NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday I was having a debate with one of my friends over whether or not the death sentence is a good or bad idea - and why. I was wondering what other people think about it.

So just out of interest, who here is for it, and who's against it - and for what reasons?

against.
cruel and inhumane punishment
killing=bad (oversimplified)
costs more than prison for life
can never be 100% positive that the right person is being put to death

costs more than prison for life


Please explain...

Ok, I'll bite.

I'm against capital punishment for many reasons.

I'd love to lump all the reasons together under a blanket heading of "because it just doesn't work" but I'm sure that, if I did so, someone would pop up to inform me that killing someone does indeed render them incapable of committing further crimes, to much hilarity. I'll just cherry-pick a couple...

It is ineffective as a deterrent. If it were an effective deterrent then there would be lower crime in areas where it was a sentencing option than in those areas where it has been outlawed, and that's just not the case.

It leaves no room for revocation of sentence. Innocent people have been put to death in the past and there will always be a risk of it happening again. This represents, to me, an unacceptable risk.

There're 2 for starters. Mostly though, I just find it unpalatable.

Please explain...

It seems wierd, but Capital Punishment does cost more than prison for life. Because if you're on death row, you can keep appealing your case, making it cost a fucking huge amount of money. It is actually cheaper just to keep them jailed for life.

I have noticed that peope against the DP want bush to be tortured and killed...

For it. Mark Twain sums it up for me:

THE TEN Commandments were made for man alone. We should think it strange if they had been made for all the animals.

We should say "Thou shalt not kill" is too general, too sweeping. It includes the field mouse and the butterfly. They can't kill. And it includes the tiger, which can't help it.

It is a case of Temperament and Circumstance again. You can arrange no circumstances that can move the field mouse and the butterfly to kill; their temperaments will ill keep them unaffected by temptations to kill, they can avoid that crime without an effort. But it isn't so with the tiger. Throw a lamb in his way when he is hungry, and his temperament will compel him to kill it.

Butterflies and field mice are common among men; they can't kill, their temperaments make it impossible. There are tigers among men, also. Their temperaments move them to violence, and when Circumstance furnishes the opportunity and the powerful motive, they kill. They can't help it.

No penal law can deal out justice; it must deal out injustice in every instance. Penal laws have a high value, in that they protect--in a considerable measure--the multitude of the gentle-natured from the violent minority.

For a penal law is a Circumstance. It is a warning which intrudes and stays a would-be murderer's hand--sometimes. Not always, but in many and many a case. It can't stop the real man-tiger; nothing can do that. Slade had 26 deliberate murders on his soul when he finally went to his death on the scaffold. He would kill a man for a trifle; or for nothing. He loved to kill. It was his temperament. He did not make his temperament, God gave it him at his birth. Gave it him and said Thou shalt not kill. It was like saying Thou shalt not eat. Both appetites were given him at birth. He could be obedient and starve both up to a certain point, but that was as far as he could go. Another man could go further; but not Slade.

Holmes, the Chicago monster, inveigled some dozens of men and women into his obscure quarters and privately butchered them. Holmes's inborn nature was such that whenever he had what seemed a reasonably safe opportunity to kill a stranger he couldn't successfully resist the temptation to do it.

Justice was finally meted out to Slade and to Holmes. That is what the newspapers said. It is a common phrase, and a very old one. But it probably isn't true. When a man is hanged for slaying one man that phrase comes into service and we learn that justice was meted out to the slaver. But Holmes slew sixty. There seems to be a discrepancy in this distribution of justice. If Holmes got justice, the other man got 59 times more than justice.

But the phrase is wrong, anyway. The word is the wrong word. Criminal courts do not dispense "justice"--they can't; they only dispense protections to the community. It is all they can do.

Please explain...

Cost of appeals process+actual procedure > life in prison

I have noticed that peope against the DP want bush (and sometimes even normal republicans) to be tortured and killed...

That's because DP is a Republican punishment.

I am FOR DP but DNA evidence is required or 100 or so witnesses (100 is an arbitrarty number. it means if you kill someone on live TV or on a busy street in broad daylight and they can see you and your victim, you're in for it).

If there is DNA evidence or the 100 or so witnesses I doubt there's much room for appeal.

Oh, and stoning for adultery is teh Bible's punishment. Thou shalt not kill is properly translated as Thou shalt not murder. ancient translation trumps today's.

I think anyone who preforms crank dat soulja boy in public should recieve the death sentence.

Against. Its cheaper to imprison someone for life which allows greater leeway for mistakes than killing prisoners and the effects on crime reduction are inconclusive. The money saved can also be used for increased police presence and better funding for detectives. So, no death penalty please.

I have noticed that peope against the DP want bush to be tortured and killed...
Care to offer any proof of this?

Life is a death sentence.

DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP

I am by no means condoning this, in fact I think it was terrible. But the romans crucifiction was an effective crime deterent, just like muslims right hand cut off.

I'm for responsible use of the DP.

I am mostly against. Then again, if it were someone I knew who had killed someone I loved and admitted to it, I'd be more than happy to see him/her/it dead.

But it's a very gray area for me, like how I'm mostly pro-choice but there might be a situation or two where I'm not...

./rides a fence :/

It may not be a deterant, however some people just deserve to die. An eye for an eye. You kill someone, the government kills you. Any arguments that say it goes against the Declartion of Indepence, then sending them to prision would be against it as well. Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. If you go to prison for life you losse all 3.

Yesterday I was having a debate with one of my friends over whether or not the death sentence is a good or bad idea - and why. I was wondering what other people think about it.

So just out of interest, who here is for it, and who's against it - and for what reasons?

I'm completely in favour of capital punishment as soon as it is possible to reverse it when we discover a miscarriage of justice. :gundge:

Immediate firing squads are cheaper than all these trials and appeals. ;)

If you're feeling especially cruel, leave the body and a bill for the bullets used on the doorstep of the criminal's family. Gotta love the old Soviet KGB!

Undecided.

It may not be a deterant, however some people just deserve to die. An eye for an eye. You kill someone, the government kills you. Any arguments that say it goes against the Declartion of Indepence, then sending them to prision would be against it as well. Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. If you go to prison for life you losse all 3.
It absolutely boggles my mind to read something like that from someone who managed to put the apostrophe in the right place in their Location info :eek:

It absolutely boggles my mind to read something like that from someone who managed to put the apostrophe in the right place in their Location info :eek:

I've been sick for a week. Cut me some slack.

For, in the circumstance of murder, the severest instances of rape, and certain cases where the judge deemed it appropriate, I would fully support capital punishment.

Any justice system is just not perfect. Period. In the United States, more than 80 people have been released from death row since 1973 after new evidence surfaced that vindicated them; how many more people have been similarly innocent yet were unjustly executed because no such vindicating evidence surfaced? Even one person being unjustly executed is one too many.

Man should never, ever play the role of god, because no human being is omniscient or omnipotent.

I'm for it, provided their is sufficient evidence. Express lanes should put in to save money. Also, a bullet or a noose is probably less expensive than lethal injection. Or an ax.

like all deterrent methods it just doesn't work on any level at all

but lets not get trivial things like history and human society involved

I am by no means condoning this, in fact I think it was terrible. But the romans crucifiction was an effective crime deterent, just like muslims right hand cut off.

no it wasn't/isn't I'd like to see where your getting this proof from

For, in the circumstance of murder, the severest instances of rape, and certain cases where the judge deemed it appropriate, I would fully support capital punishment.

because everyone knows the correct choice is the one with all the emotions and none of the rational thinking involved

I'm for it, provided their is sufficient evidence. Express lanes should put in to save money. Also, a bullet or a noose is probably less expensive than lethal injection. Or an ax.

any reason at all?

any reason at all?

Like I've said before: revenge.

There are far more useful and effective punishments than the death penalty. Frankly, a life of being stuck in a prison, suffering daily cruelty from my fellow prisoners and from the guards, the intense risk to my on, and all sorts of other factors would seem more powerful deterrents to me.

I have noticed that peope against the DP want bush to be tortured and killed...

I'm against the death penalty (because it costs more to put someone to death than to jail them for the rest of their lives), but I don't want Bush to be tortured and killed. And before someone calls me a Bushevik, I would like to remind people that I didn't vote for him in either election, and I disapprove of most of what he's done.

because everyone knows the correct choice is the one with all the emotions and none of the rational thinking involved


You can't not involve emotion in punishment, otherwise there would be no motivation to punish in the first place.

Against, but I'm also against life prison sentences.

Like I've said before: revenge.

when has revenge ever achieved anything?

apart from making the punisher's feel like a set of cheeks afterward of course

Against, but I'm also against life prison sentences.

are you trying to suggest we...help these people?!

because everyone knows the correct choice is the one with all the emotions and none of the rational thinking involved


Assuming the individual is rightfully convicted, what rational thinking supports keeping the criminal alive?
What rational thinking supports morality?

There are far more useful and effective punishments than the death penalty. Frankly, a life of being stuck in a prison, suffering daily cruelty from my fellow prisoners and from the guards, the intense risk to my on, and all sorts of other factors would seem more powerful deterrents to me.

or the prisioner can become a very powerful person in prison. thus running his own gang that can reach out into the community.

"I'm disappointed that my own Catholic Church has decided that capital punishment is wrong. Which is pretty hypocritical if you think about it, because they wouldn't even have a religion if it wasn't for capital punishment."
--Stephen Colbert

when has revenge ever achieved anything?

apart from making the punisher's feel like a set of cheeks afterward of course



are you trying to suggest we...help these people?!

No. I just think that life prison sentences are excessive. I'm very socially liberal. I only believe in locking up violent criminals and only for limited amounts of time.

Assuming the individual is rightfully convicted, what rational thinking supports keeping the criminal alive?

the idea that maybe the soon to die are just like you and me (and are thus innocent because evil doesn't exist)

even the religious right of ye olde times managed to realize this whats wrong with the world of sensationalist papers?

What rational thinking supports morality?

I think any civilized term of morality would follow rational thinking no?

No. I just think that life prison sentences are excessive. I'm very socially liberal. I only believe in locking up violent criminals and only for limited amounts of time.

so your plan is to reject the problem all together and hope that it will just go away?

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

the idea that maybe the soon to die are just like you and me (and are thus innocent because evil doesn't exist)

even the religious right of ye olde times managed to realize this whats wrong with the world of sensationalist papers?

Just like you and me? As in you and I are both rapists and/or murderers? Well, I don't know about you, but I am not.
Are you a Nihilist?

Sensationalist papers? What does that have to do with anything? I made the statement under the condition of rightful conviction(as in, they actually did commit the crime).
I think any civilized term of morality would follow rational thinking no?
In a sense, yes. I agree.
But who am I, and who are you, to determine what the 'civilized term of morality is'?

I'm against both the death penalty and lifetime prison sentences, mainly because I am uneasy with giving the state the power to punish to such an excess.
Anyway, you all are supposed to be the civilized ones in this relationship, right?

Just like you and me? As in you and I are both rapists and/or murderers? Well, I don't know about you, but I am not.
Are you a Nihilist?

yes you are unless your not human, in the same way that your have the potential to be a schizophrenic or anorexic

no Nihilism doesn't come to play in this, biology and psychology are what you need to look at this from

Sensationalist papers? What does that have to do with anything? I made the statement under the condition of rightful conviction(as in, they actually did commit the crime).

if you would of looked into crime and punishment (which I admit I was overestimating even though this is a thread on the subject but never mind) you would of noticed that prison was basing itself on rehabilitation* and was generally becoming civilized before the advent of the tabloid

* mostly working to save the soul though, many people committed suicide in the first week

In a sense, yes. I agree.
But who am I, and who are you, to determine what the 'civilized term of morality is'?

I think if we put science and compassion hand in hand we get a powerful tool

yes you are unless your not human, in the same way that your have the potential to be a schizophrenic or anorexic

Because potential is the same thing as....kinetic..
I also have the potential to win the Nobel Peace Prize..so should I be put on the list of candidates for it?
no Nihilism doesn't come to play in this, biology and psychology are what you need to look at this from
Good, I don't like nihilism.
if you would of looked into crime and punishment (which I admit I was overestimating even though this is a thread on the subject but never mind) you would of noticed that prison was basing itself on rehabilitation* and was generally becoming civilized before the advent of the tabloid

* mostly working to save the soul though, many people committed suicide in the first week

The novel?
I thought this was just the basic ol' thread on the Zapper.
I think if we put science and compassion hand in hand we get a powerful tool
Probably.

Because potential is the same thing as....kinetic..
I also have the potential to win the Nobel Peace Prize..so should I be put on the list of candidates for it?

yes given the right circumstances you too can be Nobel worthy, go you

The novel?
I thought this was just the basic ol' thread on the Zapper.

http://www.folens.com/images/products/coverimages3/7092.jpg

Probably.

well you wouldn't want the machine without the pretty buttons now would you?

against. I'm a pacifist.

I'm undecided as to whether or not it could be justified in principle.

In practice, I don't trust the existing political system to make that sort of decision fairly.

against. I'm a pacifist.

Oh..just 'cause you're a pacifist means you are against me sentencing someone to death?
What is it with you militant pacifists....:p

I could probably think of ten reasons in ten seconds of how I would feel morally justified to kill someone - and this coming from someone who is pretty much a pacifist.

I can't think of one reason why I would ever want a government institution to kill anybody who was already imprisoned.

I could probably think of ten reasons in ten seconds of how I would feel morally justified to kill someone - and this coming from someone who is pretty much a pacifist.

Ready....set.....GO!

And I mean it. :p
I can't think of one reason why I would ever want a government institution to kill anybody who was already imprisoned.
Same.
Life in prison is far worse anyhow.
*is dragged back to cell*

Against it. These guys have taken most of my talking points, but it really makes no sense. To people who have no soul, no forgiveness, it can make sense but still only theoretically. The fact that it's still around today is sickening.

Ready....set.....GO!

And I mean it. :p



I take one one one 'cause you left me
And two two two for my family
And 3 3 3 for my heartache
And 4 4 4 for my headaches
And 5 5 5 for my lonely
And 6 6 6 for my sorrow
And 7 7 7 for no tomorrow
And 8 8 8 I forget what 8 was for
And 9 9 9 for a lost god
And 10 10 10 for everything everything everything everything

*snip whiny emo chant*

It just wouldn't work out between us. I thought I left the note attached to the knife I stuck in your leg?

It just wouldn't work out between us. I thought I left the note attached to the knife I stuck in your leg?

I remember the note but my reading comprehension was a tad off from the loss of blood. Also, it was a sharpened fork - not a knife. I've always been impressed that you took the time to sharpen a fork.

I remember the note but my reading comprehension was a tad off from the loss of blood. Also, it was a sharpened fork - not a knife. I've always been impressed that you took the time to sharpen a fork.

Ah..the things one does for love...I mean... hate.
Damnit! You and your wiles!

I'm in favor of the death sentence for crimes against humanity (Holocaust, genocide, crimes of war...)

I'm in favour of the death penalty for the severest of crimes and when it is clear that the individual deserves to be executed, for example, it is their second murder. I would not know about other nation's experiences, however, when the death penalty and other harsh sentences, such as hard labour, existed in New Zealand, the crime rate was extremely low. In 1961, we dispensed with the death sentence, and within a decade, the crime rate was surging; of course, along with the end of the death sentence was the end of other harsh sentences as well.

Of course what I would like to hear from all the anti death penalty people is how do we prevent crimes from occurring then if we do not have decent deterrents. We cannot make prison harsh because prisoners have "human rights." What do we do? I would love to see a return to an age when crime was non-existent.

im against the death penalty because it is cruel to the innocent.

i dont give a fuck about the life of a serial killer, a child rapist/murderer, a cop killer, or whoever ends up on death row (outside of the deep south where they use it far too often)

but i dont like what it does to the innocent.

of course there is the wrongly convicted, that is obvious.

but what about the legion of other innocents? the family of the executed--they did nothng. the executioner--no one should have the job of killing people. the various witnesses. the jury.

the family of the victim should not have to spend a decade or more working toward the death of another. those whose loved one's death did not merit the possibility of the death penalty should not feel the offense of not being important enough. no one should have the experience of rooting for the execution of anyone.

its just not right.

life in prison without the possibility of parole is a much better sentence. it ends the proceedings right there and every innocent person can go about the living of the rest of their lives without being obsessed with the pending death of another person.

My points have all been stated already, but:

I'm against it.

Reasons:

- It's cruel.
- It's not correctable if the conviction turns out to be wrong.
- I don't trust governments not to misuse the power.
- I don't trust people (juries) not to misuse the power.
- Revenge =/= justice. Revenge is a selfish and uncivilized impulse, and the law should not be supporting it.
- It doesn't work as a deterrent.
- I care about the effect of the death penalty on innocent people and on society as a whole. I don't really care about the lives of violent criminals. Because the effect on the innocent is so bad, I would rather keep the criminals alive - for our sake, not theirs.

im against the death penalty because it is cruel to the innocent.

i dont give a fuck about the life of a serial killer, a child rapist/murderer, a cop killer, or whoever ends up on death row (outside of the deep south where they use it far too often)

but i dont like what it does to the innocent.

of course there is the wrongly convicted, that is obvious.

but what about the legion of other innocents? the family of the executed--they did nothng. the executioner--no one should have the job of killing people. the various witnesses. the jury.

But all punishments down to ten hours of community service will negatively affect the family of the would-be executed, no? It's just a question of degrees. What is your criteria for drawing the line? Besides, ideally, death penalty would be dealt out only to those who it is clear that no sane person would want to be associated with them any further.

By the way, what do you think of the military?

the family of the victim should not have to spend a decade or more working toward the death of another. those whose loved one's death did not merit the possibility of the death penalty should not feel the offense of not being important enough. no one should have the experience of rooting for the execution of anyone.

its just not right.

As oppposed to shutting them up in a bare and tiny room for the rest of their lives?

life in prison without the possibility of parole is a much better sentence. it ends the proceedings right there and every innocent person can go about the living of the rest of their lives without being obsessed with the pending death of another person.


Apart from the victim's family who have to live with the fact that the victim is dead and his or killer remains alive for the rest of their lives, hmm? (assuming the death penalty is only for crimes as severe as murder and up)
Sure, this doesn't bother everyone, but it must do to some.

Anyway, I support the death penalty in principle because I can't really bring myself to care about those who would ideally receive it. In practice may be a different matter, as it's often expensive, impractical and juries get things wrong. This seems to be just in the USA though, not the most efficient of legal systems, so I wonder how it works in say Japan.

I'm in favour of the death penalty for the severest of crimes and when it is clear that the individual deserves to be executed, for example, it is their second murder. I would not know about other nation's experiences, however, when the death penalty and other harsh sentences, such as hard labour, existed in New Zealand, the crime rate was extremely low. In 1961, we dispensed with the death sentence, and within a decade, the crime rate was surging; of course, along with the end of the death sentence was the end of other harsh sentences as well.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Of course what I would like to hear from all the anti death penalty people is how do we prevent crimes from occurring then if we do not have decent deterrents. We cannot make prison harsh because prisoners have "human rights." What do we do? I would love to see a return to an age when crime was non-existent.[/QUOTE]
There was never a time when crime was non-existant.

How do we counter crime? Have reasonable punishments (death penalty has never been shown to work as a deturant) and a good system (good laws to enforce, good police to enforce them consistantly, and good courts to determine guilt quickly and accuratly), and crime will go down.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

"In the blind man's world the one eyed man is king."- Unknown to me.

"In the blind man's world the one eyed man is king."- Unknown to me.

The captain is a one-armed dwarf,
Hes throwing dice along the wharf
In the land of the blind
The one-eyed man is king, so take this ring

We sail tonight for singapore,
Were all as mad as hatters here
Ive fallen for a tawny moor,
Took off to the land of nod
Drank with all the chinamen,
Walked the sewers of paris
I drank along a colored wind,
I dangled from a rope of sand
You must say goodbye to me


-Tom Waits

But I'm sure others before him said it, too.

Of course, life in prison is still a death sentance. Just one that is deferred for a while....


Killing a person as a punishment due to the fact that society views killing as wrong is one of those bits of circular logic that amuses me. It's like spanking your child for hitting their sibling while shouting "hitting is wrong!!" at them.



Plus, well, I just don't trust the justice system that much. It has too well documented a history of getting things wrong.

Society has the reasonable right to protect itself. Incarceration is an acceptable solution to my mind. Anything beyond that smacks of pure, unadulterated vengeance. And vengance is rarely done dispassionately as the law is supposed to be applied. Indeed, the worst aspect of DP cases is in places where they allow "victim impact" statements to allow interested parties to try and sway a jury towards providing revenge by legal proxy. This is clearly an attempt to make the application of justice an emotional exercise rather than a fair and impartial event.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Congratulations - I could ignore the rest of your argument if I wanted to; that line only comes out when people do not have an argument. Anyways, back to that point, in our modern society, crime is much higher and much worse than it ever was in recorded history, and there have been huge spikes in crime in nations that have gotten rid of the death penalty. Among them

New Zealand - we got rid of the death penalty in 1961 and within a decade, the rate of murder and other crimes had increased

South Africa - they got rid of the death penalty in 1995 and now, their rate of murder and other crimes has skyrocketed to the extent that normal people live in fear all the time

Of course, even if correlation did not equal causation, then what caused the skyrocketing crime rate? It certainly could not be economic conditions; crime did not increase substantially during the Great Depression for example.

There was never a time when crime was non-existant.

There was a time though when crime was so rare that all murders occupied front page news for at a week, and where even a theft would get into the newspapers. Not anymore, in New Zealand, only about a third of homicides make it into the media, and these are usually the worst of them. Theft does not even make it into the news anymore like it did in days gone by.

How do we counter crime? Have reasonable punishments (death penalty has never been shown to work as a deturant) and a good system (good laws to enforce, good police to enforce them consistantly, and good courts to determine guilt quickly and accuratly), and crime will go down.

What sort of punishments? And how can you be sure that crime would go down?

cruel and inhumane punishmentHow is that a criterion? And what is inhumane supposed to mean anyways? That only non-humans deserve such punishment?

killing=bad (oversimplified)Not always.

costs more than prison for life??

can never be 100% positive that the right person is being put to deathLike Saddam Hussein?

Yesterday I was having a debate with one of my friends over whether or not the death sentence is a good or bad idea - and why. I was wondering what other people think about it.

So just out of interest, who here is for it, and who's against it - and for what reasons?

Normally - I am of the opinion that the death penalty might serve a purpose, but is not for punishment, only to 'treat' the incurable, and should be administered absolutely humanely in all cases.


However - after reading the news yesterday about the couple who murdered their two year old daughter by holding her head under water, beating her with leather straps, and throwing her at the wall hard enough to break her skull in three places... I think sometimes there is a place for torture and slow strangulation as a just recompense.

Congratulations - I could ignore the rest of your argument if I wanted to; that line only comes out when people do not have an argument.

Not at all. It is correct... correlation does not equate to causation.

That is all the argument that is needed if causation is being claimed, based on nothing more than the perception that two things appear to coincide.

I approve of the death sentence as it is the ultimate tool of the state and without it the coersive apparatus of the state will eventually collapse. The power of the common state is contingent on it's ability to force directives onto it's populace, this can only occur (at least in the short-term until Collectivism is achieved) by offering an incentive for conforming with it's wishes. This incentive must exist because it must threaten to take away these reactionary concepts which we cling to in individualist societies (property and life), the two twin concepts which bind us to individual selfishness and prevent us from transcending into the realm of self-sacrifice, the true collective.

So while these reactionary tendencies toward life and property (liberty) still exist in society, the transitional 'state' must be able to kill those who rebel against the state by causing anti-social crimes, and take away the property of those who refuse to contribute to the state through forced expropriation etc. Although these measures may seem horrible in the short-term, it is of course justified to prevent liberal individualism, the most terrible monstrosity that would destroy humanity if it's rotten edifice would take over our world. The power of death is the ultimate power of the state, behind the petty niceties of 'governance' and 'justice' the ultimate power of the state is too kill those who dissent.

For people like Bundy and the Unabomber? Drop half the appeals, quit wasting 20+ years of letting them stew, and take them out back and shoot them.

Killing people is bad, mmmkay?

New Zealand - we got rid of the death penalty in 1961 and within a decade, the rate of murder and other crimes had increased

And various studies have also shown that introducing the death penalty in some areas has increased the murder rate. The volume of studies claiming that the death penalty either increases or decreases the murder rate is overwhelming. As was pointed out correlation does not imply causation, but there isn't even correlation in this case - just a host of studies that show that the murder rate might go down or might go up. I'd call that inconclusive.

For people like Bundy and the Unabomber? Drop half the appeals, quit wasting 20+ years of letting them stew, and take them out back and shoot them.
And if they're actually innocent?
And various studies have also shown that introducing the death penalty in some areas has increased the murder rate. The volume of studies claiming that the death penalty either increases or decreases the murder rate is overwhelming. As was pointed out correlation does not imply causation, but there isn't even correlation in this case - just a host of studies that show that the murder rate might go down or might go up. I'd call that inconclusive.

I'd call it stating the obvious, pretty much. 'If you do X, then the murder rate might go up. Or it might go down. Or....I guess it might stay the same'.

Killing people is bad, mmmkay?Why? And why is killing other creatures not bad?

Congratulations - I could ignore the rest of your argument if I wanted to; that line only comes out when people do not have an argument... Of course, even if correlation did not equal causation

If correlation does equal causation then it is quite clear that the birth of Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson in 1961 has led to the rise in crime in New Zealand.

Yesterday I was having a debate with one of my friends over whether or not the death sentence is a good or bad idea - and why. I was wondering what other people think about it.

So just out of interest, who here is for it, and who's against it - and for what reasons?

Ohhh the words worm and can spring to mind. Hold on, wait wait don't start yet jus' let me get comfy!

Okay.....begin!

Killing people is bad, mmmkay?

I disagree. Sometimes it's the best thing for them. Sometimes, it's the best thing for everyone else.

I'd call it stating the obvious, pretty much. 'If you do X, then the murder rate might go up. Or it might go down. Or....I guess it might stay the same'.

If you execute a killer, THEIR crime-rate certainly goes down.

Congratulations - I could ignore the rest of your argument if I wanted to; that line only comes out when people do not have an argument.And that line only comes out of those who can't prove causation.
Anyways, back to that point, in our modern society, crime is much higher and much worse than it ever was in recorded history, and there have been huge spikes in crime in nations that have gotten rid of the death penalty. Among themProve it. Prove that every nation which has banned the death penalty has had an increase in crime AND that this was directly caused by the revocation of the death penalty.

New Zealand - we got rid of the death penalty in 1961 and within a decade, the rate of murder and other crimes had increasedCouldn't have anything to do with a huge increase in population, or massive societal changes? We've seen violent crime increase in the US and we still have the death penalty.

South Africa - they got rid of the death penalty in 1995 and now, their rate of murder and other crimes has skyrocketed to the extent that normal people live in fear all the timeMaybe that has to do with the enormous poverty rate, which continues to spin out of control? Or any other societal issues?

Of course, even if correlation did not equal causation, then what caused the skyrocketing crime rate? It certainly could not be economic conditions; crime did not increase substantially during the Great Depression for example.economic, societal, educational, change in enforcement of laws...it could be countless other issues, or a combination of these issues, which lead to the increase. I've yet to ever see a single reliable study that concluded the death penalty deters crime.



There was a time though when crime was so rare that all murders occupied front page news for at a week, and where even a theft would get into the newspapers. Not anymore, in New Zealand, only about a third of homicides make it into the media, and these are usually the worst of them. Theft does not even make it into the news anymore like it did in days gone by.Ah yes, the good ol' days. When everyone loved eachother. Might have more to do with a tiny population and a changing media structure, which now tends to focus on profit rather than content.



What sort of punishments? And how can you be sure that crime would go down?Because punishment is rarely the actual issue...it's the enforcement. What type of punishments? Life in jail, long prison sentences with rehabilitation programs. Enforce the laws that we do have. Ensure a speedy and fair trial. You'll see crime go down.

How is that a criterion? And what is inhumane supposed to mean anyways? That only non-humans deserve such punishment?Because we have a constitutional ban against cruel and inhumane punishment.

Not always.Did you miss the "over-simplified"?

??
Is it really that difficult to understand? The cost to imprison someone for life is LESS than the appeals process, death row stay, and actual execution.

Like Saddam Hussein?And yet, he fails the other 3.

If you execute a killer, THEIR crime-rate certainly goes down.

Same is true if you execute someone for littering.

And if they're actually innocent?
Innocent of being Serial killers?

Same is true if you execute someone for littering.

Killing and littering have nothing to do with each other. The punishment has got to fit the crime for it to work. Have you ever heard of anyone who's life was destroyed by litter?

after reading the news yesterday about the couple who murdered their two year old daughter by holding her head under water, beating her with leather straps, and throwing her at the wall hard enough to break her skull in three places... I think sometimes there is a place for torture and slow strangulation as a just recompense.

I agree, in this circumstance merely killing them seems too humane. Someone who could do that to anyone (let alone their own daughter!) deserves much worse than death. Did the parents give any reason as to why they did this? What country did it happen in?


I wonder what the world would be like if every punishment was as brutal as the crime...

If we just speed the process up, like the criminals not being able to appeal every week, than it wouldn't cost as much. Once the sentence is solidified, than there should be only one appeal, and than... off with his head! Besides I don't think one billion dollars of our nations money should go to these criminals. There are some prisons that are nicer than schools, prisons actually have carpeting! What?

Punishment or vengeance should not be the job of the correctional system, it should be to rehabilitate criminals and to protect society from them. Even if the criminal cannot be rehabilitated, society remains just as protected for less money if they are in prison for life.

Yesterday I was having a debate with one of my friends over whether or not the death sentence is a good or bad idea - and why. I was wondering what other people think about it.

So just out of interest, who here is for it, and who's against it - and for what reasons?

For it. Reason: it's illogical to have to use resources to support a detrimental member of society.

However, the idea of "punishment" doesn't appeal to me. Killing a criminal wouldn't be "punishment" to me anymore then stomping on a cockroach who living in your home is.

Punishment or vengeance should not be the job of the correctional system,

We are in complete accord.

it should be to rehabilitate criminals

Provided that the resources that go into the rehabilitation have a good chance of paying-off and creating a productive member of society.

and to protect society from them.

Agreed.

Even if the criminal cannot be rehabilitated, society remains just as protected for less money if they are in prison for life.

I concur. But If the country got into such a state where death wouldn't be so costly, then we should use it.

I'm in favour of the death penalty for the severest of crimes and when it is clear that the individual deserves to be executed, for example, it is their second murder. I would not know about other nation's experiences, however, when the death penalty and other harsh sentences, such as hard labour, existed in New Zealand, the crime rate was extremely low. In 1961, we dispensed with the death sentence, and within a decade, the crime rate was surging; of course, along with the end of the death sentence was the end of other harsh sentences as well.

Of course what I would like to hear from all the anti death penalty people is how do we prevent crimes from occurring then if we do not have decent deterrents. We cannot make prison harsh because prisoners have "human rights." What do we do? I would love to see a return to an age when crime was non-existent.
I think it's quite reasonable to assume that the people against harsh conditions in prison would be even more strongly against the death penalty if only for consistency in reasoning.

As for a good deterrent, I say IF cruel punishments would be justified, the least you could do is be practical about it, like to do experiments on the criminals, or to make the criminals work hard labour as slaves, or something like that.

Punishment or vengeance should not be the job of the correctional system, it should be to rehabilitate criminals and to protect society from them. Even if the criminal cannot be rehabilitated, society remains just as protected for less money if they are in prison for life.Why should criminals be rehabilitated? Is one chance to remain crime-free not enough?

Same is true if you execute someone for littering.Good point. Let's get rid of those folks, too.

Prove it. Prove that every nation which has banned the death penalty has had an increase in crime AND that this was directly caused by the revocation of the death penalty.

I would love to and plan on doing so. Naturally, it will take me some time, so I will not be responding to it immediately.

Couldn't have anything to do with a huge increase in population, or massive societal changes? We've seen violent crime increase in the US and we still have the death penalty.

In New Zealand, in 1952, we hit the two million mark in population. That same year, we had a grand total of two homicides. In 1973, we hit the three million mark in population. That same year, we had a grand total of eighteen homicides. In 2006, we hit the four million mark in population. That same year, we had a total of

98 homicides

There is nothing to suggest a link between population growth and an increase in the homicide rate. In fact, we had our most rapid rate of population growth between 1952 and 1973, and we remained below the twenty mark in terms of annual homicides (prior to 1961, we were below the ten mark). Just to note, the rate of other violent crime has increased at a similar rate.

In terms of massive societal changes, while it is possible, it is highly unlikely. New Zealand had massive societal changes after the crime rate completely went through the roof in the early 1980s. Our society remained virtually the same between 1945 and 1987.

Also, while the United States still has the death penalty, its deterrent effect has been watered down due to the fact that people stay on death row for twenty years or more, essentially meaning that someone on death row is more likely serving a life sentence and not a death sentence. The deterrent effect would start coming back if the United States took a Singaporean style approach and executed criminals within a year or two of their initial conviction. Of course, bringing back hanging would help; lethal injection does not have the same fear attached to it.

Maybe that has to do with the enormous poverty rate, which continues to spin out of control? Or any other societal issues?

If it was to do with poverty, then explain why there was not a massive increase in crime during the Great Depression? Explain also, why a majority of Third World nations do not have the same crime problem as South Africa?

economic, societal, educational, change in enforcement of laws...it could be countless other issues, or a combination of these issues, which lead to the increase. I've yet to ever see a single reliable study that concluded the death penalty deters crime.

First of all, what sort of background did these people that conducted the studies have? Were they members of Amnesty International? Did they have left wing views? Secondly, it couldn't be economic, it couldn't be societal, it is unlikely to be educational or enforcement either. Finally, I am yet to see a nation with a low crime rate that did not have the death penalty.

Ah yes, the good ol' days. When everyone loved eachother. Might have more to do with a tiny population and a changing media structure, which now tends to focus on profit rather than content.

It is unlikely to be due to population growth, since crime has absolutely surged since the 1970s. We had our highest level of population growth in the West in the late 1940s through to the early 1960s, not in the 1970s. Also, it is unlikely to be due to the media, we all get the same sort of media around the world, and yet crime rates vary from nation to nation.

Because punishment is rarely the actual issue...it's the enforcement. What type of punishments? Life in jail, long prison sentences with rehabilitation programs. Enforce the laws that we do have. Ensure a speedy and fair trial. You'll see crime go down.

Prove it. Find me a nation that has done those things, doesn't have the death penalty and has a low crime rate.

If it was to do with poverty, then explain why there was not a massive increase in crime during the Great Depression?

The murder rate in US peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 population in 1933, during the Great Depression. Capital punishment was also at a high point during this time. I know its hard to find statistics to support your views, but don't just make them up.

Support for crimes such as corruption/bribe-taking, poaching, some cases of arson (libraries), and such. I don't support it for murder because if someone is pushed to kill, they have lost their capacity to think of the consequences. The crimes I mentioned involve some thought and will act as a deterrent because it isn't worth death for that. This is unlike murder where, like in chess, you may sacrifice your queen for your opponents.

In the end, I'm opposed since no one would put these crimes on the books with the death penalty.

Why should criminals be rehabilitated? Is one chance to remain crime-free not enough?



Criminals should be rehabilitated if possible because as I said before, punishment should not be the goal. If a criminal can be rehabilitated they can then contribute to their community, this would be the most beneficial to society. Some people may feel that they do not deserve a second chance-this is irrelevant, it does not matter whether or not the person deserves another chance, it matters if they could ever again be contributing members of their community. I do not believe that another individual has the right to choose who deserves and who does not deserve a chance at rehabilitation- a person should be rehabilitated whenever possible not only because they could then be released but because I believe that it is morally important to bring about remorse in them for their actions if at all possible.

Support for crimes such as corruption/bribe-taking, poaching, some cases of arson (libraries), and such. I don't support it for murder because if someone is pushed to kill, they have lost their capacity to think of the consequences. The crimes I mentioned involve some thought and will act as a deterrent because it isn't worth death for that. This is unlike murder where, like in chess, you may sacrifice your queen for your opponents.

In the end, I'm opposed since no one would put these crimes on the books with the death penalty.

Supporting the death penalty for lesser crimes is in NO WAY justifiable. These criminals do not represent the same level of threat to people as murderers do.

The death sentence is wrong in so many ways. I think if you could guarentee that a life sentence meant life in prison, most people would be against capital punishment.

Ineffective.
For it to actually work, you have to remove all the rights of appeals and such and just start executing people by the truck load. That's a far more effective deterrent.

But the radically increased chance of a miscarriage of justice makes it completely inhumane to even attempt something like that.

We are in complete accord.

I concur. But If the country got into such a state where death wouldn't be so costly, then we should use it.

The only circumstances in which a country would get into a state where death would not be so costly would be if their right to appeal were eliminated. This would be wrong. Every court makes mistakes and if there is even the slightest chance that a person could be innocent especially if a life hangs in the balance, the case should be reviewed. In any system that would not abridge the rights of the accused in this way, the death penalty would be more costly than life imprisonment. There is no situation in which I would support the death penalty.

Why? And why is killing other creatures not bad?

It's not bad to kill people if you eat them afterward.

It's not bad to kill people if you eat them afterward.

I would agree with you if humans were not sentient beings

It's not bad to kill people if you eat them afterward.

It is bad if it lessens biodiversity.
Or in this case, multiculturalism.

It is bad if it lessens biodiversity.
Or in this case, multiculturalism.

Sometimes, you just really need the protein.

Sometimes, you just really need the protein.

You heartless utilitarian Conservative.

I used to be against the death penalty, but I have seen alot of evidence that it deters criminals from committing murder. Is it possible to save lives by killing murderers? Yes of course!

umm.. question-I just typed something+went to post and it said that my message had to be reviewed by a moderator--how long does that usually take?

umm.. question-I just typed something+went to post and it said that my message had to be reviewed by a moderator--how long does that usually take?

I'm not exactly sure, but I think that's only for first time members, because the same thing happened to me when I did my first few posts.

It took them 35 mins...

I used to be against the death penalty, but I have seen alot of evidence that it deters criminals from committing murder. Is it possible to save lives by killing murderers? Yes of course!

Where have you seen all this evidence of murders not taking place?

You heartless utilitarian Conservative.

Hey! I wouldn't hoard the guy. Nobody is turned away at my BBQs.

I used to be against the death penalty, but I have seen alot of evidence that it deters criminals from committing murder. Is it possible to save lives by killing murderers? Yes of course!

I don't think that most people who would be candidates for the death penalty would be the type with the foresight to think about the consequences of their actions. Life imprisonment is not exactly a walk in the park either. I do not believe that someone will think to themselves, I was going to kill this person and knowingly face imprisonment for the rest of my life but now that the death penalty has been instituted, I'm not going to do it.
the person is usually counting on not getting caught.

Julianus II-thanks

Hey! I wouldn't hoard the guy. Nobody is turned away at my BBQs.

Viewing the comment in light of your cannibalistic tendencies...that is not a good thing. (well, for the visitors)

Where have you seen all this evidence of murders not taking place?

Wherever there is no murder. Prevention-statistic-man is there!

Viewing the comment in light of your cannibalistic tendencies...that is not a good thing. (well, for the visitors)

I'm just saying that some people are so tasty that they just need a bit of olive oil and a quick saute in the pan.

Oh, and stoning for adultery is teh Bible's punishment. Thou shalt not kill is properly translated as Thou shalt not murder. ancient translation trumps today's.
I just went back to read the beginning of thread but had to reply-the death penalty is murder
Not meaning to sound uber religious but in bible, jesus stops crowd from stoning adulterous woman

I'm just saying that some people are so tasty that they just need a bit of olive oil and a quick saute in the pan.

mmm...Delicious;)

The murder rate in US peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 population in 1933, during the Great Depression. Capital punishment was also at a high point during this time. I know its hard to find statistics to support your views, but don't just make them up.

While it may have peaked in the United States, it did not massively surge in the British Empire, nor in Europe. The United States was an oddball because of the gangster wars that were occurring at the time; had those not been occurring, it is likely that the murder rate would have stayed virtually steady.

Same is true if you execute someone for littering.

Okay.

That's your idea, though... not mine.

Personally, the way I see it, I could volunteer to clean up after a criminal act of littering, and the whole thing is over and forgotten, good as new. On the other hand... it's hard to restore the dead to life, so murder is an eensie bit more irreversible.

I agree, in this circumstance merely killing them seems too humane. Someone who could do that to anyone (let alone their own daughter!) deserves much worse than death. Did the parents give any reason as to why they did this? What country did it happen in?


I wonder what the world would be like if every punishment was as brutal as the crime...

It happened here in the US somewhere.. the news report about the woman admitting what had happened was literally, what.. two days ago? Three?

I could go look for it, but I really don't want to. Just reading the article drove me into a black rage. If you want to find it, I think they were calling the vic "Baby Grace" or something.

Criminals should be rehabilitated if possible because as I said before, punishment should not be the goal. If a criminal can be rehabilitated they can then contribute to their community, this would be the most beneficial to society. Some people may feel that they do not deserve a second chance-this is irrelevant,

Nope - that's the whole point.

If you've proved yourself to be an inhuman monster once, you lose your standing-near-my-children-ever-again privileges.

I used to be against the death penalty, but I have seen alot of evidence that it deters criminals from committing murder. Is it possible to save lives by killing murderers? Yes of course!

I would also like to see this "evidence"

The death sentence is wrong in so many ways. I think if you could guarentee that a life sentence meant life in prison, most people would be against capital punishment.

I wouldn't.

We have this weird notion that just because it looks like a person, it is one. For me, a 'person' is someone who displays the traits of being a real human being. Throwing a two-year-old girl headfirst at a wall does a lot to disqualify you, in my book.

I wouldn't.

We have this weird notion that just because it looks like a person, it is one. For me, a 'person' is someone who displays the traits of being a real human being. Throwing a two-year-old girl headfirst at a wall does a lot to disqualify you, in my book.

But unless it proves as a decent deterant what is the point? Right now it is more expensive to execute someone so financial reasons are out in the current system.

So what exactly ARE the benefits? and are they enough to outweigh the costs of screwups?

Innocent of being Serial killers?
Yes. Most people are innocent of being serial killers you know.
Why should criminals be rehabilitated? Is one chance to remain crime-free not enough?

Good point. Let's get rid of those folks, too.
I think the best way to have a crime free society is to repeal all laws.
Okay.

That's your idea, though... not mine.

Personally, the way I see it, I could volunteer to clean up after a criminal act of littering, and the whole thing is over and forgotten, good as new.
My point was that if you're executing people to make sure that they never commit another crime then you could reasonably have the death sentence for every crime.
On the other hand... it's hard to restore the dead to life, so murder is an eensie bit more irreversible.

Similarly, executing someone is rather irreversible. You can let someone out of jail. You can't bring them back from the dead.

While it may have peaked in the United States, it did not massively surge in the British Empire, nor in Europe. The United States was an oddball because of the gangster wars that were occurring at the time; had those not been occurring, it is likely that the murder rate would have stayed virtually steady.

And yet Germany, Italy and Portugal saw steep upswings in the murder rate. So once again you could say that the Great Depression, just like execution, has no obvious effect on murder rates and they are in fact caused by a large number of vastly complicated factors working in unison. Rather than just some simplistic 'death penalty makes the murder rate go down!'.

I wouldn't.

We have this weird notion that just because it looks like a person, it is one. For me, a 'person' is someone who displays the traits of being a real human being. Throwing a two-year-old girl headfirst at a wall does a lot to disqualify you, in my book.

EXACTLY!

I wouldn't.

We have this weird notion that just because it looks like a person, it is one. For me, a 'person' is someone who displays the traits of being a real human being. Throwing a two-year-old girl headfirst at a wall does a lot to disqualify you, in my book.

Classifying people as subhuman (regardless of how they behave) never ends well.

Similarly, executing someone is rather irreversible. You can let someone out of jail. You can't bring them back from the dead.

Indeed. And that's why I'm against the death penalty. It's an irreversible punishment, one that can't in any way be repaired, and seeing that mistakes will happen, innocent people will be killed by the government. I find that unacceptable.

No. I just think that life prison sentences are excessive. I'm very socially liberal. I only believe in locking up violent criminals and only for limited amounts of time.

Excellent thought. Because, you know, those serial killers won't come out of prison and do it again. Those violent gang members won't get sucked back into their old gangs and do it again. Those pedophiles won't go out and have sex with small children again.

Socially liberal. It's an interesting phrase. Apparently, in some cases, it means that the privileges of the few considered "wronged" are far more important than the lives, health, and welfare of the general populace.

Basically, this sort of "socially liberal" thinking would impose a death sentence on random members of the general populace. While there are some people who can be reformed, there are many, many others who simply cannot. If a person doesn't want to change, they won't change...and many violent criminals have no interest in changing.

As for the ones who say the death penalty doesn't work...Seems to me if a person is put to death, he's not going to commit any more murders, or any other crimes for that matter. As a social deterrent at large, it's very hard to say whether it acts as a deterrent or not. It's almost impossible to judge, given other social factors. But I can promise you it DOES deter the person who committed that crime from ever doing it again.

I'm all for requiring DNA evidence or a large number of witnesses for the death penalty.

Excellent thought. Because, you know, those serial killers won't come out of prison and do it again. Those violent gang members won't get sucked back into their old gangs and do it again. Those pedophiles won't go out and have sex with small children again.

Socially liberal. It's an interesting phrase. Apparently, in some cases, it means that the privileges of the few considered "wronged" are far more important than the lives, health, and welfare of the general populace.

Basically, this sort of "socially liberal" thinking would impose a death sentence on random members of the general populace. While there are some people who can be reformed, there are many, many others who simply cannot. If a person doesn't want to change, they won't change...and many violent criminals have no interest in changing.

As for the ones who say the death penalty doesn't work...Seems to me if a person is put to death, he's not going to commit any more murders, or any other crimes for that matter. As a social deterrent at large, it's very hard to say whether it acts as a deterrent or not. It's almost impossible to judge, given other social factors. But I can promise you it DOES deter the person who committed that crime from ever doing it again.

I'm all for requiring DNA evidence or a large number of witnesses for the death penalty.

I'm just going to address one point here for now, as I'm actually trying to write an essay. You claim, and I quote, "I can promise you it DOES deter the person who committed that crime from ever doing it again."

It's a nice sentiment, I'll admit. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite hold, because it presumes that only criminals will ever be killed by the death penalty. More accurately, how about the following. "I can promise you it DOES prevent the person executed from ever doing anything again."

I am against the penalty until you can guarantee to me that there is absolutely no chance an innocent person will be convicted and killed. When you can demonstrate that no innocent people will be killed by the state, we might be able to talk. I'd still oppose it, because I feel that no group of people have the right to decide that another person should die. But you would have at least disposed of the most overwhelming practical problem --- innocent people get convicted for crimes.

Our justice system should, and if we wish to lay any claim at civilisation, must, ensure that no innocent person is punished. If necessary, those who are probably guilty might have to be let free. It is better to ensure that those convicted are absolutely guilty, than to convict more, but have some or many of them be innocent.

The only circumstances in which a country would get into a state where death would not be so costly would be if their right to appeal were eliminated. This would be wrong. Every court makes mistakes and if there is even the slightest chance that a person could be innocent especially if a life hangs in the balance, the case should be reviewed. In any system that would not abridge the rights of the accused in this way, the death penalty would be more costly than life imprisonment. There is no situation in which I would support the death penalty.

I think you have a very good point here.

But if the system were proper you wouldn't get anymore (or fewer) chances of appeal, regardless of death. In other words, I think it's stupid not the give someone the death sentence because they might appeal, and you're hoping they won't if they get life in prison instead.

The DP is good, because if I was supreme ruler of the nation, I could use it to get rid of people who annoy me :D

In all seriousness, however, I am for the death penalty and in favour of much more vigorous standards of evidence in court. It should be pointed out that not all nations that use the death penalty use it in the same way that the US does. I think the emphasis should be on a much more through and demanding initial trial, and less of the luck of the appeals process bringing the truth out before the prisoner is executed. Judicial standards in some states in the US are quite low, and this I think is a bigger problem than the fact the DP itself is an option.

The argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent is I think due to inconsistent usage (in the US). In states where it’s use is consistent, or where it was consistent, crime is lowered. Take for example, the drop in drug smuggling in Singapore following the introduction of the death penalty. It is known and seen to be implemented consistently and deters people. I’m not saying that drug running is a crime that should carry the death penalty, but it’s an example of the concept.

You will have some people executed wrongly, and that is terrible. But it does reduce crime and bring a more ordered society, and that saves more lives, and lets people live in less fear of crime. The thing is not to be blind to the cost, of innocent deaths, and ensure they are minimised by having not the longest and most expensive appeals, but by the best standards of evidence in the first place.

As for lethal injection, it’s just hypocritical… If you believe in executing someone, and you believe you have the guilty party, then be open about what your doing. It’s not a medical procedure. It’s not kind. You are executing someone, taking their life. Be honest. Point a gun and pull the trigger. If you can’t do that, you are not sure in what your doing, and shouldn’t be doing it.

I am against the penalty until you can guarantee to me that there is absolutely no chance an innocent person will be convicted and killed. When you can demonstrate that no innocent people will be killed by the state, we might be able to talk. I'd still oppose it, because I feel that no group of people have the right to decide that another person should die. But you would have at least disposed of the most overwhelming practical problem --- innocent people get convicted for crimes.

Our justice system should, and if we wish to lay any claim at civilisation, must, ensure that no innocent person is punished. If necessary, those who are probably guilty might have to be let free. It is better to ensure that those convicted are absolutely guilty, than to convict more, but have some or many of them be innocent.

Which is, of course, where DNA evidence and/or large numbers of witnesses come in.

As for our justice system. It's not perfect. I'd venture to say there's not a single perfect system in the world. And as long as it's humans judging one another, it's never going to be perfect. So saying you're against any sort of punishment unless you can be guaranteed that no innocent person will ever be convicted is basically saying you're against any sort of punishment at all.

Where does that leave us? With the murderers, gang members, pedophiles, and any other sort of criminal element remaining unpunished, out of the terror that an innocent person might get caught in the net. In short, social disintegration.

Presuming the justice system can ever be perfect is presuming humans can ever be perfect. Idealistic solutions to problems might work in fantasy worlds, where everyone reacts and acts in sane, predictable, logical and completely unselfish ways, but in the real world you're dealing with real people.

Remove punishment unless it can be guaranteed no innocent person will ever be punished, you're going to incite mob justice, vigilantism, lynch mobs, and all those wonderful things from our past (and in some cases our present) that "social liberals" also claim to abhor. But as soon as society as a whole stops punishing the criminals, individuals or smaller groups will take up the reins, and instead of a system of judgment in which there is even a small chance an innocent person will find reprieve, mobs will decide who is innocent and guilty without even the pretense of justice.

Do I like that innocent people occasionally are punished for crimes they didn't commit? Of course not. Is it going to happen, one way or another, regardless of my distaste? Yes. There's no way around it. Either at the hands of our justice system, or at the hands of mob justice. At least in the justice system, the innocents have a chance.

I think you have a very good point here.

But if the system were proper you wouldn't get anymore (or fewer) chances of appeal, regardless of death. In other words, I think it's stupid not the give someone the death sentence because they might appeal, and you're hoping they won't if they get life in prison instead.

In a proper system this would be true but appeals are much more common when facing the death penalty
people panic when they know they could be facing execution despite the fact the a pesons stay of execution in prison is years

Yesterday I was having a debate with one of my friends over whether or not the death sentence is a good or bad idea - and why. I was wondering what other people think about it.

So just out of interest, who here is for it, and who's against it - and for what reasons?

I THINk the death sentence is good:sniper::mp5:

Remove punishment unless it can be guaranteed no innocent person will ever be punished, you're going to incite mob justice, vigilantism, lynch mobs, and all those wonderful things from our past (and in some cases our present) that "social liberals" also claim to abhor. But as soon as society as a whole stops punishing the criminals, individuals or smaller groups will take up the reins, and instead of a system of judgment in which there is even a small chance an innocent person will find reprieve, mobs will decide who is innocent and guilty without even the pretense of justice.

Do I like that innocent people occasionally are punished for crimes they didn't commit? Of course not. Is it going to happen, one way or another, regardless of my distaste? Yes. There's no way around it. Either at the hands of our justice system, or at the hands of mob justice. At least in the justice system, the innocents have a chance.

Are you saying that if a country does not have the death penalty, the people will revolt, overrun the prison's and kill the criminals??
That is ridiculous. As long as the public feel safe+the criminals are locked away, I see no possibility that the government will lose control because of not having the death penalty.

Which is, of course, where DNA evidence and/or large numbers of witnesses come in.

As for our justice system. It's not perfect. I'd venture to say there's not a single perfect system in the world. And as long as it's humans judging one another, it's never going to be perfect. So saying you're against any sort of punishment unless you can be guaranteed that no innocent person will ever be convicted is basically saying you're against any sort of punishment at all.

Where does that leave us? With the murderers, gang members, pedophiles, and any other sort of criminal element remaining unpunished, out of the terror that an innocent person might get caught in the net. In short, social disintegration.

Presuming the justice system can ever be perfect is presuming humans can ever be perfect. Idealistic solutions to problems might work in fantasy worlds, where everyone reacts and acts in sane, predictable, logical and completely unselfish ways, but in the real world you're dealing with real people.

Remove punishment unless it can be guaranteed no innocent person will ever be punished, you're going to incite mob justice, vigilantism, lynch mobs, and all those wonderful things from our past (and in some cases our present) that "social liberals" also claim to abhor. But as soon as society as a whole stops punishing the criminals, individuals or smaller groups will take up the reins, and instead of a system of judgment in which there is even a small chance an innocent person will find reprieve, mobs will decide who is innocent and guilty without even the pretense of justice.

Do I like that innocent people occasionally are punished for crimes they didn't commit? Of course not. Is it going to happen, one way or another, regardless of my distaste? Yes. There's no way around it. Either at the hands of our justice system, or at the hands of mob justice. At least in the justice system, the innocents have a chance.

You cannot implement an effective deterrence policy while remaining a civilised society. As long as you retain some pretence of culture, there is no way to effectively deter criminals. Crimes will happen, and your justice system must therefore focus on rehabilitation, helping to ensure that criminals do not go on to commit further crimes.

I do recognise that innocent people will eventually be punished for crimes they don't commit. I feel that because of this, we cannot use such an irreversible method as the death penalty. There is no possible way of undoing what it does to a person, and as long as we are not omnipotent and make mistakes, we should never entrust a group of us with the authority to do that. Besides, why should the state have the right to do what it deems illegal for it's members to do?

I will say that I'm not arguing for the removal of all punishment. I recognise that it is necessary for society to be able to defend themselves in some way. What I am arguing is that I do not feel it is right or permissible for society to kill those it doesn't want. How about this. When we implement the death penalty, the prosecutor must carry it out, and if the executed is later found innocent, the prosecutor's life is forfeit? Make one person, not the system, responsible.*

Anyway, I still contend that whatever justice system we have must be ready to acknowledge it makes mistakes, must be weighted in favour of the accused to make sure that a minimum of innocents are convicted, and must stay away from completely irreversible punishments precisely because innocents will be convicted occasionally.

*I feel we should do much the same with nuclear weapons, among other things. Well, unless we get rid of them, which I would much prefer.

The problem with the DP is the way it's used - it's application isn't consistent and people who should be imprisoned are executed. If it can be consistently applied (i.e. to serial killers, serial rapists, child molesters - e.g. heinous crimes) then I'm all for it. Otherwise, better to err on the side of leniency.

But unless it proves as a decent deterant what is the point? Right now it is more expensive to execute someone so financial reasons are out in the current system.

So what exactly ARE the benefits? and are they enough to outweigh the costs of screwups?

The joke is - the excuse used for why the death penalty is wrong, has nothing to do with the penalty.

It basically consists of saying 'our legal system is incapable of convicting the right people'.

Well - okay. Reform the system then. But that's not a discussion of the right or wrong of the penalty.

The benefits are several - one is entirely logical (the offending party fails to ever re-offend), and at least one appeals more to justice than to law (the old eye-for-an-eye motif).

Are they enough to counter the cost of screwups? Sure. And if not - well, fix the screwups. If you're going to use the fact that the system is useless as a basis for determining what would be a fair punishment... well, it's not even fair to send someone to jail for something they didn't do, is it? So... what... let's remove the imprisonment penalty, also?

Classifying people as subhuman (regardless of how they behave) never ends well.

I didn't classify them as sub-human. I said they don't count as 'people' in my book. They don't count as 'human beings'.

That isn't sub-human, any more than a man is sub-woman, or a cat is sub-dog. It's just different. And deserves no place in a soceity of people.

Human BEING is definitive. If they aren't 'being human', then they aren't human beings.

Indeed. And that's why I'm against the death penalty. It's an irreversible punishment, one that can't in any way be repaired, and seeing that mistakes will happen, innocent people will be killed by the government. I find that unacceptable.

Innocent people being killed by private individuals is okay, though?

Personally, I find the idea 'unacceptabe' that those two 'people' I discussed earlier, might well serve some jail time and then be released. They are not innocent.

Do you object to the death penalty in THEIR case?

I'm just going to address one point here for now, as I'm actually trying to write an essay. You claim, and I quote, "I can promise you it DOES deter the person who committed that crime from ever doing it again."

It's a nice sentiment, I'll admit. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite hold, because it presumes that only criminals will ever be killed by the death penalty. More accurately, how about the following. "I can promise you it DOES prevent the person executed from ever doing anything again."

I am against the penalty until you can guarantee to me that there is absolutely no chance an innocent person will be convicted and killed. When you can demonstrate that no innocent people will be killed by the state, we might be able to talk.

Innocent people are dying every day. It's not the state that's doing it - it's the people that the state could (should?) be executing.

Is it better to leave one person who kills innocent people alive?

I'd say that any time somoeone opposes the death penalty, they should be aware: the next time a killer goes free and re-offends, that's YOUR fault.

Innocent people being killed by private individuals is okay, though?
Yup. Yup. Yup. That's exactly what I said innit? I used those exact words too, didn't I. If I didn't I'm sure I strongly implied it, considering that we were talking about the death penalty... You know, the penalty that governments hand out.

:rolleyes:


Personally, I find the idea 'unacceptabe' that those two 'people' I discussed earlier, might well serve some jail time and then be released. They are not innocent.
Are they convicted yet? Are they proven guilty, or are you just basing your verdict on the news report?


Do you object to the death penalty in THEIR case?
Yes. You see, it's the principle of the thing. I am not swayed by emotional pieces - because that will lead down a path I'm uncomfortable with, and in the end it will lead to innocent people riking being wrongfully put to death by the state.

Buut you seem to find the risk of the state killing innocent people acceptable. That's your choice of values.

Yesterday I was having a debate with one of my friends over whether or not the death sentence is a good or bad idea - and why. I was wondering what other people think about it.

So just out of interest, who here is for it, and who's against it - and for what reasons?

Against. As an effective deterrent, executions need to be televised and applied on a far larger scale. And the appeals system needs to be radically reduced. As of right now, the death sentence is ineffective. Life in prison is more cost effective, anyway.

Make it mandatory. :p

An excellent idea. Far more economical than the tedious practice if interring murderers for what might well consist of 60 years or so, and also allows for undesirable elements of society such as the three individuals responsible for the crime linked (http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1523&id=1657002006).

I'm all in favour of public, painful executions as well. I wonder how many 'ickle chavs will contemplate carrying a knife when they see their mate Wayne hung drawn and quatered.

Yup. Yup. Yup. That's exactly what I said innit? I used those exact words too, didn't I. If I didn't I'm sure I strongly implied it, considering that we were talking about the death penalty... You know, the penalty that governments hand out.

:rolleyes:


You miss the point.


Are they convicted yet? Are they proven guilty, or are you just basing your verdict on the news report?


One was already 'in trouble'. They other admitted being involved and gave details about the nature of their actions.

If her 'witness' testimony had conflicted what medical results might reveal, there would be no case. Thus - they really did beat, drown and smash the child to death.


Yes. You see, it's the principle of the thing. I am not swayed by emotional pieces - because that will lead down a path I'm uncomfortable with, and in the end it will lead to innocent people riking being wrongfully put to death by the state.


SOmetimes emotion is the right response. There are logical arguments, too - but sometimes "they threw a two year old girl into a wall headfirst, hard enough to shatter her skull' should be taken as referring to a real two year old girl, not an analytical problem.


Buut you seem to find the risk of the state killing innocent people acceptable. That's your choice of values.

It's not a choice. Any state paralysed by fear of doing something wrong, will do nothing right. What you propose is a tyrrany of inaction.

Innocent people are dying every day. It's not the state that's doing it - it's the people that the state could (should?) be executing.

Is it better to leave one person who kills innocent people alive?

I'd say that any time somoeone opposes the death penalty, they should be aware: the next time a killer goes free and re-offends, that's YOUR fault.

I will accept a slight degree of responsibility for that. If you accept some degree of responsibility for every innocent murdered by the state if/when the death penalty is in effect.

Oh, and you can't hold me responsible for people who reoffend when the prosecutor chose not to bring the death penalty, because that wasn't my choice in any way.

In general, I completely oppose giving any group of humans the power to kill another human. Leave that power to a single person alone, and hold them responsible for any use of it.

You miss the point.
Must be because you have difficulty making one.


One was already 'in trouble'. They other admitted being involved and gave details about the nature of their actions.

If her 'witness' testimony had conflicted what medical results might reveal, there would be no case. Thus - they really did beat, drown and smash the child to death.
And that would be enough for you to call for their executions? It's unthinkable that she gives wrongful admissions, either under preassure by the police or other reasons? And the medical results that are refered to loosely by a news article?


SOmetimes emotion is the right response. There are logical arguments, too - but sometimes "they threw a two year old girl into a wall headfirst, hard enough to shatter her skull' should be taken as referring to a real two year old girl, not an analytical problem.
Not when we're debating general principles it's not.

But if you want to go in on this particular case, I would rather ask you: What benefits would come from using capital punishment in this case? What would it accomplish that for example life imprisonment wouldn't?


It's not a choice. Any state paralysed by fear of doing something wrong, will do nothing right. What you propose is a tyrrany of inaction.
Heh. You're funny. :p

It's all about acceptable risk, compared to the benefits. Which is why wrongful imprisonment is deemed acceptable (but we have many safeguards in place to make damn sure it doesn't happen) while wrongful execution is not / should not be.

But hey, I guess that most of the European states are paralysed with fear, since they've all banned the death penalty.

Grave, you know I fluffle you, but I have to disagree with you on this one.

Innocent people are dying every day. It's not the state that's doing it - it's the people that the state could (should?) be executing.

Is it better to leave one person who kills innocent people alive?

I'd say that any time somoeone opposes the death penalty, they should be aware: the next time a killer goes free and re-offends, that's YOUR fault.
A "Willy Horton" argument? That was a low tactic in that old election (dammit, can't remember who it was used against), and it still sounds like a cheap shot -- basically using strong-arm rhetoric to blame people for something that hasn't happened yet.

When it comes to preventing recidivism, there is nothing the death penalty can achieve that life-without-parole cannot achieve just as well. The fact that there are people who should not be let out of prison does not actually support a pro-death-penalty position.

As for whether it is better to let a killer live -- as I said earlier in this thread, I don't care about the killers; I only care about us, the law abiding citizens of this society. I believe that the death penalty has a pernicious influence on social attitudes, and for that reason, it should be abolished. So is it better to let a killer live? I say the answer yes, it is better for us.


One was already 'in trouble'. They other admitted being involved and gave details about the nature of their actions.

If her 'witness' testimony had conflicted what medical results might reveal, there would be no case. Thus - they really did beat, drown and smash the child to death.



SOmetimes emotion is the right response. There are logical arguments, too - but sometimes "they threw a two year old girl into a wall headfirst, hard enough to shatter her skull' should be taken as referring to a real two year old girl, not an analytical problem.
It is good that this case has upset you so. It shows that you have a lot of compassion for those who need protection, like children. But I disagree completely. As emotional as we may be, the law must remain dispassionate, or else it cannot be fair -- for anyone. The system that would allow emotion to guide judgment against two heinous child murderers will also allow emotion to guide judgment against a non-violent first-offense drug defendant, or in cases where competence is an issue, or in sex offense cases, or cases involving whatever minority might be unpopular at any given time. You know this is true. We have all seen the injustices that occur when the mood of the public clouds the judgment of prosecutors, juries and judges.

This is an argument against emotionalism in the law. It doesn't directly address the death penalty itself.

It's not a choice. Any state paralysed by fear of doing something wrong, will do nothing right. What you propose is a tyrrany of inaction.
Plenty of nations have no death penalty but are not paralyzed in any way, nor suffering under any discernible "tyranny of inaction." Choosing a different thing to do =/= doing nothing.

A "Willy Horton" argument? That was a low tactic in that old election (dammit, can't remember who it was used against), and it still sounds like a cheap shot -- basically using strong-arm rhetoric to blame people for something that hasn't happened yet.


Poppy Bush used it against Dukakis in 88.

I will accept a slight degree of responsibility for that. If you accept some degree of responsibility for every innocent murdered by the state if/when the death penalty is in effect.


If the death penalty is legal, then a death penalty is not 'murder'. By definition.

Do I accept part of the responsibility for the fact that innocents MIGHT end up executed? Yes. It is not MY fault that the American legal system is so bad that it can't convict the right people, of course, but I accept the fact that it can happen, and that my favouring the death penalty makes me complicit in their accidental punishment.


Oh, and you can't hold me responsible for people who reoffend when the prosecutor chose not to bring the death penalty, because that wasn't my choice in any way.


Do you oppose the death penalty? If you do, you are complicit.

Must be because you have difficulty making one.


Weak attempt. Amusingly, you address the point when I remake it, as evidenced later in this post that I am replying to.

I guess the problem was more about attention, than the point actually being made - difficult or otherwise.


And that would be enough for you to call for their executions? It's unthinkable that she gives wrongful admissions, either under preassure by the police or other reasons? And the medical results that are refered to loosely by a news article?


That would be anough to call for execution, yes.


Not when we're debating general principles it's not.


I disagree. Sometimes emotion is right, in general. And sometimes, it's not - in general.


But if you want to go in on this particular case, I would rather ask you: What benefits would come from using capital punishment in this case? What would it accomplish that for example life imprisonment wouldn't?


The perpetrators would no longer exist. That's a good enough end in and of itself.

They also could not re-offend. They clearly do not have the capacity to act like actual people, so they can never be trusted to believe like real people in the actual world again.

If they are imprisoned, there is always the potential for escape. Indeed, I recall last year, a four-day manhunt (I believe) for a convicted murderer who just literally walked out of a Texas prison.


Heh. You're funny. :p

It's all about acceptable risk, compared to the benefits. Which is why wrongful imprisonment is deemed acceptable (but we have many safeguards in place to make damn sure it doesn't happen) while wrongful execution is not / should not be.


If the safeguards are good, then arguemnt that 'innocent people might be executed' is rubbish. You can't have it both ways.

Personally, I accept the inherent risk.


But hey, I guess that most of the European states are paralysed with fear, since they've all banned the death penalty.

I guess you DID miss the point again. Sigh.

Removing the deathpenalty isn't the 'paralysed by fear' bit. Saying that you can't execute because you are scared you might kill the wrong person is the 'paralysed by fear' part. European states, as is the case in most places that have removed death penalties, have struck down the penalties because they consider execution inhumane or inappropriate... not because 'wah wah, wrong person, wah'.

not because 'wah wah, wrong person, wah'.

Your response to the legitimate concern that the government might, and probably is, killing innocent people is to catagorize those concerns as "wah wah, wrong person, wah"?

What is wrong with you?

Grave, you know I fluffle you, but I have to disagree with you on this one.


And you know you're a doll, too. :) But I don't have my opinions to be popular - I'm sure you know me well enough by now, to know that. :)


A "Willy Horton" argument?


Not familiar with the name, I'm afraid.


That was a low tactic in that old election (dammit, can't remember who it was used against), and it still sounds like a cheap shot -- basically using strong-arm rhetoric to blame people for something that hasn't happened yet.


No - it's not a trick. We are all entirely responsible for everything that happens, to some extent. Is 'society' to blame for such-and-so? Well - who is society? Did x-person turn to crime from poverty? Well - aren't we all part of this supposedly-caring society?

And, I'm not blaming anyone for anything. They can blame themselves, if they see that in my argument. I take responsibility for the fact that I advocate a death-penalty. I'm aware that, if my vision came to pass, if the US legal system really IS as bad as it looks, I could end up, myself, a victim of the system I argue for. And I accept that.


When it comes to preventing recidivism, there is nothing the death penalty can achieve that life-without-parole cannot achieve just as well.


Totally untrue, as I'm sure you know. Constantly, people break out, sneak out, or are let out, of secure situations.

No one escapes from being dead. No one 'reoffends inside' when they are dead. No one gets a ridiculous parole from being dead. Once you're dead, vote-hungry politicians can't capitalise on letting you be alive again, to secure votes.


The fact that there are people who should not be let out of prison does not actually support a pro-death-penalty position.


It does if prison is not 100% secure.

Also - I disagree that 'no being let out of prison' is what those people deserve. They have proved themselves to be a cancer on society. Excise them.


As for whether it is better to let a killer live -- as I said earlier in this thread, I don't care about the killers; I only care about us, the law abiding citizens of this society.


We agree on this, but for slightly different reasons, I suspect. I say 'execute' because I care about the law abiding citizens.. not about the murderers and rapists.


I believe that the death penalty has a pernicious influence on social attitudes, and for that reason, it should be abolished. So is it better to let a killer live? I say the answer yes, it is better for us.


I say that removing death penalties has a pernicious influence on social attitudes. I say it replaces justice with law. I say it teaches us that there is nothing that is 'bad', and that gives us a lukewarm ethical code. I say it shows us that there is no ultimate price in this life, that one can kill with impunity, because the worst thing that's going to happen is that someone else will pay your rent and cook your food.


It is good that this case has upset you so. It shows that you have a lot of compassion for those who need protection, like children. But I disagree completely. As emotional as we may be, the law must remain dispassionate, or else it cannot be fair -- for anyone. The system that would allow emotion to guide judgment against two heinous child murderers will also allow emotion to guide judgment against a non-violent first-offense drug defendant, or in cases where competence is an issue, or in sex offense cases, or cases involving whatever minority might be unpopular at any given time. You know this is true. We have all seen the injustices that occur when the mood of the public clouds the judgment of prosecutors, juries and judges.

This is an argument against emotionalism in the law. It doesn't directly address the death penalty itself.


Again, I disagree. People who abuse children... rapists... murderers - I see no problems with allowing emotion to be involved. We SHOULD be outraged.

To say that a jury can't differentiate between outrage over a serial rapist, and being incensed over littering or something, is to trivialise the one for comic effect.


Plenty of nations have no death penalty but are not paralyzed in any way, nor suffering under any discernible "tyranny of inaction." Choosing a different thing to do =/= doing nothing.

I'll just steal the explanation I used for the other reply: Removing the deathpenalty isn't the 'paralysed by fear' bit. Saying that you can't execute because you are scared you might kill the wrong person is the 'paralysed by fear' part. European states, as is the case in most places that have removed death penalties, have struck down the penalties because they consider execution inhumane or inappropriate... not because 'wah wah, wrong person, wah'.

Your response to the legitimate concern that the government might, and probably is, killing innocent people is to catagorize those concerns as "wah wah, wrong person, wah"?


Yes, it is. I'm trivialising, because that's what that argument IS - it is trivial.

It lacks the bollocks to come out and say THS IS BAD, instead it says 'but what about the poor.. etc.'

It's as trite as the 'Won't someone PLEASE think of the children' platform.


What is wrong with you?

Apparently? I care too much.

What is wrong with you?

Yes, it is. I'm trivialising, because that's what that argument IS - it is trivial.

It lacks the bollocks to come out and say THS IS BAD, instead it says 'but what about the poor.. etc.'

One would think that when someone says "government action results in the death of innocent people" that this would naturally and quite easily lead intelligent and rational people to conclude, on their own, that this is a "bad thing". One would think that the natural conclusion to that argument, that killing innocent people is bad, would be immediate and obvious and doesn't actually require being said.

Apparently not, I guess some people need their hand held. Apologies for assuming too much of you, I will attempt to rectify that in the future.

So, if someone was wrongly convicted and given the death penalty, then who exactly would be charged with their murder and sentenced to death?

Here in the United States an amendment to our constitution states the following:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Emphasis mine.

I interpret that as meaning the death penalty certainly is cruel and unsual in any circumstance-making the very act unconstitutional.

So, if someone was wrongly convicted and given the death penalty, then who exactly would be charged with their murder and sentenced to death?

The goverment! Yeah baby!

So, if someone was wrongly convicted and given the death penalty, then who exactly would be charged with their murder and sentenced to death?

Unless the government maintained a death penalty that it, itself, has termed illegal, your question makes no sense.

'Murder', by definition, is the illegal taking of a human life. If the death-penalty is legal, there can be no 'murder' charge, even for the death of an 'innocent'. QED.

It would be a tragedy - but not a murder.

Here in the United States an amendment to our constitution states the following:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Emphasis mine.

I interpret that as meaning the death penalty certainly is cruel and unsual in any circumstance-making the very act unconstitutional.

A humane death-penalty is not 'cruel'. If it is the standard sentence for a certain crime, it is (similarly) not 'unusual'.

There is nothing un-constitutional about a death penalty.

One would think that when someone says "government action results in the death of innocent people" that this would naturally and quite easily lead intelligent and rational people to conclude, on their own, that this is a "bad thing". One would think that the natural conclusion to that argument, that killing innocent people is bad, would be immediate and obvious and doesn't actually require being said.

Apparently not, I guess some people need their hand held. Apologies for assuming too much of you, I will attempt to rectify that in the future.

How cute. And not even vaguely an attempt at being patronising.

Yes - it is a tragedy when people die. That is, after all, the reason I support a death penalty.

But - a collapsing bridge is the conclusion of "government action (which) results in the death of innocent people". The GOAL is not to kill innocents, that is an unfortunate side-effect. Similarly, the death penalty - if any innocents ARE killed, they are not the target.

But you are prevaricating about the bush - the argument used for overturning a death penalty is almost always the same - "it can harm the innocent"... NOT 'it is ethically wrong' (which is what I was saying, although you somehow missd it). And the point is - "it can harm the innocent" is actually (not only dishonest, but also) irrelevent to the SENTENCE, it is, instead, a complaint against the judicial process.

Weak attempt.
If you refer to your attempt to make a point, then yes, I agree.


Amusingly, you address the point when I remake it, as evidenced later in this post that I am replying to.

I guess the problem was more about attention, than the point actually being made - difficult or otherwise.

I can assure you, the mere fact that you manage to compose a point in your second attempt does not in any way rectify your utter failure to do so in your first post. You see, it's not the point itself, it's the (lack of) ability to get said point across.


That would be anough to call for execution, yes.

Based simply on the events described in the newspaper? Really? No "innocent until proven guilty" even? Hmm...

I disagree. Sometimes emotion is right, in general. And sometimes, it's not - in general.
No, not really. I'll refer you to what Muravyets said, and ask why you don't feel the same rage boiling inside of you when reading about white collar criminals - people whose actions have the potential of hurting far more people than a rapist may do.

The perpetrators would no longer exist. That's a good enough end in and of itself.
Why?


They also could not re-offend. They clearly do not have the capacity to act like actual people, so they can never be trusted to believe like real people in the actual world again.
Clearly. I mean, throughout history, no convicted criminal has ever done anything good for humanity, nor have they ever behaved like real people again. :rolleyes:

If they are imprisoned, there is always the potential for escape. Indeed, I recall last year, a four-day manhunt (I believe) for a convicted murderer who just literally walked out of a Texas prison.
The potential for escape is neglectable, and in my mind a risk that's preferable to the risk of killing an innocent person, from the point of view of the justice system.

If the safeguards are good, then arguemnt that 'innocent people might be executed' is rubbish. You can't have it both ways.
Yes, actually, and unfortunately, you can. The safeguards are good, but not infallible. The system is run by humans, and as such prone to human error. Miscarriages of justice do occur, even with appeals and retrials. Evidence may be tampered with, juries may be biased, judges may be incompetent and lawyers may be asleep - and mistakes will be made. So innocents may be executed, even if we try our best to prevent it.

Personally, I accept the inherent risk.
That's your choice. It's not mine, and fortunately not the choice of my society either.

I guess you DID miss the point again. Sigh.
Your inability to convey a point is nothing to fault me for. I would look at my own attempts at expression, if I were you.

Removing the deathpenalty isn't the 'paralysed by fear' bit. Saying that you can't execute because you are scared you might kill the wrong person is the 'paralysed by fear' part. European states, as is the case in most places that have removed death penalties, have struck down the penalties because they consider execution inhumane or inappropriate... not because 'wah wah, wrong person, wah'.
That states implementing legal safeguards to avoid killing its own innocent citizens can be characterised as "paralysed by fear" is, frankly, preposterous.

And I'd like to see how you figure that the protection of innocents is irrelevant in the determination to remove the death penalty. How does it not fall under the protection of the right to life?

Convinced that everyone’s right to life is a basic value in a democratic society and that the abolition of the death penalty is essential for the protection of this right and for the full recognition of the inherent dignity
of all human beings
Example from the preamble of the ECHR, Protocol no. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/187.htm)

I'm aware that, if my vision came to pass, if the US legal system really IS as bad as it looks, I could end up, myself, a victim of the system I argue for. And I accept that.
I would not. And I don't.


I say that removing death penalties has a pernicious influence on social attitudes. I say it replaces justice with law. I say it teaches us that there is nothing that is 'bad', and that gives us a lukewarm ethical code. I say it shows us that there is no ultimate price in this life, that one can kill with impunity, because the worst thing that's going to happen is that someone else will pay your rent and cook your food.
I don't see that at all, and I see no evidence to back up your claim.


Again, I disagree. People who abuse children... rapists... murderers - I see no problems with allowing emotion to be involved. We SHOULD be outraged.
Outraged, yes. Letting the anger cloud our judgements, no.

Yes, it is. I'm trivialising, because that's what that argument IS - it is trivial.

It lacks the bollocks to come out and say THS IS BAD, instead it says 'but what about the poor.. etc.'

It's as trite as the 'Won't someone PLEASE think of the children' platform.
"Won't someone please reduce the risk of permanent harm to those wrongfully convicted" = "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children"?

Are you kidding? The legal protection of the wrongfully convicted is truly a legitimate and all too real concern of the criminal justice system, and you dismiss it as trite?


Your response to the legitimate concern that the government might, and probably is, killing innocent people is to catagorize those concerns as "wah wah, wrong person, wah"?

What is wrong with you? Apparently? I care too much.

Hardly.

But you are prevaricating about the bush - the argument used for overturning a death penalty is almost always the same - "it can harm the innocent"... NOT 'it is ethically wrong' (which is what I was saying, although you somehow missd it). And the point is - "it can harm the innocent" is actually (not only dishonest, but also) irrelevent to the SENTENCE, it is, instead, a complaint against the judicial process.
Absolutely not.

It is relevant to the sentence, since this kind of punishment is an optional one. You can choose to have a death penalty - which is a special type of punishment - or you can go with the more regular type of punishment, namely imprisonment.

As such, since there is a choice between the two punishments, it is neither dishonest nor irrelevant to look at the repercussions a wrongful conviction will have - especially since a death sentence will be final, irreversible and irrepairable, while you can go some way to repair the lives of the wrongfully imprisoned - namely to release them (and provide some form of economic compensation).

Normally I despise posting on blogs or anything along those lines, but I have a suggestion for those in support of the death penalty and those who are against it. You should read the following books:

The Death Penalty
by: Stuart Banner
Harvard Press

Anatomy of a lynching: The killing of Claude Neal
by James R. McGovern
LSU Press

Personally I don't support the death penalty, but I feel it is important to hear all views in reference to it. The two books that I've listed above provide a great comparison and contrast between the death penalty and the need for the death penalty.

The McGovern book shows what happens when justice is left to the common people and the Banner book shows what happens with the government gets into the business of death. Having to read both for my Crime and Punishment class at the University of Florida they both offer great opinions to both for and against the death penalty.

Well there is my 2 cents.

-David

Why was putting Saddam Husein to death not right?

Yes - it is a tragedy when people die. That is, after all, the reason I support a death penalty.
. . .

the point is - "it can harm the innocent" is actually (not only dishonest, but also) irrelevent to the SENTENCE, it is, instead, a complaint against the judicial process.

herein we see the problem. You try to take some...absurd position that pointing out that innocent people die because of the death penalty is an argument about the process in which the death penalty is administered, not about the death penalty itself, as if the people who point out that, yes, innocent people die, will somehow be content if we can create a process wherein only the guilty were gaurenteed to be executed, that our concern lies not with killing itself, but with a system that sometimes kills the wrong person.

Correct, perhaps in part in a very limited literal sense, however once again you miss the obvious conclusion to that argument. Again, the idea "death penalty kills innocent people" comes with the understood proposition that the death penalty, being the invention of fallable, biased, emotional and sometimes irrational people, will always carry the risk of killing innocent people, and that your quibbling distinction of "you're not complaining about the sentence, you're complaining about the process!" is irrelevant, because the sentence is part and parcel with the process. That you can never arrive at the sentence without having gone through the process, and the process, being the creation and management of fallable humans, will always be subject to error. Your distinction between sentence and process would only be relevant if a process could be refined to the point where the sentence could be delivered without that risk.

It can not.

So while you try to take some intellectual high ground and dismiss the argument, in fact, it's you who misses the point entirely, because while we're aware we're complaining about the process, we also are aware that the process can not be seperated from the sentence. And since that is true, we find no problem in not distinguishing the sentence from the process The process by which the sentence is administered is, and always will be, faulty, so a fault with the process is, and always will be, a fault with the sentence.

It is therefore the height of irony that you support, for those who commit the tragidy of taking innocent lives, a punishment that takes innocent lives. It brings into question two possibilities, either you haven't really thought your position through enough, or you don't really care about the tragidy of lost innocent lives, and take your position more from some dangerous concept of vengence.

herein we see the problem. You try to take some...absurd position that pointing out that innocent people die because of the death penalty is an argument about the process in which the death penalty is administered, not about the death penalty itself,


How is that an absurd position? That IS an argument with the process, not the sentence.

If that is an absurd position, then it is anm absurd position every time someonse cites the fact that 'innocents might die' as an argument against a death penalty.


So while you try to take some intellectual high ground and dismiss the argument,


Hardly an intellectual highground. The argument is irrelevent, since it refers to something that borders on the issue, but is NOT the issue.

Of course, if you THINK that's an intellectual highground...


in fact, it's you who misses the point entirely, because while we're aware we're complaining about the process, we also are aware that the process can not be seperated from the sentence. And since that is true

Of course the process can be separated from the sentence. Unless, somehow, you are under the impression that the US legal system only has one sentence possible for EVERY crime.

Absolutely not.

It is relevant to the sentence, since this kind of punishment is an optional one. You can choose to have a death penalty - which is a special type of punishment - or you can go with the more regular type of punishment, namely imprisonment.

As such, since there is a choice between the two punishments, it is neither dishonest nor irrelevant to look at the repercussions a wrongful conviction will have - especially since a death sentence will be final, irreversible and irrepairable, while you can go some way to repair the lives of the wrongfully imprisoned - namely to release them (and provide some form of economic compensation).

What are you wittering on about? The fact that there may be two choices of punishment does NOTHING to impact whether or not the PROCESS is fatally flawed, or working perfectly.

I'm not saying the death penalty should be argued separate to the sentence - obviously - it IS the sentence we are discussing. I am saying that the penalty should be argued separate to the PROCESS - the means by which we arrive at sentencing.

If you say the death penalty should not be used because innocents might die - they can't, if the PROCESS is perfect. It isn't, as we both know... but that isn't a condemnation on the rightness or wrongess of the SENTENCE - just an indictment of the legal process.

If the process is THAT flawed, then ANY sentence is 'wrong', because ANY sentence can punish innocents. Luckily - that is irrelevent to whether or not a death penalty is intrinsically bad or good.

I can assure you, the mere fact that you manage to compose a point in your second attempt does not in any way rectify your utter failure to do so in your first post. You see, it's not the point itself, it's the (lack of) ability to get said point across.


Of course. You don't get it, so I am at fault.

Whatever helps you sleep.


The potential for escape is neglectable,


I assume you mean negligible? You must not pay much attention to reality. Prisoners escaping is hardly a 'one in a blue moon' event.


Yes, actually, and unfortunately, you can. The safeguards are good, but not infallible. The system is run by humans, and as such prone to human error. Miscarriages of justice do occur, even with appeals and retrials. Evidence may be tampered with, juries may be biased, judges may be incompetent and lawyers may be asleep - and mistakes will be made. So innocents may be executed, even if we try our best to prevent it.


So. The system arriving at the sentence is flawed? We agree.

That has no bearing on whether or not the sentence is a good or bad thing in the case of those who ARE guilty.


Your inability to convey a point is nothing to fault me for. I would look at my own attempts at expression, if I were you.


Of course. Again - if you lack comprehension, blame the source.

I've written for a living, you're some random internet hack... oh who should I put faith in the abilities of?


That states implementing legal safeguards to avoid killing its own innocent citizens can be characterised as "paralysed by fear" is, frankly, preposterous.


Luckily, I didn't say that, eh?

Luckily - that is irrelevent to whether or not a death penalty is intrinsically bad or good.

You are correct that the process in which the death penalty is applied is irrelevant to whether it is intrinsically bad or good. You'd have a point, if that were the actual topic of conversation. It's not. Rather the OP stated:

whether or not the death sentence is a good or bad idea

Not "whether it is intrinsically bad or good" but whether it was a good or bad idea. The response many have given, both to this OP and others who have posed the question is "bad idea, because there is a risk that innocents will be killed as a result". Yes, this does not speak to some intrinsic moral stance, but a practical one. True, if the process can be refined so that doesn't occur, the argument would be nul. That, however, is not the case.

All you have managed to do is direct some misplaced ire about the fact that "the death penalty causes the death of innocents" doesn't answer the question "is the death penalty intrinsically bad or good" because, frankly, the only one who asked that question...is you. That wasn't the question posed by the OP.

In response to the question posed by the OP, is it a good or bad idea, "bad idea, because it causes the death of innocents" is a perfectly acceptable response, because the process by which it is carried out is inherently flawed.

I've written for a living, you're some random internet hack...

Ah, irony. Remember kiddies, everybody ELSE lies on the internet, but you should be believed as an infallible source. Funny how you've "written for a living" but you couldn't be bothered to get the question in the OP right.

Ah, irony. Remember kiddies, everybody ELSE lies on the internet, but you should be believed as an infallible source. Funny how you've "written for a living" but you couldn't be bothered to get the question in the OP right.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Ah - that you shouldn't believe I've written for a living? Well, you shouldn't, I'm sure. I could honestly not care less either way. On the other hand - faced with the choice between whether I'm going to assume my writing is incomprehensible, or that some other random internet wannabee is simply incapable of comprehending it - well, I know that I've been paid for my technical writing before. That little information isn't for your benefit, to sway you to believe me, it is simply the reason I'm likely to think less of the ability of that particular reader, than this particular writer.

It's not an 'appeal to authority' about my argument. It doesn't actually impinge on the topic... just on the personal attacks I was dealing with, with whatevr poster that was.

I'm not missing the point of the OP. I think judging whether or not it is a good idea, based on whether or not out legal system works, is flawed. This legal system isn't the only one, and it's far from perfect. And to keep talking about the 'innocents' is avoiding half the point - is a death sentence a good idea? Yes or no?

Saying 'no, because innocents might get killed' doesn't address whether it is a good idea if innocents are never killed. Doesn't address anything except the fact that our judicial process is crap, which I think we all know. Doesn't address whether it is worth the cost.

I'm not missing the point of the OP. I think judging whether or not it is a good idea, based on whether or not out legal system works, is flawed. This legal system isn't the only one, and it's far from perfect. And to keep talking about the 'innocents' is avoiding half the point - is a death sentence a good idea? Yes or no?

Saying 'no, because innocents might get killed' doesn't address whether it is a good idea if innocents are never killed. Doesn't address anything except the fact that our judicial process is crap, which I think we all know. Doesn't address whether it is worth the cost.

because, once again, you miss the point. It's not that OUR judicial process is crap. It's that ANY process will inherently be flawed, and ANY application of the death penalty carries that risk. It can never, as long as human beings are in control, be foolproof. So innocents will always be at risk. And the recognition that such a final solution as the death penalty is a bad idea, because the system is, and always will be flawed, is a perfectly acceptable response to the question.

You are correct that the process in which the death penalty is applied is irrelevant to whether it is intrinsically bad or good. You'd have a point, if that were the actual topic of conversation. It's not. Rather the OP stated:


I still have a point, regardless of whether we agree it was the focus of the OP.


Not "whether it is intrinsically bad or good" but whether it was a good or bad idea. The response many have given, both to this OP and others who have posed the question is "bad idea, because there is a risk that innocents will be killed as a result". Yes, this does not speak to some intrinsic moral stance, but a practical one. True, if the process can be refined so that doesn't occur, the argument would be nul. That, however, is not the case.


But it could be. Thus the argument about 'innocents' exists in a quantum null state. Thus, the 'innocents' defence is half an answer, at best.

Personally, I think most people who attack the death penalty use the 'innocents' argument because it's the only legitimate argument they see. But I think their opposition is more honestly 'it's icky'. They just realise that's not a very good logical argument, so they adopt this half-an-answer, avoid-the-actual-issue response.

I'd have more respect for 'it's icky', or even 'I'm scared it could happen to me'.

because, once again, you miss the point. It's not that OUR judicial process is crap. It's that ANY process will inherently be flawed, and ANY application of the death penalty carries that risk. It can never, as long as human beings are in control, be foolproof. So innocents will always be at risk. And the recognition that such a final solution as the death penalty is a bad idea, because the system is, and always will be flawed, is a perfectly acceptable response to the question.

Why will our system always be flawed? We actually have technology now that could make the entire concept of 'an unknown assailant' a nonsense, a thing of the past.

Our system is crap because a lot of us like it that way.

Even with it's flaws, a death penalty isn't a 'bad idea', intrinsically, because you can still be pretty sure in some cases. Even with the system 'as is'.

A bad idea as a sentence for stealing bread, maybe... but what about for genocide?

Why was putting Saddam Husein to death not right?

Because he never got convicted of the most serious atrocities, because it left too many questions unresolved, because it might have been better for Iraq if he was kept alive and powerless, rotting in a cell for the rest of his life, etc. But that's irrelevant to this debate.

Because of the principle. Executing him opens for the execution of others, and in the long run that can lead to the suffering of innocents. In short, that's one argument against it.

How is that an absurd position? That IS an argument with the process, not the sentence.

If that is an absurd position, then it is anm absurd position every time someonse cites the fact that 'innocents might die' as an argument against a death penalty.

It's an absurd position because you can't just look at one of them and expect anything meaningful to come of it. It's rather pointless to try to isolate the sentence from the entire judicial process when arguing that it should be used as part of our criminal justice system - they're linked.

And as such, it won't be absurd to use the argument that innocent people might die when judging the merits of the punishment.

What are you wittering on about? The fact that there may be two choices of punishment does NOTHING to impact whether or not the PROCESS is fatally flawed, or working perfectly.

I'm not saying the death penalty should be argued separate to the sentence - obviously - it IS the sentence we are discussing. I am saying that the penalty should be argued separate to the PROCESS - the means by which we arrive at sentencing.
...which would make no sense at all in this debate. The two are linked inextricably in practice. In theory, the two can be seperated. However, it's pointless to do so when debating the merits and flaws of a certain kind of punishment, since you'll avoid looking at the negative consequences the punishment will have on the both on society in general and on the (wrongfully) convicted and their families in particular.

Though, of course, if you wish to create a highly theoretical construction, be my guest - but you fail spectacularly when you try to dismiss the concern that people might be wrongfully convicted and suffer the ultimate penalty while innocent of any crime by suddenly pretending to only argue about the sentence in and by itself, somehow isolated from the rest of the criminal justice system.

If you say the death penalty should not be used because innocents might die - they can't, if the PROCESS is perfect. It isn't, as we both know... but that isn't a condemnation on the rightness or wrongess of the SENTENCE - just an indictment of the legal process.
...which the sentencing is a part of. It is the reason why you shouldn't have the death sentence - you know, out in the real world, in real justice systems. Which is what I've been saying all along.

If the process is THAT flawed, then ANY sentence is 'wrong', because ANY sentence can punish innocents. Luckily - that is irrelevent to whether or not a death penalty is intrinsically bad or good.
...which isn't what we're debating in this thread.

Of course. You don't get it, so I am at fault.

Whatever helps you sleep.
Actually, knowing that you had to remake your post to get the point across did make me sleep just a little bit better.

I assume you mean negligible? You must not pay much attention to reality. Prisoners escaping is hardly a 'one in a blue moon' event.
No, I meant "neglectable", just as I wrote.

But since you bring it up, what is the rate of escape for prisoners? Particularly among those convicted of violence? If you compare the rate of escape pr. prison inmate to the rate of release in cases where the inmate was on death row - which is the higher risk? Wrongful execution or escaped convict?



And yes, I know the numbers aren't strictly comparable, but they do give an indication of the risks.
So. The system arriving at the sentence is flawed? We agree.

That has no bearing on whether or not the sentence is a good or bad thing in the case of those who ARE guilty.
Yes, it has - since we have no absolute guarantee that they really are guilty, since we can't safeguard against all mistakes, the sentence is bad because it'll affect the wrongfully convicted disproportionately - since there is no remedy for people subjected to this punishment.

Of course. Again - if you lack comprehension, blame the source.
If you lack the ability to convey a point comprehensibly, it is on your hands - as is evident by the fact that other posters seem to have interpreted your post in the same way as I have.

I've written for a living, you're some random internet hack... oh who should I put faith in the abilities of?
I can see why you use the past tense.

Personally, I would place the faith on the poster who haven't caused at least two posters to read his post fundamentally differently from what he intended - And thus, I would go with the random internet hack whose credentials have gone unmentioned..

Luckily, I didn't say that, eh?
It follows from your argument, if you would look at the debate in its entirety.

Ah, irony. Remember kiddies, everybody ELSE lies on the internet, but you should be believed as an infallible source. Funny how you've "written for a living" but you couldn't be bothered to get the question in the OP right.
Well, he wasn't aware that I'm a price-winning author, ex marine, scientist, astronaut, doctor, opera-singer and judge on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. If I had thrown that info out there, I'm sure he would change his mind.

In a proper system this would be true but appeals are much more common when facing the death penalty
people panic when they know they could be facing execution despite the fact the a pesons stay of execution in prison is years

That's awfully silly, yet it makes sense.

How about prisoners being put to hard labor? If it's decided they should be put to death, then their labor record is reviewed. If they are working hard then why kill them? If they aren't then they should have been if they wanted to appeal.

Personally, I think most people who attack the death penalty use the 'innocents' argument because it's the only legitimate argument they see. But I think their opposition is more honestly 'it's icky'. They just realise that's not a very good logical argument, so they adopt this half-an-answer, avoid-the-actual-issue response.

I'd have more respect for 'it's icky', or even 'I'm scared it could happen to me'.
If my answer really would be "it's icky", I'd frame it as a moral argument.

As a logical argument, it might be the best there is - the desire to avoid the most negative consequences of a wrongful conviction, consequenses there is no remedy for.

Why will our system always be flawed? We actually have technology now that could make the entire concept of 'an unknown assailant' a nonsense, a thing of the past.
The system will always be flawed, since the human element will always be present. Judges, juries, witnesses, the ones collecting the evidence etc. are all humans.


Even with it's flaws, a death penalty isn't a 'bad idea', intrinsically, because you can still be pretty sure in some cases. Even with the system 'as is'.
Where do you draw the line? You go with "pretty sure", the courts set "beyond reasonable doubt"as a threshold - still, since 1973, 124 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf) people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence in the US alone.


A bad idea as a sentence for stealing bread, maybe... but what about for genocide?
Even in the case of genocide, innocent people can be suspected, charged and convicted.

And what about homosexuality (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm)?

What the punishment should be for a crime is a political decision, and it's also used as a political tool. What values whould you use?

It's an absurd position because you can't just look at one of them and expect anything meaningful to come of it. It's rather pointless to try to isolate the sentence from the entire judicial process when arguing that it should be used as part of our criminal justice system - they're linked.


No. There is no intrinsic link.

There is the determination of guilt - one process, and then there is the sentencing, which is a different procedure - which may DRAW on the information revealed in the first process, but which assumes that the verdict of guilt is now established as fact.


...which would make no sense at all in this debate. The two are linked inextricably in practice.


No, they're really not.

The sentence is not part of the determination of guilt.


Though, of course, if you wish to create a highly theoretical construction, be my guest


I don't. But thanks.


...which the sentencing is a part of. It is the reason why you shouldn't have the death sentence - you know, out in the real world, in real justice systems. Which is what I've been saying all along.


And you've been wrong, all along.

Even if a person is found guilty of a crime, the sentence doesn't affect that finding. There may even be leeway to set a different sentence, depending on conditions. Thus - there is no INTRINSIC link between sentence and determination of guilt.

The only way in which they are connected impicitly, is that we tend not to sentence those found not-guilty.


...which isn't what we're debating in this thread.


No more irrelevent than 'but people might die'. It has just as much bearing - if you can argue against a sentence, based on the possibility that the determination of guilt might be wrong, then you have to allow that THAT little precedent can be applied elsewhere.


Yes, it has - since we have no absolute guarantee that they really are guilty,


Didn't want to answer the question, eh?

Let's pretend you weren't prevaricating about the maybes, and answer the actual question?

Let's be realistic - you are invoking the argument that makes me counetr with the 'any sentence is wrong' response. If we can NEVER be sure absolutely, then any sentence IS wrong. So - let's skip that little detail, and you go on and answer the question instead of avoiding it.


I can see why you use the past tense.


Ooh, get her! I'm sure you understand the significance of the wording.


Personally, I would place the faith on the poster who haven't caused at least two posters to read his post fundamentally differently from what he intended - And thus, I would go with the random internet hack whose credentials have gone unmentioned..


You might. I wouldn't. The point is - you've constantly made the assertion that you don't understand what I'm saying because there is some fault at my end... I think this is not necessarily the case. I have realworld experience which makes me comfortable with that idea, and I care not a jot what you make of that.


Well, he wasn't aware that I'm a price-winning author, ex marine, scientist, astronaut, doctor, opera-singer and judge on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. If I had thrown that info out there, I'm sure he would change his mind.

All of which would be irrelevent, really. Maybe if you were a price-winning (sic) READER, you'd have a point? If you read my response to another poster.. (Neo) you'll see why your last line is pointless masturbation.

Poppy Bush used it against Dukakis in 88.

Dukakis. Thank you. I knew it was something Greek and forgettable.

The system will always be flawed, since the human element will always be present. Judges, juries, witnesses, the ones collecting the evidence etc. are all humans.


I disagree. With current technology we could monitor the precise locations of every person, all the time. We could absolutely link 'suspects' (the term would become irrelevent) to a scence, a time, an opportunity.

Further, we also have the technology to intimately monitor those same persons. We could present reams of irrefutible evidence.

We don't, because people have too many guilty secrets that they don't want anyone else to know.


Even in the case of genocide, innocent people can be suspected, charged and convicted.


Again - irrelevent. We aren't talking about hypothesis or maybe. We are talking about whether a death sentence would be a fitting sentence for someone who has commited genocide... not someone who might have.


And what about homosexuality (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm)?


What about it?


What the punishment should be for a crime is a political decision, and it's also used as a political tool. What values whould you use?

Good. People use it as a political tool. Irrelevent, though. We aren't talking about the politics.

I'm not missing the point of the OP. I think judging whether or not it is a good idea, based on whether or not out legal system works, is flawed. This legal system isn't the only one, and it's far from perfect. And to keep talking about the 'innocents' is avoiding half the point - is a death sentence a good idea? Yes or no?

Any legal system involves human beings, and human beings make mistakes (and/or deliberately skew any given system.)

If one feels that the possibility of even a single innocent being executed makes the death penalty a bad idea, one will never see the death penalty as a good idea in human society.

Now, in an idealized world in which any justice system could be right 100% of the time, it would be a different question. But discussing that imaginary perfect system is really just mental masturbation.

I disagree. With current technology we could monitor the precise locations of every person, all the time. We could absolutely link 'suspects' (the term would become irrelevent) to a scence, a time, an opportunity.

Further, we also have the technology to intimately monitor those same persons. We could present reams of irrefutible evidence.

We don't, because people have too many guilty secrets that they don't want anyone else to know.

Well, that and the fact that the people with access to the information could always fake it...

Any system we devise is still going to be run by human beings - human beings to design, upkeep, monitor, etc. such a system. And the last thing I think we need is some small set of people as "authorities" having even more control and interference in our lives than they already do.

No. There is no intrinsic link.

There is the determination of guilt - one process, and then there is the sentencing, which is a different procedure - which may DRAW on the information revealed in the first process, but which assumes that the verdict of guilt is now established as fact.

No, they're really not.

The sentence is not part of the determination of guilt.
You're mistaken. Yes, the sentencing and the determination of guilt is two different steps in the judicial process, but they are linked together, and there's no way of getting around it. You need to have the guilty verdict before you can talk about punishment. Without it, the terms for sentencing is not fulfilled. And it is pointless to just look at the punishment - in and by itself - if you aren't willing to look at the road that brought you there, when you debate a punishment you would impose on someone convicted of a crime.


And you've been wrong, all along.

Even if a person is found guilty of a crime, the sentence doesn't affect that finding. There may even be leeway to set a different sentence, depending on conditions. Thus - there is no INTRINSIC link between sentence and determination of guilt.
Since being found to be guilty is a prerequisite for the determening of any punishment, you're wrong. Even more so when there's a mandatory sentence, but...


The only way in which they are connected impicitly, is that we tend not to sentence those found not-guilty.
Rather, we can't impose a punishment on them - the conditions for that action is not fulfilled. You can't impose a punishment on someone found innocent, and you have to punish those found guilty.


No more irrelevent than 'but people might die'. It has just as much bearing - if you can argue against a sentence, based on the possibility that the determination of guilt might be wrong, then you have to allow that THAT little precedent can be applied elsewhere.
Indeed. And that's why we draw a line on what we're willing to accept. Innocents can - and will - be wrongfully convicted, so life imprisonment is preferable to death, because then the society has some remedies if his innocence is discovered during his punishment.

The death penalty has no remedies, and therefor it will disproportionately affect those wrongfully convicted.

In order to protect society, we have to accept the possibility, but we should minimize the damages that a wrongful conviction will have.


Didn't want to answer the question, eh?

Let's pretend you weren't prevaricating about the maybes, and answer the actual question?
There was no question.


Let's be realistic - you are invoking the argument that makes me counetr with the 'any sentence is wrong' response. If we can NEVER be sure absolutely, then any sentence IS wrong. So - let's skip that little detail, and you go on and answer the question instead of avoiding it.
No. See above.


You might. I wouldn't. The point is - you've constantly made the assertion that you don't understand what I'm saying because there is some fault at my end... I think this is not necessarily the case. I have realworld experience which makes me comfortable with that idea, and I care not a jot what you make of that.
Twice you have made that assertion - and you drawing unconfirmed credentials into this doesn't make an iota of difference. I stand by my previous statements.


All of which would be irrelevent, really. Maybe if you were a price-winning (sic) READER, you'd have a point? If you read my response to another poster.. (Neo) you'll see why your last line is pointless masturbation.
Well, you would be the expert. And frankly, I don't care about your credentials - I judge based on what I see here. And I'm not impressed. *Shrugs*

I disagree. With current technology we could monitor the precise locations of every person, all the time. We could absolutely link 'suspects' (the term would become irrelevent) to a scence, a time, an opportunity.
- "He raped me."
- "No, we had consentual sex."

or

-"I shot him, but it was self-defence."

It will never become irrelevant, unless of course we would come under complete around-the-clock surveillance, both audio and visual.


Further, we also have the technology to intimately monitor those same persons. We could present reams of irrefutible evidence.
And nobody would ever be able to tamper with the evidence, or the technology?


We don't, because people have too many guilty secrets that they don't want anyone else to know.
And some like their privacy.


Again - irrelevent. We aren't talking about hypothesis or maybe. We are talking about whether a death sentence would be a fitting sentence for someone who has commited genocide... not someone who might have.
Yesterday I was having a debate with one of my friends over whether or not the death sentence is a good or bad idea - and why. I was wondering what other people think about it.

So just out of interest, who here is for it, and who's against it - and for what reasons?
I've said why I would be against it, even where genocide is concerned. It's a valid argument in all cases.


What about it?
What about genocide?


Good. People use it as a political tool. Irrelevent, though. We aren't talking about the politics.
Law and politics mix well. Like in Iran and China.

And you know you're a doll, too. :) But I don't have my opinions to be popular - I'm sure you know me well enough by now, to know that. :)
We're both members of that club. :)

Not familiar with the name, I'm afraid.
It was a very similar event to the scenario you used in your argument. Dukakis was governor of (I want to say) Massachusetts, when violent convict Willy Horton was released from prison on a work-release program. He promptly murdered a woman. Bush I used this not just to criticize liberal social politics but to launch a jingoistic smear campaign against Dukakis as if he had personally chosen to release Horton (who, as a violent offender, should never have been in the program in the first place), and as if a Dukakis presidency would lead to the US being swamped by black murderers coming after pure white women (yes, I'm not joking) because liberals love criminals more than they love America. Not very different from the "if you vote for a liberal, terrorists will kill your children" rhetoric.

Back in 1988, this didn't go down too well. Dukakis had virtually no chance of winning, but despite Bush's victory at the polls, he was still criticized for the Horton tactic. It stands to this day as the worst kind of negative election politics.

In other words, it was a cheap shot then, and it is a cheap shot now. It was not Dukakis's fault that the wrong man was put into the work release program, and the recidivism of criminals is not the fault of people who oppose the death penalty.


No - it's not a trick. We are all entirely responsible for everything that happens, to some extent. Is 'society' to blame for such-and-so? Well - who is society? Did x-person turn to crime from poverty? Well - aren't we all part of this supposedly-caring society?
I don't buy into this argument. Its parameters are too vague. It could be used to support almost any argument. If I want to, I could use it to support my side of the issue just as well.

And, I'm not blaming anyone for anything. They can blame themselves, if they see that in my argument.
You've been using the language of blame, and you've been doing it quite obviously. Examples from your earlier posts:

I'd say that any time somoeone opposes the death penalty, they should be aware: the next time a killer goes free and re-offends, that's YOUR fault.

Do you oppose the death penalty? If you do, you are complicit.

I'm sorry, to suggest that people are projecting if they feel you are blaming them for something, after you typed the above words, is kind of silly.

I take responsibility for the fact that I advocate a death-penalty. I'm aware that, if my vision came to pass, if the US legal system really IS as bad as it looks, I could end up, myself, a victim of the system I argue for. And I accept that.
I would advocate for your sentence to be commuted. :p

It is my view that the execution of an innocent person is an intolerable injustice in a civilized society. If that society knows that such a risk exists and deliberately chooses to run it, then I could not call that society civilized. You may feel safer surrounded by people willing to kill someone -- anyone -- to make themselves feel better, but I would not. I would rather take my chances with any number of Willy Hortons.

Totally untrue, as I'm sure you know. Constantly, people break out, sneak out, or are let out, of secure situations.
Constantly? No, I don't know that.

No one escapes from being dead. No one 'reoffends inside' when they are dead. No one gets a ridiculous parole from being dead. Once you're dead, vote-hungry politicians can't capitalise on letting you be alive again, to secure votes.
Right. Even an innocent person cannot escape death.

Also, if you think politicians don't make political hay out of the criminals they have executed, then you don't know enough about the current Bush and his career in Texas. The fact is, politicians make hay out of the death penalty no matter how they approach it. They either exploit people's fears, or they exploit people's love for revenge. Both are uncivilized impulses, imo.

It does if prison is not 100% secure.

Also - I disagree that 'no being let out of prison' is what those people deserve. They have proved themselves to be a cancer on society. Excise them.
I realize that is your opinion, but surgery is not the only way to treat cancer.

We agree on this, but for slightly different reasons, I suspect. I say 'execute' because I care about the law abiding citizens.. not about the murderers and rapists.
I put the death penalty in the same category of social influences as heroin and uncontrolled gambling. They all speak to certain fundamental human impulses, but they are unhealthy, self-destructive impulses and should not be encouraged. Better ways to satisfy those impulses must be found, because you cannot habitually indulge in self-destructive habits without ultimately destroying yourself.

I say that removing death penalties has a pernicious influence on social attitudes. I say it replaces justice with law. I say it teaches us that there is nothing that is 'bad', and that gives us a lukewarm ethical code. I say it shows us that there is no ultimate price in this life, that one can kill with impunity, because the worst thing that's going to happen is that someone else will pay your rent and cook your food.
I cannot disagree more. Maybe we are thinking of the word "justice" in two different ways.

You seem to be thinking of "justice" in the sense of retribution (repayment for the suffering of the victims).

I think of "justice" in the sense of harmonious balance (as in the balanced scales the law in which ALL considerations are weighed against each other).

You seem to think the law cannot deliver justice because it is dispassionate, but I ask you, if the law cannot deliver justice, what can in your view? Do you think we should abandon courts altogether and just lynch those we think did us wrong? Do you reject the rule of law as a principle? I kind of doubt that you do.

The way I read it, I get the sense that you feel the pain of the victims and want to respond to the crime with that same level of intensity, as if we owe it to the victims to express those feelings.

But I put it to you that it is not the job of the law, or of society, to make people feel better or recognize individual emotions. The function of the law and of society is to keep society whole, as much as is possible. Somethings can never be made up for, can never be set right. The murder of a child is one of those things. Nothing -- not even killing the killers -- will set right what was done to that victim. So the question should not be, do they deserve it? The question should be, what is the proper response of society to this? How can society get itself back into balance after this?

That may be too cold an approach for you, but I honestly and passionately believe it is the right approach. I do not believe that a society can maintain harmonious balance by endorsing revenge.

Again, I disagree. People who abuse children... rapists... murderers - I see no problems with allowing emotion to be involved. We SHOULD be outraged.
Feeling emotions is fine. Allowing our emotions to override our reason cuts the legs out from under civilization. In my opinion, it puts us all on the same mental level as the killers who outrage us.

To say that a jury can't differentiate between outrage over a serial rapist, and being incensed over littering or something, is to trivialise the one for comic effect.
Now you are being dishonest, I fear. There are tons of real-life cases of juries and judges making exactly those same kinds of unfair decisions. There are any number of people right now, in the US, serving sentences ranging from 25 years to life (depending on the state) for first non-violent drug offenses -- all because of emotions exploited by politicians and media. And I remind you again of Dear Leader Bush, who as governor of Texas is known to have executed at least one mentally disabled person, despite public controversy, numerous appeals, and even established Texas precedent, all because of emotion-driven views about the death penalty. And if you are going to pretend that racism, and the emotional exploitation of it, has never played a role in this issue in US history, then I will have a real problem with you. As it is, I have a problem with you making that off-hand remark about littering, as if I said anything like that. Talk about trivializing.

I'll just steal the explanation I used for the other reply: Removing the deathpenalty isn't the 'paralysed by fear' bit. Saying that you can't execute because you are scared you might kill the wrong person is the 'paralysed by fear' part. European states, as is the case in most places that have removed death penalties, have struck down the penalties because they consider execution inhumane or inappropriate... not because 'wah wah, wrong person, wah'.
Are you honestly going to suggest that the fact that innocent people might be executed does not factor into considering whether the death penalty is "inhumane or inappropriate"? Please, GnI.

And I will suggest that it cuts both ways: Insisting upon the death penalty even to the point of accepting the executions of innocent people because you are so afraid that "wah, wah, the wrong person might still be in the world and might get out and re-offend someday, wah" is just another way to be paralyzed by fear.

Any legal system involves human beings, and human beings make mistakes (and/or deliberately skew any given system.)

If one feels that the possibility of even a single innocent being executed makes the death penalty a bad idea, one will never see the death penalty as a good idea in human society.

Now, in an idealized world in which any justice system could be right 100% of the time, it would be a different question. But discussing that imaginary perfect system is really just mental masturbation.

I think you may have said it more clearly than me :)

I'm a big fan of it, personally. Not only the sentence but when they carry it out too.

Why was putting Saddam Husein to death not right?
For the exact same reason that putting anyone to death is not right. As one who opposes the death penalty, I say it is the wrong thing to do on its own merits, as a matter of principle. It has nothing at all to do with the convict who happens to be under consideration at the moment.

I take responsibility for the fact that I advocate a death-penalty. I'm aware that, if my vision came to pass, if the US legal system really IS as bad as it looks, I could end up, myself, a victim of the system I argue for. And I accept that.

And that is where you differ from me.

As far as I'm concerned, if it results in even one innocent person being put to death, it cannot be condoned.

In a 100% perfect system where no one was ever wrongly convicted, I do think that there would be an appropriate place for the death penalty. The purpose of the legal system, in my mind, is to protect its people, and I do believe that there are human beings whose continued existence is a danger to the rest of society. It's unfortunate, but I do think it is true.

I also lack trust for any system or group of people - not even myself - in determining who those people are.

The fundamental question here is, "How willing are you to have innocent people killed by the state in the interest of taking out the dangerous/bad people?" For some people, the answer is "not at all." For others, it is "as long as most of the people are the bad ones." And others would say, "Even the bad ones shouldn't be killed by the state."

Well, that and the fact that the people with access to the information could always fake it...

Any system we devise is still going to be run by human beings - human beings to design, upkeep, monitor, etc. such a system. And the last thing I think we need is some small set of people as "authorities" having even more control and interference in our lives than they already do.

Microchip everyone. Thus, you always know where everyone is. No human interference needed. Then, if a crime occurs, you can just check your logs to find out who was where.

Place surveillance everywhere - record everything. Most of the data can be dumped at the end of everyday or week, unwatched - but you can choose to review material from cameras in crimescenes.

Both technologies would be totally passive (so no control or interference) and need only be triggered in event of crime.

The combination of technologies would make even our system (near on?) foolproof.

And that is where you differ from me.

As far as I'm concerned, if it results in even one innocent person being put to death, it cannot be condoned.

In a 100% perfect system where no one was ever wrongly convicted, I do think that there would be an appropriate place for the death penalty. The purpose of the legal system, in my mind, is to protect its people, and I do believe that there are human beings whose continued existence is a danger to the rest of society. It's unfortunate, but I do think it is true.

I also lack trust for any system or group of people - not even myself - in determining who those people are.

The fundamental question here is, "How willing are you to have innocent people killed by the state in the interest of taking out the dangerous/bad people?" For some people, the answer is "not at all." For others, it is "as long as most of the people are the bad ones." And others would say, "Even the bad ones shouldn't be killed by the state."

I'm not 'willing to have innocent people killed'. I am willing to accept the risk.

You're mistaken. Yes, the sentencing and the determination of guilt is two different steps in the judicial process, but they are linked together, and there's no way of getting around it. You need to have the guilty verdict before you can talk about punishment.


But you don't have to know what the punishment will be before you decide your verdict.


Innocents can - and will - be wrongfully convicted,


Or not.


so life imprisonment is preferable to death, because then the society has some remedies if his innocence is discovered during his punishment.


That's a fault in the verdict stage, not a fault in the sentence. Still.


The death penalty has no remedies, and therefor it will disproportionately affect those wrongfully convicted.


Not really. Once you're dead, your unlikely to care either way.


It will never become irrelevant, unless of course we would come under complete around-the-clock surveillance, both audio and visual.


Seems fair.


And some like their privacy.


So - we shouldn't take precautions to prevent (or solve) crime, because we might intrude on someone's privacy?

Sorry - but I think safety is more important than being able to rob your spankbank without fear that mommy might find out.

Microchip everyone. Thus, you always know where everyone is. No human interference needed. Then, if a crime occurs, you can just check your logs to find out who was where.

Place surveillance everywhere - record everything. Most of the data can be dumped at the end of everyday or week, unwatched - but you can choose to review material from cameras in crimescenes.

Both technologies would be totally passive (so no control or interference) and need only be triggered in event of crime.

The combination of technologies would make even our system (near on?) foolproof.
I decline absolutely to submit myself to an omnipresent, dystopian, police state just because YOU are so a-scared of people.

I read your suggestions for how society should work, and all I see there is a fear of people so great that I can't imagine it is not crippling to you -- if it's real, that is. Statements like this create a rather comical mental image of you walking down the street constantly spinning and pirouetting around for fear of someone sneaking up behind you. I have to admit, I suspect you only think this way when you are discussing this issue.

In any event, this apparent fear certainly causes you to lose sight of reality. Dem has already pointed out that you cannot remove the human element from your Big Brother scenario, and so you cannot remove error, prejudice, and corruption. Your idea of a "safe" society will be no more safe, nor more just, than what we have now. It could, indeed, prove to be much less so, if we refer to historical examples of totalitarian states that attempted something similar.

I'm not 'willing to have innocent people killed'. I am willing to accept the risk.
A disingenuous, weaseling cop-out. You want to separate these two connected ideas? OK, then, if an innocent person is executed (say the evidence proving his innocence comes after he is killed), how will you react?

My answer: You won't react at all, beyond shrugging your shoulders, because you already accepted his death by accepting the risk of his death. So your claim that you're not willing to have innocent people killed is bullshit. If you are willing to accept the risk of it, then you obviously will take no action to prevent it from occurring. Ergo, you are willing to accept the reality of it happening. Ergo you are willing to have it happen, if it comes about.

EDIT: In other words, you see the deaths of innocents as a price you are willing to pay in order to get what you want. As long as you get what you want, you are willing to pay that price, therefore, you are willing to have innocent people killed.

Microchip everyone. Thus, you always know where everyone is. No human interference needed. Then, if a crime occurs, you can just check your logs to find out who was where.

Who writes the program to make the logs? Who checks the logs? Who has access to the computer making the logs? Who maintains the system? Who maintains the records? Considering that such a system would have to run off of RF or some other wireless, how do we ensure that hackers don't get it?

There is always human interference.

Place surveillance everywhere - record everything. Most of the data can be dumped at the end of everyday or week, unwatched - but you can choose to review material from cameras in crimescenes.

Data can be dumped. Or it can be interfered with.

Both technologies would be totally passive (so no control or interference) and need only be triggered in event of crime.

There is no such thing as technology that is totally passive. Human beings make the technology. They do the upkeep on it. They review whatever data comes in. And, given that human beings devised the system in the first place, they can alter the data as well.

Unless this imaginary surveillance system is going to be dropped from the sky intact, with no human involvement in its making, and it is going to be maintained and reviewed with no human involvement, you haven't removed the human error or intentional interference elements from the picture

The combination of technologies would make even our system (near on?) foolproof.

Near on foolproof isn't good enough.

Meanwhile, you sound an awful lot like David Shafer telling the science and technology committee in the GA Senate "It's computerized! No one can mess with it!"

I'm not 'willing to have innocent people killed'. I am willing to accept the risk.

...which is essentially the same thing. You are willing to have a system to execute criminals when it is overwhelmingly likely that innocent people will also sometimes be caught by the system.

Why are you trying to dodge the fact that this means you are willing to see innocent people killed as long as they aren't the majority?

So - we shouldn't take precautions to prevent (or solve) crime, because we might intrude on someone's privacy?

Do you really want the government to have that much power over you? Why don't we just get rid of the Constitution while we're at it?

In any event, this apparent fear certainly causes you to lose sight of reality. Dem has already pointed out that you cannot remove the human element from your Big Brother scenario, and so you cannot remove error, prejudice, and corruption. Your idea of a "safe" society will be no more safe, nor more just, than what we have now. It could, indeed, prove to be much less so, if we refer to historical examples of totalitarian states that attempted something similar.

Precisely. Giving that kind of power to the government simply makes us all unsafe.

<snip>
Precisely. Giving that kind of power to the government simply makes us all unsafe.
GnI's argument strikes me as running so fast from the ravenous bear, that one would run blindly into the jaws of the ravenous cougar. IOW, so afraid of one enemy that one hands oneself over to another enemy.

GnI's argument strikes me as running so fast from the ravenous bear, that one would run blindly into the jaws of the ravenous cougar. IOW, so afraid of one enemy that one hands oneself over to another enemy.

It goes back to the quote (whether Franklin actually said it or not): "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

I decline absolutely to submit myself to an omnipresent, dystopian, police state just because YOU are so a-scared of people.


Why dystopian police state?

We have that technology now. Indeed, certain places in the UK do have fairly 'omnipresent' passive surveillance, and it makes pretty much no difference to everyday life, you ignore the cameras after a few days.

Passive security doesn't scream 'police state' or 'dystopia' to me. Maybe it's not my 'fear' that's the problem, but the collective paranoia of Americans?

Reds under the bed... the government is watching me through my tv...


I read your suggestions for how society should work, and all I see there is a fear of people so great that I can't imagine it is not crippling to you -- if it's real, that is. Statements like this create a rather comical mental image of you walking down the street constantly spinning and pirouetting around for fear of someone sneaking up behind you. I have to admit, I suspect you only think this way when you are discussing this issue.


I don't think that way. I'm 6'6" and bulletproof (Well, 6'4" and 230-something). It's not me I'm thinking about.


In any event, this apparent fear certainly causes you to lose sight of reality. Dem has already pointed out that you cannot remove the human element from your Big Brother scenario, and so you cannot remove error, prejudice, and corruption. Your idea of a "safe" society will be no more safe, nor more just, than what we have now. It could, indeed, prove to be much less so, if we refer to historical examples of totalitarian states that attempted something similar.

I think you lay it on a bit thick. I think it would be possible that there could be interference, maybe.. possibility of errors, although I think the margins would be slim.

I don't see it as 'no more safe', and 'no more just' than what we have now, and I find it hard to believe you do, really.

It goes back to the quote (whether Franklin actually said it or not): "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

One of the craziest things I ever heard.

The idea that people would choose something totally intangible, over security just doesn't seem to add up.

Those movies where someone gives up perfect security, food, shelter, clothing.. all that good stuff - for the 'freedom' outside the dome, camp, house, whatever... just never added up for me.

There's an episode of Red Dwarf (British sci-fi comedy) where the crew are captured by a gestalt entity that holds them all 'prisoner'. Every need is met, every desire anticipated and satisfied... and yet the crew decide they must 'break free of their cage', because of that whole 'live free or die' thing.

I never understood it.

GnI's argument strikes me as running so fast from the ravenous bear, that one would run blindly into the jaws of the ravenous cougar. IOW, so afraid of one enemy that one hands oneself over to another enemy.

Not at all.

If bad men are chasing you with knives, would you run right on by the cop with the gun?

A disingenuous, weaseling cop-out. You want to separate these two connected ideas? OK, then, if an innocent person is executed (say the evidence proving his innocence comes after he is killed), how will you react?

My answer: You won't react at all, beyond shrugging your shoulders, because you already accepted his death by accepting the risk of his death. So your claim that you're not willing to have innocent people killed is bullshit. If you are willing to accept the risk of it, then you obviously will take no action to prevent it from occurring. Ergo, you are willing to accept the reality of it happening. Ergo you are willing to have it happen, if it comes about.

EDIT: In other words, you see the deaths of innocents as a price you are willing to pay in order to get what you want. As long as you get what you want, you are willing to pay that price, therefore, you are willing to have innocent people killed.

In the abortion arguments, we often come across almost exactly the same logical argument.

Is consenting to sex (and thus, the RISK of pregnancy) the same as consenting to pregnancy?

I see the risk of innocent deaths as a much smaller price than the promise of innocent deaths - because I like to think we'd try to avoid making mistakes.

In the abortion arguments, we often come across almost exactly the same logical argument.

Is consenting to sex (and thus, the RISK of pregnancy) the same as consenting to pregnancy?

Absolutly it is. Once we recognize that sex can result in pregnancy, then sex will result in pregnancy.

Likewise once we recognize that death penalty can result in the death of innocents, then we recognize that the death penalty will result in the deaths of innocents.

Yes, sex can lead to pregnancy, and if one consents to sex one does implicitly consent to becoming pregnant (or impregnating someone else), they are the same thing.

The reason your analogy fails is one very simple problem, and is the crux of the abortion argument. Pregnancy is reversable. Death is not.

Who writes the program to make the logs? Who checks the logs? Who has access to the computer making the logs? Who maintains the system? Who maintains the records? Considering that such a system would have to run off of RF or some other wireless, how do we ensure that hackers don't get it?

There is always human interference.


I'm sure we (not professionals in this subject) could hamemr out some pretty good protocols, pretty quickly, to safeguard the security of such data.


Data can be dumped. Or it can be interfered with.


All evidence is susceptible to tampering. Are you now arguing NO evidence should be acceptable?


There is no such thing as technology that is totally passive. Human beings make the technology. They do the upkeep on it. They review whatever data comes in. And, given that human beings devised the system in the first place, they can alter the data as well.


Why would they review the data if no crimes were committed? Do you really think that it would be possible for a human population to watch EVERY feed, all the time?


Unless this imaginary surveillance system is going to be dropped from the sky intact, with no human involvement in its making, and it is going to be maintained and reviewed with no human involvement, you haven't removed the human error or intentional interference elements from the picture


Why is this system imaginary? We have all the technology now.. I'm not imagining something new, just talking about actually applying what we already have.

And, yes, there are some risks with such monitoring - but it's a whole lot less tamperable than scene-of-crime evidence. And, with a little effort, the system could be made even more secure. Groups like the ACLU and even neighbourhod watch schemes, would have a vested interest in keeping the security system balanced and in check.


Near on foolproof isn't good enough.


Better than we have.


Meanwhile, you sound an awful lot like David Shafer telling the science and technology committee in the GA Senate "It's computerized! No one can mess with it!"


Not at all - I don't think computers are impervious. But you can make a system pretty secure, and even when breaches occur, you can track them.

If you have a murder, you review the footage, and you find corrupted data, or evidence of someone 'hacking'... you change your perspective on that data accordingly. Just as we do now with things like photographs, etc.


...which is essentially the same thing. You are willing to have a system to execute criminals when it is overwhelmingly likely that innocent people will also sometimes be caught by the system.


I don't see 'overwhelmingly likely that'... maybe 'there is some risk that'. Totally different prospect.


Why are you trying to dodge the fact that this means you are willing to see innocent people killed as long as they aren't the majority?


Not at all. I am willing to see that risk. I wouldn't want to see innocents ever caught up in such a system.


Do you really want the government to have that much power over you? Why don't we just get rid of the Constitution while we're at it?


As an aside - I'm not protected by your constitution anyway, wouldn't make much of a difference to me.

DO I want the government to have that much power... how much power? Monitoring is now 'having power'? And passive monitoring at that?

You honestly don't think that your government COULD, if they so wanted, be monitoring pretty much every move you make NOW?

I'm seeing a whole lot of paranoia here.


Precisely. Giving that kind of power to the government simply makes us all unsafe.

Again with the power. Why do Americans fear their government so much?

Absolutly it is. Once we recognize that sex can result in pregnancy, then sex will result in pregnancy.

Likewise once we recognize that death penalty can result in the death of innocents, then we recognize that the death penalty will result in the deaths of innocents.

Yes, sex can lead to pregnancy, and if one consents to sex one does implicitly consent to becoming pregnant (or impregnating someone else), they are the same thing.


I just threw you to the wolves, my friend. I'm sorry.


The reason your analogy fails is one very simple problem, and is the crux of the abortion argument. Pregnancy is reversable. Death is not.

Heh - and how does one 'reverse pregnancy'? Because there are different opinions about whether or not 'death' is going to be invoked in that argument, too.

All evidence is susceptible to tampering. Are you now arguing NO evidence should be acceptable?

Of course not, I do believe she's arguing that since all evidence is susceptible to tampering, we should not impose such a final, and irrevocable punishment, with that in mind.
Not at all - I don't think computers are impervious. But you can make a system pretty secure, and even when breaches occur, you can track them.

If you have a murder, you review the footage, and you find corrupted data, or evidence of someone 'hacking'... you change your perspective on that data accordingly. Just as we do now with things like photographs, etc.

WHO tracks them? Who reviews them? More people? People who are still succeptable to dishonesty, error, and bias?

It all comes down to that. No matter how fool proof you make the system, it comes to people enforcing it, and people have the propensity to make mistakes, make errors, and be dishonest. You recognize that all evidence is subject to tampering, that's pretty much all the argument needs.

Originally Posted by Muravyets:
"GnI's argument strikes me as running so fast from the ravenous bear, that one would run blindly into the jaws of the ravenous cougar. "

Actually, this can work really well, because from the cougar's point of view, it is now being rushed by a crazed, fearless human AND a ravenous bear.

Don't knock creativity. Whatever works.

Heh - and how does one 'reverse pregnancy'? Because there are different opinions about whether or not 'death' is going to be invoked in that argument, too.

Perhaps "reverse" is too indefinite a term. How about, one can be made to be not pregnant, and thus their state of pregnancy can be undone. One can not be made to be not dead.

Whether that results in death of a person or not is irrelevant to that point. Your analogy fails in that, yes, consent to sex is implicit consent to getting pregnant, one does not have to REMAIN pregnant if it occurs.

Likewise consent to the death penalty is consent that innocents will die. They, unfortunatly, remain dead.

Thus, your analogy sucks, and I'd be careful if those wolves were not eyeing you instead.

Your analogy fails in that, yes, consent to sex is implicit consent to getting pregnant, one does not have to REMAIN pregnant if it occurs.


Consent to eating a bacon sandwich is consent to choking to death?

Consent to driving to work, is consent to an 18 wheeler crushing your lifeless body?

Consent to going out among 'people' is consent to dying of gunshot wounds in the mall, or your local school?

hmmm now i would be normally quite open minded but for the death penalty im for it though if it costs more then life in prison then maybe it should be made cheaper say like a lottery where people buy tickets with a choice of 10,000 prisoners and the that lucky unlucky guy/girl gets put to death the tickets could pay for the cost of killing them and the extra be put into prsion rehabilition ideas.
for innocent people that are put too death welll then if there is any appeals they should go to a seperate body. a police unit made up for that particular purpose given a max of say 3 years to find out about a case( more then enough timeto go throughly with it) they would deal with nothing else, only these appeals. after the oridnary police had gone fully through with the case up to putting them in prison.

just some thoughts...

Of course not, I do believe she's arguing that since all evidence is susceptible to tampering, we should not impose such a final, and irrevocable punishment, with that in mind.


That's a weakness in any punishment argument. If tampering is that easy, and evidence is that susceptible, and we can never be THAT sure of anything, then ANY punishment is unjust.


WHO tracks them? Who reviews them? More people? People who are still succeptable to dishonesty, error, and bias?

It all comes down to that. No matter how fool proof you make the system, it comes to people enforcing it, and people have the propensity to make mistakes, make errors, and be dishonest. You recognize that all evidence is subject to tampering, that's pretty much all the argument needs.

If you make monitoring the machines the job of one man, you introduce a risk - if you make it the job of a group of people that accompany each other, you reduce the risk.

If you have a separate monitoring station that only monitors monitoring stations, your risk is a fraction. Heh - you could even monitor THAT station, and run it as a program on public television - let those who watch the watchers... be watched.

One of the craziest things I ever heard.

The idea that people would choose something totally intangible, over security just doesn't seem to add up.

Those movies where someone gives up perfect security, food, shelter, clothing.. all that good stuff - for the 'freedom' outside the dome, camp, house, whatever... just never added up for me.

There's an episode of Red Dwarf (British sci-fi comedy) where the crew are captured by a gestalt entity that holds them all 'prisoner'. Every need is met, every desire anticipated and satisfied... and yet the crew decide they must 'break free of their cage', because of that whole 'live free or die' thing.

I never understood it.

Any entity with the power over you to see to your every need also has the power over you to harm you at will.

I'm sure we (not professionals in this subject) could hamemr out some pretty good protocols, pretty quickly, to safeguard the security of such data.

"Pretty good" is not 100%.


All evidence is susceptible to tampering. Are you now arguing NO evidence should be acceptable?

Of course not. I'm arguing that, because all evidence is susceptible to tampering or incorrect analysis, it is not proper for a government to use death as a sentence for crimes.


Why would they review the data if no crimes were committed?

Why are political dissidents framed for crimes in totalitarian states?

What if someone in power actually committed the crime, but wanted to make sure someone else took the fall? What if someone in power wanted to see if person X was attending rallies against them or making comments against them?

Do you really think that it would be possible for a human population to watch EVERY feed, all the time?

Not really. But would it be possible for someone with a vendetta or for someone in power to misuse such a system? Absolutely.

Better than we have.

Not when it could and probably would be used against the completely innocent.


I don't see 'overwhelmingly likely that'... maybe 'there is some risk that'. Totally different prospect.

Then you have much more faith in power structures than I.

Not at all. I am willing to see that risk. I wouldn't want to see innocents ever caught up in such a system.

If you are willing to take that risk, then you are willing to have it happen. "Wants" have nothing to do with it.

I am willing to take the risk that I will get in an accident while driving home today. That certainly doesn't mean that I want to be in a wreck.

DO I want the government to have that much power... how much power? Monitoring is now 'having power'? And passive monitoring at that?

Yes. Knowledge is power, and giving any power structure that much knowledge is giving them a great deal more power.

You honestly don't think that your government COULD, if they so wanted, be monitoring pretty much every move you make NOW?

They could, but they haven't been given a mandate or the authority to do so, which is what you apparently want to give them.


Again with the power. Why do Americans fear their government so much?

The real question here is, given historical and current authoritarian governments, why don't you fear giving that type of power to a government?

As far as I'm concerned, giving the government that type of power and hoping that it wouldn't be misused is much like giving a known violent offender a gun and hoping that they won't shoot you.

Why dystopian police state?

We have that technology now. Indeed, certain places in the UK do have fairly 'omnipresent' passive surveillance, and it makes pretty much no difference to everyday life, you ignore the cameras after a few days.
Microchipping everyone? I'm referring to your first paragraph of the post I responded to. We have that technology, and you think I should participate in it, just to make you feel better?

I will not, for the exact same reason that I will not allow abortion to be outlawed to conform to someone else's morality, even though you both claim to be doing it for my own good. I will not submit to the tyranny of a friend anymore than the tyranny of an enemy.

Passive security doesn't scream 'police state' or 'dystopia' to me. Maybe it's not my 'fear' that's the problem, but the collective paranoia of Americans?

Reds under the bed... the government is watching me through my tv...
Is it your suggestion that we should repeat our mistakes and accept them as our way of life, instead of learning from them?


I don't think that way. I'm 6'6" and bulletproof (Well, 6'4" and 230-something). It's not me I'm thinking about.
I may be short, but I can take care of myself, thank you. So can the rest of humanity. We do not need you to be our guardian angel. Everyone on this planet runs the same risks -- from big lugs like you down to little children -- every single day. Some of us make it through, some of us don't. And apparently, some of us can cope with that, and some of us can't.

I suppose we are both being selfish:

You say you are willing to accept the risk of executing innocent people, including yourself, to make yourself feel better.

I say I am willing to accept the risk of innocent people, including myself, becoming the victims of violence in order to preserve liberty and justice for all of us.

You think a life without safety is bad.

I think a life without liberty and justice is not worth having.

I think you lay it on a bit thick. I think it would be possible that there could be interference, maybe.. possibility of errors, although I think the margins would be slim.
I base my opinion on the examples of history. I find that infinitely more persuasive than your suppositions and speculations.

I don't see it as 'no more safe', and 'no more just' than what we have now, and I find it hard to believe you do, really.
Dem has explained why it is not more safe, and I have explained why it is not more just. If you can't or don't want to see the sense of our arguments, there is nothing more to be done about it.

Your understanding of "safe" and "just" is simply fundamentally different, even opposed, to mine. Let's engage in a little what-if scenario just for a second -- if you were to get your way and impose the system described by your posts, you would have an enemy in me, one who would be working tirelessly to overthrow your order. That's what it boils down to. Surely it is better to try to find a compromise.

That's a weakness in any punishment argument. If tampering is that easy, and evidence is that susceptible, and we can never be THAT sure of anything, then ANY punishment is unjust.

Punishment of the innocent is always unjust.

The injustice of accidentally punishing the innocent can possibly be outweighed by the protection afforded by sentences placed on the guilty. In addition, reparations can be made to those who have been unjustly sentenced (assuming that they haven't been killed). The difference between your argument and ours is that we do not believe state-sanctioned killing an innocent person can be outweighed by any level of protection.

One of the craziest things I ever heard.

The idea that people would choose something totally intangible, over security just doesn't seem to add up.

Those movies where someone gives up perfect security, food, shelter, clothing.. all that good stuff - for the 'freedom' outside the dome, camp, house, whatever... just never added up for me.

There's an episode of Red Dwarf (British sci-fi comedy) where the crew are captured by a gestalt entity that holds them all 'prisoner'. Every need is met, every desire anticipated and satisfied... and yet the crew decide they must 'break free of their cage', because of that whole 'live free or die' thing.

I never understood it.
Then you moved to the wrong country, brother (assuming you still live in the US).

Not at all.

If bad men are chasing you with knives, would you run right on by the cop with the gun?

I have been chased by a guy with a knife, as well as pickpocketed, purse-snatched, and grabbed by a would-be rapist in a park once. There was no cop, armed or otherwise, anywhere near the scenes (never around when you need 'em). Yet somehow, I've never been stabbed or cut, nor raped, and managed somehow never to lose my money, keys or ID. Hm. I wonder how that happened -- could it possibly be that I knew the risks I faced in life and prepared for them, without waiting for someone else to save me?

In the abortion arguments, we often come across almost exactly the same logical argument.

Is consenting to sex (and thus, the RISK of pregnancy) the same as consenting to pregnancy?

I see the risk of innocent deaths as a much smaller price than the promise of innocent deaths - because I like to think we'd try to avoid making mistakes.

Consent to eating a bacon sandwich is consent to choking to death?

Consent to driving to work, is consent to an 18 wheeler crushing your lifeless body?

Consent to going out among 'people' is consent to dying of gunshot wounds in the mall, or your local school?
The "consent" argument is bullshit whether anti-choicers are using it or you are.

Your attempt to make it seem as if I was making a consent argument fails, because, as Neo Art pointed out, the nature of the risk is different, and so is the nature of the supposed consent.

In the anti-abortion argument, the presumption is that the woman who has sex consents not just to become pregnant, but to remain pregnant and give birth. Obviously, that argument fails. If I have sex, even with contraceptives, I know that I run the risk of getting pregnant, and I accept that risk, with the plan of aborting if the risk comes about.

In my argument, I live in a world full of people and other things I cannot control, and I know that this creates a risk of death for me. But since there is no such thing as a risk-free life, I accept the risk.

But just as getting pregnant =/= staying pregnant and giving birth, so accepting the risks of life does not lock me into any course of action in response to that risk. Just because I accept the risk, it does not mean I will allow myself to be killed. My acceptance obligates me to respond to the risk, but I can respond in any number of ways. I don't have to submit to it, just because I accept its existence.

So your attempt to discredit my position fails, and we are left where we started -- which response is the better response. I maintain that the death penalty is not a good response.

<snip>

Again with the power. Why do Americans fear their government so much?
We have good reason to. Read our history. And while you're at it, remember the US was founded by anti-authoritarian revolutionaries. An unwillingness to submit to power and a willingness to subvert, by-pass or overthrow power structures is ingrained in our culture and formed our political and legal systems. The self-sufficiency of the individual is one of the core concepts of American culture. The idea of an omnipresent government "taking care" of us makes us way more paranoid than the idea of murderers lurking amongst us. The presence of government worries us far more than the absence of it.

But you don't have to know what the punishment will be before you decide your verdict.
You still will however have to go through the flawed system before imposing a punishment - any punishment. It doesn't help to say that the death penalty is a perfect kind of punishment if we can't use it.


Or not.
Nice fantasy.


Not really. Once you're dead, your unlikely to care either way.
Nice cop-out, though it failed to adress my point.


So - we shouldn't take precautions to prevent (or solve) crime, because we might intrude on someone's privacy?
We should take resonable precautions that are proportional to the level of privacy we want - and that level is not zero.


Sorry - but I think safety is more important than being able to rob your spankbank without fear that mommy might find out.
Do you really, honestly, believe that the worst case scenario that could happen in a society where the government has complete control of the movements, acts and dialogue of its citizenry, is that your mother may somehow catch you mastrubating? No worse abuses or misuses may occur?

You must have an absolute faith in your fellow man.

I suppose we are both being selfish:

You say you are willing to accept the risk of executing innocent people, including yourself, to make yourself feel better.

I say I am willing to accept the risk of innocent people, including myself, becoming the victims of violence in order to preserve liberty and justice for all of us.

You think a life without safety is bad.

I think a life without liberty and justice is not worth having.
But he won't live a "life without safety" if we remove the death penalty - there would still be prisons.

If the argument that people escape from prison "all the time" comes up again, I would renew my request for numbers of escapes per capita of prison inmates, so we can compare with the number of people released from death row after being proved innocent.

<snip>
But he won't live a "life without safety" if we remove the death penalty - there would still be prisons.

If the argument that people escape from prison "all the time" comes up again, I would renew my request for numbers of escapes per capita of prison inmates, so we can compare with the number of people released from death row after being proved innocent.
And I don't think he would have a life WITH safety, even if he got the total-control police state plus death penalty system he suggests. I was just trying to express what I thought his thinking was -- a desire for safety so great that he is willing to abandon his own, as well as other people's, liberty to get it.

Any entity with the power over you to see to your every need also has the power over you to harm you at will.


Any government HAS the power to harm you at will. It doesn't have to be able to pander to every need to do that.


Why are political dissidents framed for crimes in totalitarian states?


Is this a totalitarian state?


Not really. But would it be possible for someone with a vendetta or for someone in power to misuse such a system? Absolutely.


And that would leave a trail. And - hence - the multiple regulatory bodies.


Not when it could and probably would be used against the completely innocent.


Probably would? Seems like a bit of a leap.


Then you have much more faith in power structures than I.


No, just less intrinsic fear of being monitored, from what I can see.


If you are willing to take that risk, then you are willing to have it happen. "Wants" have nothing to do with it.


Nope - not at all, and.. here's your next line to gvie me the means to explain why.


I am willing to take the risk that I will get in an accident while driving home today. That certainly doesn't mean that I want to be in a wreck.


You are willing to take the risk. By the logic you keep pointing at me, that means you are willing to have it happen.

Want to or no, you are (apparently) willing to...?


The real question here is, given historical and current authoritarian governments, why don't you fear giving that type of power to a government?


Monitoring is that kind of power? And - to be honest - even despite bush, this still isn't really all that authoritarian a state. I don't want to vouch for what it might look like if a bush-alike got in next time, of course...


As far as I'm concerned, giving the government that type of power and hoping that it wouldn't be misused is much like giving a known violent offender a gun and hoping that they won't shoot you.

So now the US government is a "known violent offender"?

This must be an American thing. I'm just not getting it.

Microchipping everyone? I'm referring to your first paragraph of the post I responded to. We have that technology, and you think I should participate in it, just to make you feel better?


To make ME feel better? Not at all.


I will not, for the exact same reason that I will not allow abortion to be outlawed to conform to someone else's morality, even though you both claim to be doing it for my own good. I will not submit to the tyranny of a friend anymore than the tyranny of an enemy.


I would be right alongside you on the abortion argument - but this argument isn't about morality.


Is it your suggestion that we should repeat our mistakes and accept them as our way of life, instead of learning from them?


No. I like the idea of not making the mistakes. I can't think of a civilisation that has video-taped and/or microchipped it's entire population thus far.


I may be short, but I can take care of myself, thank you. So can the rest of humanity.


Not strictly true, is it? I'm sure you can look after yourself, but the simple fact we HAVE crime statistics, suggets that's not universal.


You say you are willing to accept the risk of executing innocent people, including yourself, to make yourself feel better.


I didn't say that.


I say I am willing to accept the risk of innocent people, including myself, becoming the victims of violence in order to preserve liberty and justice for all of us.


Justice I agree with. Hence my support for the death penalty. 'Liberty'? I'm not so sure I like the idea of 'becoming the victims of violence' in exchange for a cloud.


You think a life without safety is bad.


Not really. I'd just choose the safe road versus driving over a cliff. Going through that barricade would be liberating, but I kind of like the road.


I think a life without liberty and justice is not worth having.


Again - I'm not sure I can get onboard if the best argument is something as nebulous as 'liberty'.


I base my opinion on the examples of history. I find that infinitely more persuasive than your suppositions and speculations.


I'm not sure which culture we're supposed to be learning from the mistakes of here.

Then you moved to the wrong country, brother (assuming you still live in the US).

Yep. Still in the US, so far. Why did I move to the wrong country? Is 'freedom' now going to be forced upon people...? :D

I have been chased by a guy with a knife, as well as pickpocketed, purse-snatched, and grabbed by a would-be rapist in a park once. There was no cop, armed or otherwise, anywhere near the scenes (never around when you need 'em). Yet somehow, I've never been stabbed or cut, nor raped, and managed somehow never to lose my money, keys or ID. Hm. I wonder how that happened -- could it possibly be that I knew the risks I faced in life and prepared for them, without waiting for someone else to save me?

I'm glad you've been safe. I hate the idea that there are constantly people out there that aren't... especially those least able to defend themselves.

But you didn't answer the actual question.

To me... always knowing where my kids are, even if one turns up 'missing', knowing that there is no one out there that is going to get away with raping or murdering people, especially children.... it's not so much people like me that I'm thinking of, I can take care of myself. It's the girls in the backalleys, the wives that part-time as punchbags, and the children that are victims of parental malaise or other sickness.

The "consent" argument is bullshit whether anti-choicers are using it or you are.

Your attempt to make it seem as if I was making a consent argument fails, because, as Neo Art pointed out, the nature of the risk is different, and so is the nature of the supposed consent.

In the anti-abortion argument, the presumption is that the woman who has sex consents not just to become pregnant, but to remain pregnant and give birth. Obviously, that argument fails. If I have sex, even with contraceptives, I know that I run the risk of getting pregnant, and I accept that risk, with the plan of aborting if the risk comes about.

In my argument, I live in a world full of people and other things I cannot control, and I know that this creates a risk of death for me. But since there is no such thing as a risk-free life, I accept the risk.

But just as getting pregnant =/= staying pregnant and giving birth, so accepting the risks of life does not lock me into any course of action in response to that risk. Just because I accept the risk, it does not mean I will allow myself to be killed. My acceptance obligates me to respond to the risk, but I can respond in any number of ways. I don't have to submit to it, just because I accept its existence.

So your attempt to discredit my position fails, and we are left where we started -- which response is the better response. I maintain that the death penalty is not a good response.

You said my argument that "I was willing to accept the risk that people might die" was equal to me saying "I was willing to see people die".

I showed, by comparison to the abortion debate, that accepting risk is NOT the same as accepting consequence - and you've basically just spent 200 words agreeing with me.

And I don't think he would have a life WITH safety, even if he got the total-control police state plus death penalty system he suggests. I was just trying to express what I thought his thinking was -- a desire for safety so great that he is willing to abandon his own, as well as other people's, liberty to get it.

'Safety' isn't what I'm driving at, per se - but a removal of risks that are now easily removable.

We don't we keep wild animals in our cities? Why do we build bridges over ravines, and build ramps or steps in steep cliffs? Why do we store up food for the winter? Why do we lay a little away today for an uncertain future? Why is there a 'safety' on a gun?

Humanity has a history of reducing risks. To play it like I'm suggesting something out of character for us, is bizarre. To spit the word 'safety' like it's a bad thing - I just can't comprehend.

To make ME feel better? Not at all.
Well, since I have made it clear what I think of your position, it can hardly be to make ME feel better.

I would be right alongside you on the abortion argument - but this argument isn't about morality.
Then there was no point in you bringing up the abortion debate. Good, because that's what I was thinking as well.


No. I like the idea of not making the mistakes. I can't think of a civilisation that has video-taped and/or microchipped it's entire population thus far.
Too late. The mistakes have already been made in the US, in the UK, in many, many other countries, many times over. All you are suggesting is that we make the same mistakes again, on purpose, but use newer tools do it.

You also suggest using untested technology, based on nothing but your speculations about how it might work and your faith that it will all turn out alright in the end. Somehow. This kind of argument I typically characterize as tea-leaf reading.

Sorry, G, not very persuasive.

Not strictly true, is it? I'm sure you can look after yourself, but the simple fact we HAVE crime statistics, suggets that's not universal.
Hate to give you chillblains from my coldness, but some people manage to get through life without getting eaten by sharks, too, and some people don't. We've all got to die of something.

I didn't say that.
I said it about you. It is my view of your argument.

Justice I agree with. Hence my support for the death penalty. 'Liberty'? I'm not so sure I like the idea of 'becoming the victims of violence' in exchange for a cloud.
You ignored my earlier post in which I suggested we are using two different understandings of the word "justice." I think it holds true, because you most certainly do not agree with the kind of justice I have been arguing for, and I vehemently oppose your kind of justice.

Not really. I'd just choose the safe road versus driving over a cliff. Going through that barricade would be liberating, but I kind of like the road.
What the devil are you prattling about now?

Again - I'm not sure I can get onboard if the best argument is something as nebulous as 'liberty'.
OK, I'm glad you repeated this crack, because I do take exception to it.

You say "liberty" is nebulous. As opposed, I suppose, to "security" which is...um...solid? Well, I'm sorry, but I reject that as an assertion and say it is nothing but an expression of your personal belief system, not a reflection of reality.

I assert that, in real life, both "liberty" and "security" are equally nebulous and solid (i.e. practical systems), in the exact same ways.

Liberty = BOTH the belief in liberty as a human right (nebulous) AND the social systems that protect that right (laws, courts, Constitution, etc.) as well as the social systems and physical infrastructures that people use to exercise the right (personal transportation, communications, tools for limiting access to personal information, etc.) (not nebulous).

Security = BOTH the belief in and desire for personal safety and a safe society (nebulous) AND the systems that create that security (laws, courts, police, government, etc.) (not nebulous).

The fact is security can be just as nebulous as liberty, and liberty can be just as practical as security, so your constant claim that one is a real thing and the other is not is simply false.

I'm not sure which culture we're supposed to be learning from the mistakes of here.
Any culture you like. If it's convenient, we can use mine, the USA.

Yep. Still in the US, so far. Why did I move to the wrong country? Is 'freedom' now going to be forced upon people...? :D
You have the absolute freedom to make a slave of yourself if you like. You do not have the freedom to make a slave of me by making me live under your master.

I'm glad you've been safe. I hate the idea that there are constantly people out there that aren't... especially those least able to defend themselves.

But you didn't answer the actual question.

To me... always knowing where my kids are, even if one turns up 'missing', knowing that there is no one out there that is going to get away with raping or murdering people, especially children.... it's not so much people like me that I'm thinking of, I can take care of myself. It's the girls in the backalleys, the wives that part-time as punchbags, and the children that are victims of parental malaise or other sickness.
You completely missed the point, G.

I HAVE NOT BEEN SAFE.

I have been surrounded by dangers all my life, "out on the street, where it goes down," to quote a favorite song. I lived in the neighborhood where the Kitty Genovese murder took place (several years before I moved there) and many people witnessed her killing and didn't even call the cops, let alone go out to help her (those people who still lived there when I did). I lived in the target territory of Son of Sam while he was on his spree, and I even had the target looks and a dog that had to be walked at night, all by myself. I have stood in the way of rampaging drunks more than twice my weight who were trying to kill some other guy on the NYC subway, just because I wasn't in the mood for their stupid, drunken shit. I have been trapped on stalled trains with armed paranoids off their meds. I have been humped by perverts in crowds. I have walked alone down the exact same streets that other women, children and men disappeared on regularly -- why? Because I had to. They were the route I had to take. I have had friends who were raped, who were gay-bashed, who were mugged more than once, whose apartments were broken into, sometimes while they were at home, who were hit by their boyfriends, etc, etc, etc.

You know what? I've also lived my entire life under threat of getting hit by lightning or a car or getting a fatal disease. As so have you. You've said here that you're big and "bullet-proof" (meaning hard to hurt), but I assure you that you are not. No one is. We are all just as vulnerable as the littlest child and just as incapable of knowing where the fatal blow will come from.

So what makes the difference? Why have I not been killed or maimed or otherwise terribly harmed so far, to date? Part of it is preparedness, but most of it is luck, because there's only so much you can prepare for. There aren't enough cameras or microchips in the world, not enough locks or cops, and not enough lethal injections, to change that. Shit will always happen. There is nothing your brave new world of cameras and microchips could do to stop even one child's head from being bashed against a wall.

This is why you can't just have your cameras and chips, but must also have the death penalty -- because your "safety net" will really accomplish nothing at all. You will have destroyed liberty for everyone, for nothing.

I don't know why, maybe it's just my personality, but I can look at the horrors and cruelties of life and not get upset about them. I see violent crime as something similar to lightning and cancer. You learn how they work, take precautions to minimize risk, and then carry on with your life. And if your luck runs out and you get hit despite your precautions, well, that's life. And you carry on coping. The way I cope is to hold fast to my principles. I will not do something I sincerely believe to be wrong, no matter what. If I did, how could I possibly think of myself as better than the criminals society fears? Yes, I understand the risks that I run, but the price of eliminating those risks -- i.e. sacrificing my principles -- is too high. I will not do it.

I honestly believe that, for practical reasons, the death penalty is a bad idea, and for ethical reasons, it is wrong. I will never support it, no matter how heinous the criminal in question might be.

Do I weep for the guilty who get executed? No. The world is well rid of Ted Bundy (who was executed) and Jeffrey Dahmer (who was murdered in prison), as examples. But my lack of compassion for them does not make the death penalty the right approach, in my opinion.

You said my argument that "I was willing to accept the risk that people might die" was equal to me saying "I was willing to see people die".

I showed, by comparison to the abortion debate, that accepting risk is NOT the same as accepting consequence - and you've basically just spent 200 words agreeing with me.
No, I didn't because your characterization of your own argument is a self-serving falsehood. Your statement IS equivalent to saying that you are "willing to have innocent people killed" (to use the actual words that we started with), and both Dem and I explained how. Simple denial won't make our arguments disappear.

'Safety' isn't what I'm driving at, per se - but a removal of risks that are now easily removable.
Easily removable? Is that why your entire argument has been based on a scifi-like fantasy, because it's all so easy in the real world? If it was so easy, it would have been done by now. We wouldn't need your visionary ravings to guide us.

We don't we keep wild animals in our cities? Why do we build bridges over ravines, and build ramps or steps in steep cliffs? Why do we store up food for the winter? Why do we lay a little away today for an uncertain future?
None of those things creates safety, and none of them were implemented for safety reasons.

Different places have different rules for what animals can be kept where, and for many different reasons, mostly having to do with public health and real estate zoning restrictions. By the way, in some parts of the US, like Texas, you can keep "wild animals" as pets, such as lions and tigers. Causes all kinds of safety problems, but it's still allowed and people do it.

Storing up food for the winter is merely a matter of planning. Not everyone thinks to do it, and no one is required to do it.

And as for bridges, stairs, etc, they are a matter of mere convenience and in no way guarantee safety or even show a concern for safety. I refer you to any bridge or building collapse in recent US history. If you like, I'll post some photos of the alarming condition of a highway overpass in my neighborhood, which the state has no known plans to do anything about.

Why is there a 'safety' on a gun?
Hahahaha! Why is there a 'clutch' on a car?

Humanity has a history of reducing risks. To play it like I'm suggesting something out of character for us, is bizarre. To spit the word 'safety' like it's a bad thing - I just can't comprehend.
Bullshit. Humanity has no such history. Humanity's history is one of constantly increasing risk and then patching on some half-assed partial fixes after enough of the right kinds of people complain loudly and longly enough. I mean, really, G, what are you talking about?

You think I'm spitting the word "safety" like it's a bad thing? You're right. I hate the word "safety." I'm sick of hearing it in America, everywhere I go, and always in the context of some government hack trying to get me to go along with some bullshit surveillance program that will surveil no one but put a lot of money into some corporate campaign donor's pockets.

"Safety" is a poison in the public mind that encourages fear and dependency. It feeds the monsters of xenophobia and bigotry. And it is a lie. It does not exist. You deride me for loving liberty, which you call "nebulous." Well, show me the reality of "safety," then, if you can. You'll have better luck getting photos of mermaids in Atlantis.

Then there was no point in you bringing up the abortion debate. Good, because that's what I was thinking as well.


On the contrary - I've already explained why the abortion debate got involved - you say my willingness to accept the risk of a thing, means I accept the thing. Clearly it's not true, and the 'consent to sex (and thus, RISK of pregnancy) isn't the same as consenting to pregnancy.

I hope you just missed it or forgot.


Too late. The mistakes have already been made in the US, in the UK, in many, many other countries, many times over. All you are suggesting is that we make the same mistakes again, on purpose, but use newer tools do it.


I don't see a parallel. I can't think of a nation that has tried quite what I'm suggesting, with anything like the same technology. Which nation put ID chips in all it's citizens? Which put cold mechanical eyes on every street corner (and had it turn out to be a mistake?)


You also suggest using untested technology, based on nothing but your speculations about how it might work and your faith that it will all turn out alright in the end. Somehow. This kind of argument I typically characterize as tea-leaf reading.


Underskin transmitters are not untested. Video surveillance is not untested.

Where is the untested technology?


Hate to give you chillblains from my coldness, but some people manage to get through life without getting eaten by sharks, too, and some people don't. We've all got to die of something.


Wouldn't it be nice to be able to postpone it a little?


I said it about you. It is my view of your argument.


Your view of my argument is that I want to make meSELF feel better?


What the devil are you prattling about now?


I didn't think I was being that obscure. A little poetic perhaps, but I thought it fairly straightforward. Staying on the road is 'safety'. Driving off the road is 'liberty'... but not necessarily a good idea.


OK, I'm glad you repeated this crack, because I do take exception to it.

You say "liberty" is nebulous. As opposed, I suppose, to "security" which is...um...solid? Well, I'm sorry, but I reject that as an assertion and say it is nothing but an expression of your personal belief system, not a reflection of reality.


I don't recall saying it was nebulous as opposed to anything. I think the part I'm replying to only mentioned liberty and justice... both a little wooly.


Liberty = BOTH the belief in liberty as a human right


Ah - we're going to be on a loser here... since I don't accept the premise of 'human rights'.


(nebulous) AND the social systems that protect that right (laws, courts, Constitution, etc.) as well as the social systems and physical infrastructures that people use to exercise the right (personal transportation, communications, tools for limiting access to personal information, etc.) (not nebulous).


Does any of those things define what 'liberty' actually IS?


Security = BOTH the belief in and desire for personal safety and a safe society (nebulous) AND the systems that create that security (laws, courts, police, government, etc.) (not nebulous).


I don't mean in some metaphorical sense... I mean the cold steel bars and the mechanical eyes. I mean 'to make secure', as in to lock, protect, etc.


The fact is security can be just as nebulous as liberty, and liberty can be just as practical as security, so your constant claim that one is a real thing and the other is not is simply false.


It can be just as nebulous - but only if you take the big nebulous version - which I don't mean.


Any culture you like. If it's convenient, we can use mine, the USA.

Okay - these 'examples of history' that are going to show why video tapes and subdermal transmitters are doomed to fail... are...?

You completely missed the point, G.

I HAVE NOT BEEN SAFE.

I have been surrounded by dangers all my life, "out on the street, where it goes down," to quote a favorite song. I lived in the neighborhood where the Kitty Genovese murder took place (several years before I moved there) and many people witnessed her killing and didn't even call the cops, let alone go out to help her (those people who still lived there when I did). I lived in the target territory of Son of Sam while he was on his spree, and I even had the target looks and a dog that had to be walked at night, all by myself. I have stood in the way of rampaging drunks more than twice my weight who were trying to kill some other guy on the NYC subway, just because I wasn't in the mood for their stupid, drunken shit. I have been trapped on stalled trains with armed paranoids off their meds. I have been humped by perverts in crowds. I have walked alone down the exact same streets that other women, children and men disappeared on regularly -- why? Because I had to. They were the route I had to take. I have had friends who were raped, who were gay-bashed, who were mugged more than once, whose apartments were broken into, sometimes while they were at home, who were hit by their boyfriends, etc, etc, etc.


There shouldn't be 'bad parts of town'. The technology exists to make them a part of history.


You know what? I've also lived my entire life under threat of getting hit by lightning or a car or getting a fatal disease. As so have you.


This is true. But how often do you decide to just go play in traffic?


You've said here that you're big and "bullet-proof" (meaning hard to hurt),


No - "six foot six and bulletproof" is a local thing, I guess. It's a phrase to describe something that is part attitude, and part the manifestation, maybe. I don't look like a victim, and I don't really make a very good one - and so far that's protected me quite a lot.


So what makes the difference? Why have I not been killed or maimed or otherwise terribly harmed so far, to date? Part of it is preparedness, but most of it is luck, because there's only so much you can prepare for. There aren't enough cameras or microchips in the world, not enough locks or cops, and not enough lethal injections, to change that.


There might be.


Shit will always happen. There is nothing your brave new world of cameras and microchips could do to stop even one child's head from being bashed against a wall.


Not strictly true. Stores that have visible security cameras get much lower crime than stores without, even if the cameras are dummy.


This is why you can't just have your cameras and chips, but must also have the death penalty -- because your "safety net" will really accomplish nothing at all. You will have destroyed liberty for everyone, for nothing.


Not at all. The cameras and chips should make a big difference. The penalty is there when someone goes out of their way to be naughty, despite all that.

And - you say I would have "destroyed liberty for everyone, for nothing"... but couldn't the reverse argument also be made? That you are "needlessly endangering everyone else, just so you aren't troubled?"


I don't know why, maybe it's just my personality, but I can look at the horrors and cruelties of life and not get upset about them.


They all affect me, I guess.


I see violent crime as something similar to lightning and cancer. You learn how they work, take precautions to minimize risk, and then carry on with your life. And if your luck runs out and you get hit despite your precautions, well, that's life. And you carry on coping. The way I cope is to hold fast to my principles. I will not do something I sincerely believe to be wrong, no matter what. If I did, how could I possibly think of myself as better than the criminals society fears? Yes, I understand the risks that I run, but the price of eliminating those risks -- i.e. sacrificing my principles -- is too high. I will not do it.


Again - you oppose measures that could help everyone... but for the simple reason that you don't like how it will impact you?

We mitigate risk every day... we see our doctors when we are sick - we don't just 'accept it' when shit happens.

No, I didn't because your characterization of your own argument is a self-serving falsehood. Your statement IS equivalent to saying that you are "willing to have innocent people killed" (to use the actual words that we started with), and both Dem and I explained how. Simple denial won't make our arguments disappear.

I'm confused. MY version of my argument is wrong, because you and Dem want me to be saying something else?

Easily removable? Is that why your entire argument has been based on a scifi-like fantasy, because it's all so easy in the real world?


I'm confused by your 'scifi fantasy' commentary. Subdermal implant technology exists and has been used. Tracking certain people with remote transmitters is something that already happens - both with criminals, and with parents safeguarding their children. Video surveillance is hardly futuristic, is something we ignore each time we're in Wal-Mart, and has been tried in some places with no big upsets... like in Leicester - where it caused a bit of fuss before it went live, and was rapidly assimilated as just part of life.


If it was so easy, it would have been done by now. We wouldn't need your visionary ravings to guide us.


It is easy. The hard part is putting such a package through against almost rabid opposition.


Bullshit. Humanity has no such history. Humanity's history is one of constantly increasing risk and then patching on some half-assed partial fixes after enough of the right kinds of people complain loudly and longly enough. I mean, really, G, what are you talking about?


Wouldn't the patching together of fixes be 'reducing risks'?


"Safety" is a poison in the public mind that encourages fear and dependency. It feeds the monsters of xenophobia and bigotry. And it is a lie. It does not exist.

Curiously, I feel almost exactly the same about 'liberty' - except that I would add that I suspect it is a deliberate lie to make people accept shitty circumstances for a theology-like promise.

GnI, I'm going to interrupt the constant round of point-for-point responses at this stage because it is becoming pointless. I really never expected that you would end up being one of those people who fall into "toddler" arguments -- just repeating the same thing over and over in response to all answers, like a little kid countering every answer with "Why?"

Here is where we're at:

You argue in favor of a society that has the death penalty AND universal surveillance and tracking of every person in the nation. You argue that this will make society safer and will eliminate the chance of the wrong person being executed. During your arguments, however, you acknowledge that the wrong person COULD be executed, and that you're okay with running that risk and with giving up all personal liberty in order to run it.

Dempublicents1 and I not only disagree that it is acceptable to risk executing the wrong person, but we have also pointed out that your tracking/surveillance systems cannot guarantee that the wrong person will not be executed, but in fact, could be used to guarantee, almost, that innocent people will be executed, if the state/people/agency that controls the system is incompetent or corrupt.

At this time, I would also point out that your proposed social system, which is guaranteed to take away my personal liberty (which you say I should be okay with), will not prevent crime. If we follow just the suggestions you posted here, it is not even designed to prevent crime. It is only designed to support a system of executions. So all your related arguments about a safe society are obviously also bunk. You have no interest in increasing safety, only in increasing the number of executions. If you really wanted a safe society you would be (misguidedly) supporting your Big Brother worldview as a substitute for executions (by preventing crime), not as part of a system that includes executions (which assumes the existence of crime).

So far in this thread, all these points and counter-points have been made at least two or three times (more for some of them). You have failed to actually address the substance of the arguments from Dem and I. Instead, you have only repeated the same points that we were countering, as if they are answers. Where that fails, you just blankly gainsay whatever we have said without actually addressing our points (a kind of "no, it ain't not, neither" approach). And throughout, you have presented opinion as if it is fact and made assertions of fact you have failed to support, although other posters have asked for your data (i.e. prison escape numbers). This, coming from you, surprises me more than anything else.

So, in as much as your last set of posts in response to me are nothing but reptitions of the points I was countering, without any added substance whatsoever, I am going to ask you to review the arguments so far and ADD SOMETHING to your argument that would make me see the sense of it, in light of my objections so far.

If you cannot do that, then I think we are done here, because there is no way I will ever accept your argument as presented so far.

GnI, I'm going to interrupt the constant round of point-for-point responses at this stage because it is becoming pointless. I really never expected that you would end up being one of those people who fall into "toddler" arguments -- just repeating the same thing over and over in response to all answers, like a little kid countering every answer with "Why?"

Here is where we're at:

You argue in favor of a society that has the death penalty AND universal surveillance and tracking of every person in the nation. You argue that this will make society safer and will eliminate the chance of the wrong person being executed. During your arguments, however, you acknowledge that the wrong person COULD be executed, and that you're okay with running that risk and with giving up all personal liberty in order to run it.

Dempublicents1 and I not only disagree that it is acceptable to risk executing the wrong person, but we have also pointed out that your tracking/surveillance systems cannot guarantee that the wrong person will not be executed, but in fact, could be used to guarantee, almost, that innocent people will be executed, if the state/people/agency that controls the system is incompetent or corrupt.

At this time, I would also point out that your proposed social system, which is guaranteed to take away my personal liberty (which you say I should be okay with), will not prevent crime. If we follow just the suggestions you posted here, it is not even designed to prevent crime. It is only designed to support a system of executions. So all your related arguments about a safe society are obviously also bunk. You have no interest in increasing safety, only in increasing the number of executions. If you really wanted a safe society you would be (misguidedly) supporting your Big Brother worldview as a substitute for executions (by preventing crime), not as part of a system that includes executions (which assumes the existence of crime).

So far in this thread, all these points and counter-points have been made at least two or three times (more for some of them). You have failed to actually address the substance of the arguments from Dem and I. Instead, you have only repeated the same points that we were countering, as if they are answers. Where that fails, you just blankly gainsay whatever we have said without actually addressing our points (a kind of "no, it ain't not, neither" approach). And throughout, you have presented opinion as if it is fact and made assertions of fact you have failed to support, although other posters have asked for your data (i.e. prison escape numbers). This, coming from you, surprises me more than anything else.

So, in as much as your last set of posts in response to me are nothing but reptitions of the points I was countering, without any added substance whatsoever, I am going to ask you to review the arguments so far and ADD SOMETHING to your argument that would make me see the sense of it, in light of my objections so far.

If you cannot do that, then I think we are done here, because there is no way I will ever accept your argument as presented so far.

If you want to walk away from it, I'll harbour no hard feelings. From my point of view, of course, reading this post is a revelation. You clearly and concisely present an argument for me... which bears no relation to my actual point of view, which ignores each time I explain WHY your assertions are flawed... and which naturally doesn't logically follow.

For example - you keep saying the technology involved is sci-fi. Apparently - the fact that it already exist AND we already use it on a small-scale, isn't compelling to you.

I'm not surprised you will never accept my argument "as presented so far". Your version of it is so far from anything I've said, I wouldn't accept it either.

I will state now: I have not taken the time to read all the way through this thread; I've just read the first page and the last.

However, I just want to make one point. On the first page, a comment was made that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" punishment.

Cruel and unusual.

Punishment, by its very nature, has to be "cruel" (ie, something you truly want to avoid) and "unusual" (ie, something that isn't likely to happen to you in the normal course of your life), otherwise it misses the point.

That's all I have to say.

I will state now: I have not taken the time to read all the way through this thread; I've just read the first page and the last.

However, I just want to make one point. On the first page, a comment was made that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" punishment.

Cruel and unusual.

Punishment, by its very nature, has to be "cruel" (ie, something you truly want to avoid) and "unusual" (ie, something that isn't likely to happen to you in the normal course of your life), otherwise it misses the point.

That's all I have to say.

The frame of reference for "Cruel and unusual" is punishment in that saying, not your normal course of life

If you want to walk away from it, I'll harbour no hard feelings. From my point of view, of course, reading this post is a revelation. You clearly and concisely present an argument for me... which bears no relation to my actual point of view, which ignores each time I explain WHY your assertions are flawed... and which naturally doesn't logically follow.

For example - you keep saying the technology involved is sci-fi. Apparently - the fact that it already exist AND we already use it on a small-scale, isn't compelling to you.

I'm not surprised you will never accept my argument "as presented so far". Your version of it is so far from anything I've said, I wouldn't accept it either.
Clearly, we have been talking at cross purposes, because you have also misread my posts, just as you say I misread yours.

I have been saying that your SCENARIO for how technology should be applied is a scifi scenario. It comes straight out of Brave New World, 1984, and any number of subsequent spin-offs/rip-offs portraying dystopian police states -- all of which are based on actual histories of totalitarian and/or classist social orders. It is a staple of science fiction literature.

I am not saying the tools to build your proposed system do not exist. I am saying that your proposed system and its predicted results/effects is a fantasy. Not only that, it is also a bad idea. There is good reason, based in hard realities about history and about how systems created by humans work, to believe it will not do what you want it to do, and the price for it is something I am not willing to pay.

EDIT: But I notice, you are still hung up on whether I think your proposed system is possible or not. Do you think if you could prove that you could do it, then I would accept it? If so, you are even more off my message than I am off yours.

You continue to ignore the substance of the objections presented by me and Dempublicents1. For instance, in the post you responded to, I laid out what I saw as a major inconsistency in your arguments so far. Do you care to try to reconcile that inconsistency or not?

Clearly, we have been talking at cross purposes, because you have also misread my posts, just as you say I misread yours.

I have been saying that your SCENARIO for how technology should be applied is a scifi scenario. It comes straight out of Brave New World, 1984, and any number of subsequent spin-offs/rip-offs portraying dystopian police states -- all of which are based on actual histories of totalitarian and/or classist social orders. It is a staple of science fiction literature.

I am not saying the tools to build your proposed system do not exist. I am saying that your proposed system and its predicted results/effects is a fantasy. Not only that, it is also a bad idea. There is good reason, based in hard realities about history and about how systems created by humans work, to believe it will not do what you want it to do, and the price for it is something I am not willing to pay.

My 'proposed system' already exists, and it does just what it says on the can. In reality, 'my vision' is nothing more than extension of things we do already.

I'm still not sure which specific histories you think invalidate the idea. I'd suspect things like 'secret police era' Russia... except that there is no real parallel between the people-heavy informant/KGB culture... and a kind of 'habeus data' effectively-people-free passive monitor.

I'm still not seeing how it would impinge on 'liberty'. You can still do everything you want, and the data isn't even reviewed unless there is cause.


To be fair - I can see one flaw... and that is if the technology doesn't do what it says - if the regime in power cheats... targetting people for things that weren't crimes, or placing 'other technology' in the sub-dermal transmitters... like recording devices that broadcast your protected free speech. I guess that means the system would have to be very strictly regulated, by non-partisan consumer-and-civil-liberties friendly groups.

For instance, in the post you responded to, I laid out what I saw as a major inconsistency in your arguments so far. Do you care to try to reconcile that inconsistency or not?

Would this be the 'I want to increase deaths' thing? The (perceived) inconsistency being something to do with the two-tier system of surveillance AND penalty?

My 'proposed system' already exists, and it does just what it says on the can. In reality, 'my vision' is nothing more than extension of things we do already.

I'm still not sure which specific histories you think invalidate the idea. I'd suspect things like 'secret police era' Russia... except that there is no real parallel between the people-heavy informant/KGB culture... and a kind of 'habeus data' effectively-people-free passive monitor.

I'm still not seeing how it would impinge on 'liberty'. You can still do everything you want, and the data isn't even reviewed unless there is cause.


To be fair - I can see one flaw... and that is if the technology doesn't do what it says - if the regime in power cheats... targetting people for things that weren't crimes, or placing 'other technology' in the sub-dermal transmitters... like recording devices that broadcast your protected free speech. I guess that means the system would have to be very strictly regulated, by non-partisan consumer-and-civil-liberties friendly groups.
You suspect. You are not sure. You don't understand.

What you are is being ridiculous. I have told what historical sources we can use. I suggested US history. You ignored that. Dem gave you detailed objections to your suggestion on the basis of its impact on liberty. You ignored her statements. Both she and I have asked you more than once to show us any real world examples of the system you suggest in practice today. You have not -- because you cannot.

And now you make some backhanded swipe at acknowledging what Dem has been saying all along, and counter it by suggesting that we should all just go along with what you've been saying all along (i.e., make the whole thing automated and monitored, which you've said several times and which Dem countered several times). Which falls squarely under my characterization of you adding nothing to the debate anymore.

You put your opinions out there, you made your suggestion, it has nothing to do with reality, you were challenged on that, you failed to meet the challenges. Therefore, you have failed to convince either me or Dem that you have any idea what you are talking about on the issue of public safety or criminal justice.

Would this be the 'I want to increase deaths' thing? The (perceived) inconsistency being something to do with the two-tier system of surveillance AND penalty?
Yes, "something to do" with that "thing."

You know that I oppose the death penalty AND I oppose giving up my liberty. Yet you propose a system that would force me to give up my liberty AND have the death penalty in the law.

So, I ask you, GnI, what's in this world view for me? What do I get out of it? Why should I sacrifice my liberty for your vision if it will give me NEITHER a society free of crime, nor a society that does not sanction revenge killing, which is what I think the death penalty amounts to?

You suspect. You are not sure. You don't understand.

What you are is being ridiculous. I have told what historical sources we can use. I suggested US history. You ignored that. Dem gave you detailed objections to your suggestion on the basis of its impact on liberty. You ignored her statements. Both she and I have asked you more than once to show us any real world examples of the system you suggest in practice today. You have not -- because you cannot.

And now you make some backhanded swipe at acknowledging what Dem has been saying all along, and counter it by suggesting that we should all just go along with what you've been saying all along (i.e., make the whole thing automated and monitored, which you've said several times and which Dem countered several times). Which falls squarely under my characterization of you adding nothing to the debate anymore.

You put your opinions out there, you made your suggestion, it has nothing to do with reality, you were challenged on that, you failed to meet the challenges. Therefore, you have failed to convince either me or Dem that you have any idea what you are talking about on the issue of public safety or criminal justice.

In the US at the moment certain felons are equipped with permanent monitoring devices. Additional to that, there are companies that allow parents to track their offspring through transmitters. Cellphone technology allows users to track one another. Pilot studies have been run to subdermally 'bug' dogs - and transmitter tech has been used for some time to track wild animals. Supermarkets and corporate properties have been using omnipresent video monitoring for decades. The city of Leicester set up city centre monitoring a year or so before I left the UK.

The technologies I claim are hardly unfindable.

I made no backhand swipes at anything. I admit a flaw in the system, and suggested a mechanism to mitigate it.

Dem has not countered my... anything. Her insistence that people involved will somehow automatically corrupt the system is paranoid, ignores the suggestions of multicameral transparency, and ignores the fact that computer tech shows evidence when tampered.

In the US at the moment certain felons are equipped with permanent monitoring devices. Additional to that, there are companies that allow parents to track their offspring through transmitters. Cellphone technology allows users to track one another. Pilot studies have been run to subdermally 'bug' dogs - and transmitter tech has been used for some time to track wild animals. Supermarkets and corporate properties have been using omnipresent video monitoring for decades. The city of Leicester set up city centre monitoring a year or so before I left the UK.

The technologies I claim are hardly unfindable.
1) I'm not a convicted felon.

2) I'm neither a child nor a parent, and neither is the government.

3) Cell phones are only trackable when they're on.

4) I'm not a dog, nor a pet, property or chattel of any kind, of anyone.

5) I have no problem with public surveillance cameras. I have never minded being watched in public places.

How is any of that even remotely like your suggestion that the entire population be microchipped for 24/7 tracking and surveillance? Oh, wait I get it -- it isn't.

And what does it have to do with the death penalty? Oh, I know that one too -- nothing.

I made no backhand swipes at anything. I admit a flaw in the system, and suggested a mechanism to mitigate it.
I'll explain it just once more, since your passion about this ridiculous notion is so strong it has apparently short-circuited your ability to keep track of the conversation:

You say, "A"

Dem and I say, "B, C, D, therefore A is bad; what about that?"

You say "No, A is not bad because of A."

Dem and I say, "Well, account for B, C, and D then."

You say, "OK, maybe that is a problem with A, but the remedy is A."

Can you see the circle now?

Dem has not countered my... anything. Her insistence that people involved will somehow automatically corrupt the system is paranoid, ignores the suggestions of multicameral transparency, and ignores the fact that computer tech shows evidence when tampered.
And we're back at A again. You already said this more than once, and Dem already answered it more than once, and you ignored her. If she has given up on you, I can't blame her. For myself, I'm giving up on you now.

Watching someone I respect run in circles like this is depressing, and the topic is depressing to begin with, and I'm bored and discontented with my entertainment prospects in general -- and butting heads pointlessly with you over the frigging death penalty (festive!) is not brightening my mood. And the rest of NSG at the moment isn't much better (yes, I know I'm whining; I'm in a bad mood because there's nothing fun to do where I am and I'm tired and cranky).

So suffice it to say you're wrong (about anything you care to name :p), and I'm sitting down.

1) I'm not a convicted felon.

2) I'm neither a child nor a parent, and neither is the government.

3) Cell phones are only trackable when they're on.

4) I'm not a dog, nor a pet, property or chattel of any kind, of anyone.

5) I have no problem with public surveillance cameras. I have never minded being watched in public places.

How is any of that even remotely like your suggestion that the entire population be microchipped for 24/7 tracking and surveillance? Oh, wait I get it -- it isn't.


Errr... okay. All I said was that these technologies already exist, for the purposes I'm discussing. The subdermal tech exists for tracking movements, some people are already constantly tagged and monitored (the monitoring is passive until an actual search parameter is activated), and cameras area lready used for 'universal surveillance' in finite environments.

If all of these existed as one comprehensive package, we wouldn't be discussing whether this was a good idea in theory - but how it wasw affecting us in practise.


And what does it have to do with the death penalty? Oh, I know that one too -- nothing.


Errr... again with the errrr. I didn't realise the death penalty was considered part of my 'scifi' vision. I'm pretty sure the death penalty already exists in a few places too.


I'll explain it just once more, since your passion about this ridiculous notion is so strong it has apparently short-circuited your ability to keep track of the conversation:

You say, "A"

Dem and I say, "B, C, D, therefore A is bad; what about that?"

You say "No, A is not bad because of A."

Dem and I say, "Well, account for B, C, and D then."

You say, "OK, maybe that is a problem with A, but the remedy is A."

Can you see the circle now?


I don't see that that relates to this discussion at all. I'd go deeper into the algebraic equivalence, but...


And we're back at A again. You already said this more than once, and Dem already answered it more than once, and you ignored her. If she has given up on you, I can't blame her. For myself, I'm giving up on you now.

Watching someone I respect run in circles like this is depressing, and the topic is depressing to begin with, and I'm bored and discontented with my entertainment prospects in general -- and butting heads pointlessly with you over the frigging death penalty (festive!) is not brightening my mood. And the rest of NSG at the moment isn't much better (yes, I know I'm whining; I'm in a bad mood because there's nothing fun to do where I am and I'm tired and cranky).

So suffice it to say you're wrong (about anything you care to name :p), and I'm sitting down.

I already advocated this. It won't make me respect you any less, and I hope it wouldn't impact me, similarly.

It's frustrating for me - because it seems like you have a certain vision of what I'm saying, which you don't actually want me to correct - and I can actually kind of understand that. It's not an especially cheery subject, my idea on the topic is hardly flowers and rainbows, and it's not even a subject I usually get involved in - I'm only really involved in it this time because I'm 'energised' by the brutality I discussed earlier.


I'm wrong about anything you care to name. Shalom.