Quote :

"what does it do for us to take their lives away from them?"

Decrease world population.

4/19/2006 1:47:49 AM

^^^^It's because, according to GrumpyGOP (assuming I understand him correctly), that the fetus is completely innocent, and abortion is murdering this innocent thing. With the death penalty, even considering innocent people being executed, overall, the innocent people in society are safer. In both cases, the idea is protecting the most amount of lives, overall.

It doesn't consider though life in prison is just as good (and cheaper) than the death penalty.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:48 AM. Reason : ]

4/19/2006 1:48:30 AM

I'm about to go to bed, but I'll offer a quick shot at that:

Abortion and capital punishment are wholly different arguments. Abortion is done privately, executions are done by the state. An unborn baby and a murderer are two totally different subjects. The argument that abortion almost solely boils down to is "at what point are we dealing with a living human being?" The death penalty is a little more complicated, but it's arguments center around "Does the state have a right to kill a living human being, even under the most extreme circumstances?"

Few would argue that it's ok to kill an unborn baby if it is, in fact, a living human being.

I think that it is a living human being relatively early in the pregnancy, but not at conception...but that's another argument for another thread.

Quote :

" In both cases, the idea is protecting the most amount of lives, overall."

Yes, that's the succint, direct answer for how not only is it possible to be pro-death penalty and pro-life, but that it is pretty ideologically well sorted.

and GrumpyGOP's argument does take into account the life without parole alternative (and is based almost wholly upon the net preservation of innocent life).

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 1:52 AM. Reason : asdf]

4/19/2006 1:48:52 AM

Quote :

"I respond with facts and you make up a conspiracy. You're intelligent"

It's not a conspiracy to analize society and see an obvious trend & repeating pattern with any change to the system. Then based on said trends make a prediction about the future. Society rises every day to place the highest cost on the worst and best of everything. I see no reason to assert the same thing will occur if the death penalty is removed.

A conspiracy has only an anadotial trend, and asserts an accusation based on that. If you want an example, head to a Salis thread.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 2:04 AM. Reason : new post]

4/19/2006 1:51:31 AM

I'm sorry but its not enough to say that liberals are soft on crime so they will somehow find a way to create more appeals for criminal defendants. Its already hard as shit to win an appeal

4/19/2006 2:00:27 AM

Quote :

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tookie"

When a mans life is near end, he tends to attempt to repent. I have no reason to believe it was the length of time he spent in prision vs. his impending death that brought on the attempt to change.

As soon as it came close to his life being ended, he sure did make a sudden jump to repentance...didn't he.

This is not a victory of pirison reform, this is a victory for the nature of man to fear death.

Quote :

"I'm sorry but its not enough to say that liberals are soft on crime so they will somehow find a way to create more appeals for criminal defendants. Its already hard as shit to win an appeal"

I never said they are soft on crime.

What they are does not fit into a catch phrase. They like everyone else will simply push to make the worst thing, not as bad as it is. That is the nature of any reformer. Whatever becomes the new "death penalty" will come under fire and will have it's system pushed for more appeals and other ways to keep people out of the worst possible punishment.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 2:09 AM. Reason : s]

4/19/2006 2:04:22 AM

I'm pretty sure Tookie Williams changed his ways (or started making a good show, at least) for quite some time before he was executed.

4/19/2006 2:06:36 AM

^^ A. you are wrong and B. he is just the first to come to mind. there are more people than just Tookie. If you bother to read the article he began to change dramatically 12 years before he was excuted

4/19/2006 2:11:11 AM

Quote :

"is it just the law and order argument, saying that those who are up for the death penalty have committed a crime against society and the unborn are innocent?"

basically.

grumpy's is better constructed, though.

4/19/2006 2:15:40 AM

Quote :

"^^ A. you are wrong and B. he is just the first to come to mind. there are more people than just Tookie. If you bother to read the article he began to change dramatically 12 years before he was excuted"

No. I am right. I don't care how many people you find like him. If they are on death row it's a victory for human nature to fear death.

You don't have an exact date you are going to die when you are on death row. But suppose you are Tookie 12 years before his death. Maybe you start talking with your lawyer and he informs you, you have 12 years At Most to live.

How long would it take you to change your ways?

Now suppose there was no death penalty, and the laywer says you have 12 more years till you are free, well fuck it, you've done 13 already, what's another 12.

What reason do you have to change?

4/19/2006 2:15:44 AM

i'm glad we have you to make generalizations for the entire prison population

4/19/2006 2:24:07 AM

You have something to prove otherwise? One, possibly 2 outlairs? Where is the formal process by which we can treat them all to the same thing? Clockwork Orange perhaps?

4/19/2006 2:33:08 AM

I wasn't looking for a debate about should we or should we not. I was more trying to get people to come up with new more humane ways of using it.

I wouldn't be amazed if the argument over the death penalty is as old as man. People are going to continue arguing about it for the rest of our existance. And while arguing about it may make you feel good inside there is really no chance you are going to change someones stance on the issue.

4/19/2006 7:02:20 AM

So far I see no need to participate in this thread, since everyone is so familiar with my position that they are actually presenting it on my behalf even when they don't agree with me.

4/19/2006 3:30:45 PM

kill them all

k?

4/19/2006 5:34:11 PM

is the death penalty not punishment for a crime that by its nature causes excruciating pain to an innocent victim? very few people who never commit any crime will die a painless death, so why are people so concerned with an inmate not even feeling pain for a few seconds? if he had not caused horrible pain, he would not be convicted of first degree murder. I understand the obligation not to use cruel methods and agree with that, but execution is a punishment for especially heinous crimes.

4/19/2006 6:14:06 PM

^ no thats not right

4/19/2006 6:29:32 PM

we should still use a firing squad

4/20/2006 1:26:55 AM

a firing squad is very effective and an extremely quick way to die. with twelve people firing at a condemned prisoner at one time, there is little or no chance they would feel anything.

4/20/2006 10:30:20 PM

^ i thought firing squads in the us had one person firing a live round, and the rest firing blanks. the live round was chosen randomly and none of the shooters knew ahead of time which they had.

at least thats what i recall reading.

someone look it up for me. im lazy.

4/21/2006 12:36:41 AM

I can't ever remember if it's one person firing live and the rest firing blanks, or vice versa.

Either way, no individual shooter knows that he fired an actual bullet. I'm fairly certain we have some redundancy in place (one shooter can miss and fuck everything up), which leads me to believe that it's only one person firing a blank.

Quote :

"It doesn't consider though life in prison is just as good (and cheaper) than the death penalty. "

Actually, it does consider this, because I think sufficiently widespread use of the "life in prison without parole" thing is not feasible and so far has not been sufficiently maintained.

At the moment, it remains to be seen whether, under the current system, it would be cheaper to keep the entire death row population under lifelong solitary confinement in a supermax environment than it would be to kill them. If it were demonstrable that such were the case...I would still be able to fall back to the position that we are not effectively streamlining the death penalty process.

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 1:19 AM. Reason : ]

4/21/2006 1:11:05 AM

There's an execution slated for tonight at 2 a.m. The dude's name is Willie Brown.

info: http://rdu.news14.com/content/your_news/raleigh/default.asp?ArID=83273

4/21/2006 1:11:32 AM

there is a difference in the recoil when you fire a blank, anyway. i don't know what the point of that would even be. you should be able to feel the difference.


i know that historically, in combat, almost all of the killing has been done by a small % of the force. we're doing a better job now of training/conditioning our troops to be psychologically able to fire on a human target, but up until Vietnam, the overwhelming majority of soldiers either never fired or fired above the heads of the enemy.

i wonder how much of a problem that is with the firing squad. prob less, b/c it would be harder to do without people noticing...but still.

4/21/2006 1:17:57 AM

^I would imagine that in a detached environment, the difference is quite obvious. But, in this case, there's at least that little room for doubt that allows you to not be certain that you fired the fatal shot.

Of course, I would generally contend that if you don't feel like you can shoot the guy, you probably don't have any business being in the squad to begin with.

^^Sounds from that like there's no real doubt that he's guilty, so I have no particular problem.

I mean, I don't generally see the point in executing people who are currently geriatrics for such crimes as his, but I don't see any reason to not execute them for the same reason. On the one hand, they probably don't pose a future threat to society. But, on the other, when they are guilty, I'd deem it worthwhile just to make the point that you can't just try to outlast the system -- one way or the other, you're gonna get put to death.

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 1:23 AM. Reason : ]

4/21/2006 1:22:26 AM

1 person firing live and the rest blanks

either way, grumpy's support of the death penalty is based on logical fallacies and antiquated ideology (utilitarianism).

4/21/2006 1:22:55 AM

^just thought I would let all of you know

4/21/2006 1:24:15 AM

the utilitarian side of his argument is not without merit.

I do think that it needs to be tempered with the personal responsibility for laying such a judgement that I advocated earlier in the thread.

4/21/2006 1:24:31 AM

I've yet to see any demonstration of the actual fallacies, or in the inherent worthlessness of utilitarianism. I've actually yet to seen much attempt at such demonstrations.

4/21/2006 1:25:19 AM

If I wasn't a complete alcholic or slacker I would go through it sentence for sentence, word for word.

but with ideology, the facts cannot change it

because ideology is an irrational belief system based on opinions and not facts.

4/21/2006 1:40:42 AM

To some extent, an aversion to ideology in government is why I favor the utilitarian view (in that context).

I don't want us to say, "Never kill anybody!" because we have a pacifist ideology, and I don't want us to say, "Let's always kill people!" because of whatever the appropriately-termed opposite would be.

I fail to see how the distinction between saving innocent lives and allowing them to be ended allows much room for opinion to rear its head.

4/21/2006 1:44:57 AM

don't try to suck me into an argument. I have to write three papers tonight and just have to get the desire to move my ass from the couch.

4/21/2006 1:48:52 AM

But you failing to write your papers only stands to benefit me. You will become agitated and less cogent and thus easier to beat.

Though, in fairness, I'm trying to picture you "agitated" and it's really not computing.

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 1:54 AM. Reason : ]

4/21/2006 1:53:39 AM

i see your plan.

you want me to fail so I can keep you company behind thompkins for another year.

4/21/2006 1:54:29 AM

haha

Something along those lines.

That, and if I graduate ahead of you I will get a largely undeserved sense of accomplishment.

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 1:57 AM. Reason : and that's the best kind!]

4/21/2006 1:57:38 AM

to hell with you

time to clean out my coffee mug and get to dh hill.

4/21/2006 2:03:03 AM

Quote :

"I fail to see how the distinction between saving innocent lives and allowing them to be ended allows much room for opinion to rear its head. "

I've yet to see how executing prisoners rahter than keeping them in prison for life is saving innocent lives

4/21/2006 6:16:31 PM

that's pretty easy to explain, actually. hit that search button for death penalty threads (and I THINK there was a pretty good explanation in the Tookie Williams thread), then read GrumpyGOP's posts.

4/21/2006 6:23:31 PM

i don't think I've once heard you expouse a belief on the death penalty that did not involve sucking grumpygop off. If you cannot forment your own reason for supporting the death penatly then you are an immoral individual.

4/21/2006 10:26:22 PM

well, i agree with that utilitarian view that he's a proponent of. if we save a net number of lives, that's good in my book. i just don't feel like going through the details of his argument, so i cite GrumpyGOP.

furthermore, i am ideologically a fan of killing people who have it coming to them. that's why i'm in the line of work that i'm in (although i originally signed up with hopes of fighting genocides and stuff...although terrorists will work).

i do temper that utilitarian resolve in support of the death penalty with the question of "would I be comfortable with throwing the switch myself?"

4/22/2006 12:42:43 AM

^^You're logic there is disturbingly flawed. If people are only allowed to come to their conclusions on their own without outside influence, we're liable to have even more baseless opinions than we do now.

4/22/2006 3:17:40 AM

There are some people in this world that are incorigible from possibly repeating their crimes OR their crimes are so severe they deserve to die. I agree with the law's current stance on this. I agree there are people that should die because

1) They cannot or are extremely hard to change
2) They made the choice to break the law and do what they did.
3) I am tired of seeing our tax dollars used to pay for this scum.

Right now there are death row inmates CONVICTED and SENTENCED in 1980's who are STILL not dead. I understand 1 or 2 appeals... but jesus christ. I LOVE Texas's new system.

If there is a ton of evidence proving without a doubt you did it, AND there are 3+ witnesses, you get 1 chance at an appeal and then you're dead. Currently it's overwhelming the amount of evidence you need and the quality of witnesses required but it's a step in the right direction.

People who do these crimes are no longer AFRAID. They don't care. Most of the time those who do these crimes aren't like you and me. Prison has bee bred into their thoughts as something that might happen. Death however scares a lot of people.

If I had my way, if you were convicted of a henious crime with overwhelming proof I believe you should die in a similar way. You rape a child... you are put in prison with a bunch of inmates who want some action. You shoot someone... you are shot. Eye for an eye. So perhaps it's better that I'm not the one making the laws. I honestly don't care about the feeling others get from this happening to that person. I'm more interested in how the person feels KNOWING that the same henious crime he did to his victim will be done to him. Hell I'd guarantee a drop in crimes like this.

4/22/2006 8:57:39 AM

^^That's not what I'm saying.

all he says is, "GrumpyGOP is right....GrumpyGOP is right....GrumpyGOP is right...."

4/22/2006 12:27:33 PM

you're reminding me of a pissed off woman who's determined to only hear what she doesn't want to hear.

The argument he gives is not without merit. I don't feel like going through all of the details of it, and while I've read the sources he provides for his stats, I don't remember offhand where to find them. For those reasons, and the fact that he's made that argument so many times that most people here associate it with him, I simply cite it as one reason I'm ok with the death penalty.

If you're read through this thread, as well as the other death penalty threads I've posted in, it should be pretty obvious that I have some of my own opinions on the matter, and generally a somewhat LESS utilitarian view than GrumpyGOP.

4/22/2006 12:39:36 PM

does poly want a cracker?

4/22/2006 12:42:19 PM

wrong thread

[Edited on April 24, 2006 at 10:46 PM. Reason : pwnt]

4/24/2006 10:46:33 PM

I wonder why nobody in here is interested in WHY people commit crimes like murder

wouldn't that be one of the better things to figure out
then we could avoid this problem entirely

4/25/2006 12:24:18 PM

We generally do know why people commit murder, and we also know that you aren't going to make problems like poverty, insanity, etc. go away any time soon.

4/25/2006 12:53:28 PM

doesn't mean we shouldn't try

and when you say "we" I'm not sure you can speak for everyone posting here

cause some people think that people do bad things because they are "bad"

4/25/2006 1:09:49 PM

Has GrumpyGOP recently recapped his argument somewhere?

I don't remember it being so solid, that it deserved blanket support...

4/25/2006 1:11:28 PM

i've personally always wondered why we don't do executions by CO poisoning

4/25/2006 2:50:39 PM