12 countries with the death penatlty. It is a shame.
The international country should put an embargo on these countries.

It is not just America. I think there are still 12 countries with the death penatlty. It is a shame.
The international country should put an embargo on these countries.
An embargo against the US.. now that's something I'd completely support. The problem is, our economy depends a lot on trade with the US... we'd cut our own flesh. Otherwise, I'd also support embargos against the US for violation of international law and human rights...

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2005-03-17-2

With interesting tidbits like this, is it about time we end the death penalty?
no, it's about time we fix the rampant problems in our process. wrongful convictions or unjust biases in the system are a problem no matter what the sentence might be, and THAT is the problem that should be fixed.

if we could assign guilt with 100% accuracy, the death penalty would be ideal. we should strive towards that 100% accuracy mark with all our might.

no, it's about time we fix the rampant problems in our process. wrongful convictions or unjust biases in the system are a problem no matter what the sentence might be, and THAT is the problem that should be fixed.

if we could assign guilt with 100% accuracy, the death penalty would be ideal. we should strive towards that 100% accuracy mark with all our might.
A nice way to shut up the dissidents. Your values are very low.
You make me sick. I would support taking away your right to vote.

A nice way to shut up the dissidents. Your values are very low.
You make me sick.
gee, i'm sorry for wanting to make sure nobody is wrongfully or unjustly convicted/sentenced. sorry that my ideal of a flawless judicial process is so nauseating to you. :)

EDIT: you know, i can't even figure out why you got so pissy about my post. i said that the flaws in our judicial process were unacceptable, regardless of whether the mistakes result in death sentence or not. i said i believe we should strive for a system in which 100% accuracy of conviction is maintained. i said that the death penalty would be great IF we hit that 100% mark.

now, you might feel that it is wrong to use the death penalty even in a situation where there is no possible doubt of any kind that the party is guilty, but that still doesn't explain your bit about "shutting up the dissidents." i honestly don't even know what that is about.

As long as a judical process can result in the death penalty, it is flawed. Human justice systems will never be flawless, thus the death penalty can never be a suitable punishment, due to the risk of unfair punishment. Besides that, killing someone to me is the highest form of degrading treatment and unusual punishment, which is forbidden by international law. No state should dirty it's hands by condoning the acts it prosecutes it's citizens for.

gee, i'm sorry for wanting to make sure nobody is wrongfully or unjustly convicted/sentenced. sorry that my ideal of a flawless judicial process is so nauseating to you. :)

EDIT: you know, i can't even figure out why you got so pissy about my post. i said that the flaws in our judicial process were unacceptable, regardless of whether the mistakes result in death sentence or not. i said i believe we should strive for a system in which 100% accuracy of conviction is maintained. i said that the death penalty would be great IF we hit that 100% mark.

now, you might feel that it is wrong to use the death penalty even in a situation where there is no possible doubt of any kind that the party is guilty, but that still doesn't explain your bit about "shutting up the dissidents." i honestly don't even know what that is about.It is not a matter of finding out who is guilty. It is a matter of putting someone to death, guilty or not guilty. Guilty of what BTW? Of dissidence? adultery? Rape? Theft? Those who put people to death are criminals. Criminals should not be allowed to vote.

It is not a matter of finding out who is guilty. It is a matter of putting someone to death, guilty or not guilty. Guilty of what BTW? Of dissidence? Those who put people to death are criminals. Criminals should not be allowed to vote.
Just a question: why should criminals not be allowed to vote? Are they somehow less deserving of deciding who should rule them than other citizens? This US-concept of disallowing criminals or even former criminals to vote, seems very odd to me and highly undemocratic.

Ein Deutscher']Just a question: why should criminals not be allowed to vote? Are they somehow less deserving of deciding who should rule them than other citizens? This US-concept of disallowing criminals or even former criminals to vote, seems very odd to me and highly undemocratic.
Well you are right. I thought only about the criminals who were seeking to use the state for their crimes. Those who want to have the death penalty, THEY should not be allowed to vote because it is too dangerous to allow them to vote.
But anyway democracy (ie mob rule) is flawed. I a not a democrat. I believe that people will kill each other if you let them free. The state need to prevent them from killing each other, against their will if necessary.

It is not a matter of finding out who is guilty. It is a matter of putting someone to death, guilty or not guilty. Those who put people to death are criminals. Criminals should not be allowed to vote.
so your rant was because i choose to approach the topic with different priorities? i feel the founding post of this thread has serious implications about the flaws and biases in our judicial system, and i think those flaws should be addressed before we even consider discussing application of the death penalty, but you feel we should just skip over worrying about justice in favor of saying nasty things about people who ideologically differ on points of discussion that i don't think should even be raised until our justice system is cleaned up...is that about right?

and you still haven't explained where the bloody "dissidents" come in!

you know, something tells me this discussion isn't going to amount to much of anything beyond:
"Kill everybody, death for those who step on the grass!"
"You're all murderers and we should kill you to see how you like it!"
"Anti-DP people love crime and want to let criminals run the world!"
"Pro-DP people make me sick, you are going to Hell!"

boooooooooorrrrrring.

Well you are right. I thought only about the criminals who were seeking to use the state for their crimes. Those who want to have the death penalty, THEY should not be allowed to vote because it is too dangerous to allow them to vote.
But anyway democracy (ie mob rule) is flawed. I a not a democrat. I believe that people will kill each other if you let them free. The state need to prevent them from killing each other, against their will if necessary.
I'd not kill anyone, if I'm not forced to. I.e. if I don't have to fight for my life or kill people to get food or shelter or internet :P What makes you think that mankind is inherently murderous?

so your rant was because i choose to approach the topic with different priorities? i feel the founding post of this thread has serious implications about the flaws and biases in our judicial system, and i think those flaws should be addressed before we even consider discussing application of the death penalty, but you feel we should just skip over worrying about justice in favor of saying nasty things about people who ideologically differ on points of discussion that i don't think should even be raised until our justice system is cleaned up...is that about right?

and you still haven't explained where the bloody "dissidents" come in!

you know, something tells me this discussion isn't going to amount to much of anything beyond:
"Kill everybody, death for those who step on the grass!"
"You're all murderers and we should kill you to see how you like it!"
"Anti-DP people love crime and want to let criminals run the world!"
"Pro-DP people make me sick, you are going to Hell!"

boooooooooorrrrrring.
It is the other way around. We should just stop the application of the death penalty. Then we can discuss if the system needs clean up or not.

Ein Deutscher']I'd not kill anyone, if I'm not forced to. I.e. if I don't have to fight for my life or kill people to get food or shelter or internet :P What makes you think that mankind is inherently murderous?
Ghengis Khan is a proof that if people are left free, they kill.