Maryland close to eliminating death penalty

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

Excellent. I applaud Maryland for their civility and respect for the value of life. Especially considering the penalty of death is less than practical in eliminating crime. Clearly someone who breaks into someone's house and kills the family just to steal a few valuables has very little value in life to begin with. All criminals of that level deserve no less than to wither away in prison for the rest of their, hopefully long and painful, lives.

What they also need, though, is less accomodation for criminals, if only to reduce the costs of their living there. After all, would you like to have a larger or smaller amount of the money you pay in taxes go to feeding murderers, rapists and robers? I think not.

Don't start on me about the death penalty being cheaper, either. It's also quicker and less painful, so even if you were going to do the death penalty, it would have to be a gruelingly slow and painful as possible to equal justice, which just isn't moral. At least with life sentances, you're forced to see your entire life go up in smoke.

I do agree with you in a since that convicts owe a debt to society. They should be made to earn their kept, no differnet that the rest of us. I see no harm in convicts working in chain gangs cleaning up brush & trash from the side of our roads or making our license plates, or other such duties. I think its only fair to the tax payers.

[Kilobugya]

Death penalty is barbarian and inefficient, it's more than time to abolish it. The civilized world did so decades ago, if not more.

[FoxTropica]

There's a point where saying that it isn't proven, is somewhat of a joke.

Nope. That's why we use the phrase "proven beyond reasonable doubt" because you can't have absolute proof.

In fairness, if you run up and kill someone on national TV, are caught at the scene and such (A very unlikely scenario) I'd call that "Absolute proof", barring the very unlikely case of "Swapped the murderer with a similar looking guy during transport".

I mean I'd still be against killing them by default, but by reserving it for only these unbelievably rare instances, you get a compromise of reducing the number of deaths while still keeping the pro-death-penalty people somewhat satisfied.

[Lonara]

Nope. That's why we use the phrase "proven beyond reasonable doubt" because you can't have absolute proof.

In fairness, if you run up and kill someone on national TV, are caught at the scene and such (A very unlikely scenario) I'd call that "Absolute proof", barring the very unlikely case of "Swapped the murderer with a similar looking guy during transport".

I mean I'd still be against killing them by default, but by reserving it for only these unbelievably rare instances, you get a compromise of reducing the number of deaths while still keeping the pro-death-penalty people somewhat satisfied.

So John Hinckley definitely shot Reagan. I was beginning to be worried that we couldn't have proven that.

[Condunum]

Nope. That's why we use the phrase "proven beyond reasonable doubt" because you can't have absolute proof.

In fairness, if you run up and kill someone on national TV, are caught at the scene and such (A very unlikely scenario) I'd call that "Absolute proof", barring the very unlikely case of "Swapped the murderer with a similar looking guy during transport".

I mean I'd still be against killing them by default, but by reserving it for only these unbelievably rare instances, you get a compromise of reducing the number of deaths while still keeping the pro-death-penalty people somewhat satisfied.

From any reasonable standpoint, that would be close enough to absolute to be considered such.

No, I wouldn't advocate their death either. I'd much rather reform attempts first, and if all fails, their labor can benefit us.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

Death penalty is barbarian and inefficient, it's more than time to abolish it. The civilized world did so decades ago, if not more.

We did abolish it in 1972 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia. Unfortunately it only lasted 4 years.

[Xsyne]

In fairness, if you run up and kill someone on national TV, are caught at the scene and such (A very unlikely scenario) I'd call that "Absolute proof", barring the very unlikely case of "Swapped the murderer with a similar looking guy during transport".

I mean I'd still be against killing them by default, but by reserving it for only these unbelievably rare instances, you get a compromise of reducing the number of deaths while still keeping the pro-death-penalty people somewhat satisfied.

So John Hinckley definitely shot Reagan. I was beginning to be worried that we couldn't have proven that.

Absolutely proven? No. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes.

I honestly do not think you quite grasp what absolute proof entails.

[Freiheit Reich]

Death penalty is barbarian and inefficient, it's more than time to abolish it. The civilized world did so decades ago, if not more.

Singapore has it and they are one of the most civilized places on earth (and safer than many western European nations as well as many Catholic nations which banned the death penalty).

[Lonara]

So John Hinckley definitely shot Reagan. I was beginning to be worried that we couldn't have proven that.

Absolutely proven? No. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes.

I honestly do not think you quite grasp what absolute proof entails.

It would mean scientific proof. Things that can be proven mathematically and would thus be akin to a natural law. Or something along those lines.

[Xsyne]

In fairness, if you run up and kill someone on national TV, are caught at the scene and such (A very unlikely scenario) I'd call that "Absolute proof", barring the very unlikely case of "Swapped the murderer with a similar looking guy during transport".

I mean I'd still be against killing them by default, but by reserving it for only these unbelievably rare instances, you get a compromise of reducing the number of deaths while still keeping the pro-death-penalty people somewhat satisfied.

From any reasonable standpoint, that would be close enough to absolute to be considered such.

No, I wouldn't advocate their death either. I'd much rather reform attempts first, and if all fails, their labor can benefit us.

If by "close enough to absolute" you mean "not even in remotely the same neighborhood as absolute", then yes. Words have meanings, people. You can't redefine them to make them mean whatever you want. Absolute means absolute. Absolute proof, when applied to events in the real world, requires that it be logically proven that it is physically impossible for anything else to be the case.

Absolut proof, on the other hand, is 80.

[Howdoyoudoland]

What a shame, that some of Maryland's worst criminals will get to languish the rest of their days at the taxpayer's expense...

[Xsyne]

Absolutely proven? No. Proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes.

I honestly do not think you quite grasp what absolute proof entails.

It would mean scientific proof. Things that can be proven mathematically and would thus be akin to a natural law. Or something along those lines.

"Scientific proof", which doesn't really exist anyways but is often useful shorthand, is not absolute proof.

[Condunum]

Death penalty is barbarian and inefficient, it's more than time to abolish it. The civilized world did so decades ago, if not more.

Singapore has it and they are one of the most civilized places on earth (and safer than many western European nations as well as many Catholic nations which banned the death penalty).

It being in a civilized country does not make it civilized.

America is civilized. It is illegal to have sex with socks on in Maryland. Is that civilized, or just stupid?

[Condunum]

What a shame, that some of Maryland's worst criminals will get to languish the rest of their days at the taxpayer's expense...

And to no further expense of the tax payer. Eliminating the death penalty is a financially beneficial move. Why do you and your ignorant count parts not recognize this?

[Lonara]

It would mean scientific proof. Things that can be proven mathematically and would thus be akin to a natural law. Or something along those lines.

"Scientific proof", which doesn't really exist anyways but is often useful shorthand, is not absolute proof.

Based off of the definition of absolute proof, it is not a reasonable standard to use in law. That being said, I get your point.

[Lonara]

What a shame, that some of Maryland's worst criminals will get to languish the rest of their days at the taxpayer's expense...

And to no further expense of the tax payer. Eliminating the death penalty is a financially beneficial move. Why do you and your ignorant count parts not recognize this?

Because the money it saves won't really make much of a difference in the long run.

[Pesda]

Well done Maryland. Next up, Texas, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

Singapore has it and they are one of the most civilized places on earth (and safer than many western European nations as well as many Catholic nations which banned the death penalty).

It being in a civilized country does not make it civilized.

America is civilized. It is illegal to have sex with socks on in Maryland. Is that civilized, or just stupid?

Maybe we should have an exception to the ban for sock wearing fornicators!

[Condunum]

From any reasonable standpoint, that would be close enough to absolute to be considered such.

No, I wouldn't advocate their death either. I'd much rather reform attempts first, and if all fails, their labor can benefit us.

If by "close enough to absolute" you mean "not even in remotely the same neighborhood as absolute", then yes. Words have meanings, people. You can't redefine them to make them mean whatever you want. Absolute means absolute. Absolute proof, when applied to events in the real world, requires that it be logically proven that it is physically impossible for anything else to be the case.

Absolut proof, on the other hand, is 80.

Close enough to being absolute =\= being absolute. I never said it was absolute. I said it was close enough to be considered such, because there's no logical doubt that can be applied there. If I killed a man and then wildly pronounce that I *name* have killed this man with no remorse or regret, and everyone saw me do it, and I was caught on hi def camera, that would be close enough to absolute proof toto be considered such.

It's the same principle as when we talk of scientific fact. It's not 100%, but it's damn close.

[Howdoyoudoland]

What a shame, that some of Maryland's worst criminals will get to languish the rest of their days at the taxpayer's expense...

And to no further expense of the tax payer. Eliminating the death penalty is a financially beneficial move. Why do you and your ignorant count parts not recognize this?

Far less financially beneficial than simply executing the prisoner's much sooner then is usual.

[Condunum]

And to no further expense of the tax payer. Eliminating the death penalty is a financially beneficial move. Why do you and your ignorant count parts not recognize this?

Because the money it saves won't really make much of a difference in the long run.

Nor will the needless deaths of a few.

[Lonara]

And to no further expense of the tax payer. Eliminating the death penalty is a financially beneficial move. Why do you and your ignorant count parts not recognize this?

Far less financially beneficial than simply executing the prisoner's much sooner then is usual.

Unfortunate that our ignorant friends cannot see this.

[Condunum]

And to no further expense of the tax payer. Eliminating the death penalty is a financially beneficial move. Why do you and your ignorant count parts not recognize this?

Far less financially beneficial than simply executing the prisoner's much sooner then is usual.

Except no. Have fun with killing innocent people because you didn't give them a chance for appeal

[Lonara]

Because the money it saves won't really make much of a difference in the long run.

Nor will the needless deaths of a few.

It isn't about money, unless you're talking about changing the prison system entirely.

[Lonara]

Far less financially beneficial than simply executing the prisoner's much sooner then is usual.

Except no. Have fun with killing innocent people because you didn't give them a chance for appeal

Giving them a chance to appeal doesn't take the ten years they'd normally sit on death row.