The death penalty

[Grave_n_idle]

You don't have to assume that.

But some criminals do re-offend, that's realistically beyond dispute. And - given that some criminals DO re-offend - it is our responsibility to make sure NONE of those re-offenders are the murderers and rapist and child-molesters.

No matter what the cost!

I've always wanted to say that. :3

Indeed. No matter the cost.

I'm not about to attribute a dollar value beyond which I think it's okay to let people rape babies.

[Grave_n_idle]

You don't have to assume that.

But some criminals do re-offend, that's realistically beyond dispute. And - given that some criminals DO re-offend - it is our responsibility to make sure NONE of those re-offenders are the murderers and rapist and child-molesters.

And therefore multiple offenders should be sentenced for life.

Not 100% guarantee.

[Grave_n_idle]

You don't have to assume that.

But some criminals do re-offend, that's realistically beyond dispute. And - given that some criminals DO re-offend - it is our responsibility to make sure NONE of those re-offenders are the murderers and rapist and child-molesters.

I am allowed to talk about the failings of the prison system and parole system because it is relevant. You are not allowed to talk about the failings of the legal system because they are irrelevant.

The legal system is not an alternative to imprisonment.

You're comparing apples to aardvarks.

[Alyakia]

That's unfortunate, because that's arguably the topic.

Talking about something in complete isolation like you want is completely uselesss intellectual wankery

Inevitable? No. Possible? Sure.

Probable even, maybe.

Probable. Very probable. Over a long enough time period, one might even say...

On the contrary, of the two of us, I'm the only on that is actually addressing the death penalty.

It's nice that you've decided that we should only talk about the end result of the death penalty and only that, and then only if it happens to be useful to you or else it's irrelevant.

And... this is where you admit that a flawed system is not an argument against the punishment.

It is when the punishment is completely unreversible and completely unnecessary.

May happen. Hence 'risk'.

Different question.

I'll burn that bridge when I come to it.

The thread has been on that question for quite a while.

Indeed. No matter the cost.

I'm not about to attribute a dollar value beyond which I think it's okay to let people rape babies.

So, how many innocent RED HERRINGS have to be killed by the sytem before you decide it isn't worth it?

Of course, this isn't about whehter it's ok to rape babies. The word "let" actually has a very specific meaning.

(tbh maybe america should just hire prison guards that aren't incompetent and make security improvments)

[Grave_n_idle]

That's unfortunate, because that's arguably the topic.

Talking about something in complete isolation like you want is completely uselesss intellectual wankery

I'm not sure when it became en vogue to refuse to actually answer the question that was asked, but it seems to me that that would be the intellectual posturing default... no?

[Alyakia]

Talking about something in complete isolation like you want is completely uselesss intellectual wankery

I'm not sure when it became en vogue to refuse to actually answer the question that was asked, but it seems to me that that would be the intellectual posturing default... no?

The question asked what was people think of the death penalty. People answered. You have decided that people must answer within your special guidelines and talk about one specific point which is useless by itsself and wait until you are ready to talk about the system, despite the fact everyone is already way past that part.

Like I said, even if you somehow made everyone who read your posts want to kill all people of a certain category, we'd be right back to this. It would achieve pretty much nothing and would then be propmptly thrown to the sidelines again, much like it was before. I see no reason to start ignoring what people are saying to discuss something based on a technical point of language that will get sidelined immediately after and is utterly useless unless the issues you have decided are irrelevant get sorted.

This isn't coming out as clear as I hoped, but hey.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not sure when it became en vogue to refuse to actually answer the question that was asked, but it seems to me that that would be the intellectual posturing default... no?

The question asked what was people think of the death penalty. People answered. You have decided that people must answer within your special guidelines and talk about one specific point which is useless by itsself and wait until you are ready to talk about the system, despite the fact everyone is already way past that part.

I haven't set any special guidelines. I've answered the actual question asked, I've discussed the actual penalty, and I've dismissed the irrelevancy of the irrelevant as irrelevant. There's nothing 'special' about those 'guidelines'.

Nor have I said other people can only discuss those specific points - I've merely pointed out that other irrelevancy is NOT answering the actual question.

If the question is about the death penalty, the flaws in the legal system are really not the issue, though people always try to pretend they are.

[Keronians]

And therefore multiple offenders should be sentenced for life.

Not 100% guarantee.

Of what?

You make it sound like escaping from prison is a common occurrence and is a walk in the park.

And, anyway, people escaping is the problem of the prison system. If it's so, then direct more funding towards making sure people can't escape.

[Keronians]

The question asked what was people think of the death penalty. People answered. You have decided that people must answer within your special guidelines and talk about one specific point which is useless by itsself and wait until you are ready to talk about the system, despite the fact everyone is already way past that part.

I haven't set any special guidelines. I've answered the actual question asked, I've discussed the actual penalty, and I've dismissed the irrelevancy of the irrelevant as irrelevant. There's nothing 'special' about those 'guidelines'.

Nor have I said other people can only discuss those specific points - I've merely pointed out that other irrelevancy is NOT answering the actual question.

If the question is about the death penalty, the flaws in the legal system are really not the issue, though people always try to pretend they are.

You have an odd definition of "irrelevant" and "issue".

[Alyakia]

The question asked what was people think of the death penalty. People answered. You have decided that people must answer within your special guidelines and talk about one specific point which is useless by itsself and wait until you are ready to talk about the system, despite the fact everyone is already way past that part.

I haven't set any special guidelines. I've answered the actual question asked, I've discussed the actual penalty, and I've dismissed the irrelevancy of the irrelevant as irrelevant. There's nothing 'special' about those 'guidelines'.

Nor have I said other people can only discuss those specific points - I've merely pointed out that other irrelevancy is NOT answering the actual question.

If the question is about the death penalty, the flaws in the legal system are really not the issue, though people always try to pretend they are.

You've set special guidelines for what you have decided is the question.

I'm really tempted to just go into paint and make a big image with "CRIME > TRIAL > PUNISHMENT" and just post it over and over until you understand why the flaws in the legal system are kinda important and why people keep talking about them and why you can't just go "LALALALALALALALA" when people bring them up.

In order to have something, you need to apply it, and the way you apply it is very relevant, along with when you choose to apply it and how you decide when to apply it. I mean, if you really want, we can have the death penalty because you agree with it but never actually use it because you've decided you don't want to talk about the irrelevant irrelevancy that is irrelevant and thus can't convince people they are wrong about, or even address, their concerns about actually USING the death penalty. I seriously hope you aren't going to try any serious attempt to reinsituting the death penalty with this.

Though, I guess a Youtube clip of a guy just saying "Irrelevant!" to every question people ask would be good.

[Geniasis]

My religion is sort of entirely based on the concept of redemption. Be a bit weird if I believed certain people were beyond it, don'tcha think?

Your religion shouldn't decide the laws of the nation.

I was unaware that there is a law that says that criminals can't reform.

[Alyakia]

I haven't set any special guidelines. I've answered the actual question asked, I've discussed the actual penalty, and I've dismissed the irrelevancy of the irrelevant as irrelevant. There's nothing 'special' about those 'guidelines'.

Nor have I said other people can only discuss those specific points - I've merely pointed out that other irrelevancy is NOT answering the actual question.

If the question is about the death penalty, the flaws in the legal system are really not the issue, though people always try to pretend they are.

You have an odd definition of "irrelevant" and "issue".

Oh god I can't do it. ):

pre·req·ui·site/prēˈrekwəzət/
Noun: A thing required as a prior condition for something else to happen.
Adjective: Required as a prior condition.

[Metroarachnidanopolis]

[
I also think that many criminals can be rehabilitated, and that there is no rational reason why we should assume that most criminals will commit another crime once released.

Fixed. Because people like Jared Loughner, this nutcase, Ted Bundy, the Unabomber, this sick pig fucker,a petty terrorist, but still fucking awful, this mass murderer, this even more terrifying mass murderer and similiar are beyond rehabilitation. I argue that such persons are FAR to psychologically fucked up for there to be much hope of atonement or even remorse.

[Quelesh]

I'd rather see a few innocents risked, than see monsters walking free.

This position is completely incompatible with the most basic principles of our legal system. It is better for ten guilty to go free than for one innocent to be punished. This principle is the basis of our criminal justice system.

When you speak of the "death penalty," you seem to be talking about a death penalty that may exist in a fictitious future society in which we have the power to peer into the past to ascertain with 100% certainty whether a person is or is not guilty, and can therefore execute people with a minimum of time and expense and with a philosophical certainty that we are not executing innocents. That death penalty does not exist in the real world. The death penalty that exists in reality is very different. As we do not possess the technology to peer into the past, we cannot be 100% certain of the guilt or innocence of a person. Our determination of guilt or innocence is based upon things like eyewitness testimony (which may be mistaken or deceptive), confessions (which may be false), forensic evidence (which may be flawed), and so on. Furthermore, in order to minimize the possibility of executing an innocent person, it is necessary to allow an extensive appeals process, requiring a significant expense. The death penalty as it exists in reality, as opposed to the death penalty that you speak of that only exists in a fictitious future ideal society, is inextricably linked with questions of actual guilt or innocence and the problem of the expense of trials and appeals.

However, even if we could be philosophically certain that the condemned is guilty of, say, murder, I am still against execution. Two wrongs do not make a right. I do not understand why you claim that it is a red herring for a person who is opposed on principle to execution in any circumstance to also oppose execution due to the possibility of executing an innocent person. It is perfectly legitimate to oppose something on multiple grounds.

There is no 'right to life' unless the state wills it so.

This statement assumes that rights are granted by the state. I believe that rights antedate the state. Rights are inherent and are not at all dependent upon the state or upon any external factor. The state may claim that we don't possess a right, and on the basis of that claim violate that right, but the right still exists, and the state's action is wrong because it violates our rights.

No matter what the cost!

I've always wanted to say that. :3

Indeed. No matter the cost.

I'm not about to attribute a dollar value beyond which I think it's okay to let people rape babies.

"Cost" here may also refer to innocent lives instead of currency. How many innocent people is it acceptable to kill in order to prevent a baby from being raped? 10? 500? Is there no limit at all? If there is no limit to the number of innocent people it is acceptable to kill in order to prevent a baby from being raped, then it would be acceptable to exterminate the human race, as the extinction of the human species would certainly ensure that no baby is ever raped.

[Grave_n_idle]

This statement assumes that rights are granted by the state. I believe that rights antedate the state. Rights are inherent and are not at all dependent upon the state or upon any external factor.

Wrong.

[Alyakia]

This statement assumes that rights are granted by the state. I believe that rights antedate the state. Rights are inherent and are not at all dependent upon the state or upon any external factor.

Wrong.

Damn convincing!

[Grave_n_idle]

Wrong.

Damn convincing!

I don't need to convince anyone. Quelesh making a pseudo-theological claim is evidence of nothing.

[Keronians]

Damn convincing!

I don't need to convince anyone. Quelesh making a pseudo-theological claim is evidence of nothing.

You mean, like yours?

[Alyakia]

Damn convincing!

I don't need to convince anyone. Quelesh making a pseudo-theological claim is evidence of nothing.

Irrelevant!

[Vazeckta]

I am in favor of the death penalty for murder, and I guess I wouldn't object to it used for treason.

[Furious Grandmothers]

Wrong.

Damn convincing!

1) Explain how it could be that rights are inherent, then?
2) What rights does the last woman/man on Earth have? (If this is irrelevant based on your response to question 1, feel free to ignore)

[Jakaragua]

The death penalty is state-sanctioned murder.

Given that I oppose the state, I obviously oppose it's supposed legitimacy in murdering its civilians. The death penalty has not only been proven to fail as a deterrent, it is highly costly and serves no real purpose other than to encourage the acceptance of outdated and impractical laws.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Your religion shouldn't decide the laws of the nation.

I was unaware that there is a law that says that criminals can't reform.

Some people really are hardwired for criminal behavior. We should try to rehabilitate people as much as possible, and many criminals can be rehabilitated; but there are people who just can't be reformed. Locking them up might be more appropriate than the death penalty, but you can't rehabilitate everyone.

If the crime is something that someone did because they were angry or desperate, those people can generally be rehabilitated. If it's something like raping children that normal people never have any temptation to do, even in the heat of the moment, that's more likely to be a hard-wired problem.

[Geniasis]

I was unaware that there is a law that says that criminals can't reform.

Some people really are hardwired for criminal behavior. We should try to rehabilitate people as much as possible, and many criminals can be rehabilitated; but there are people who just can't be reformed. Locking them up might be more appropriate than the death penalty, but you can't rehabilitate everyone.

If the crime is something that someone did because they were angry or desperate, those people can generally be rehabilitated. If it's something like raping children that normal people never have any temptation to do, even in the heat of the moment, that's more likely to be a hard-wired problem.

This is an unfortunate reality, given our current understanding of the brain and psychology. But there's still a great deal we don't yet understand, so I'm not convinced that it is impossible to rehabilitate them rather than we just have no ability to do so yet.

[JJ Place]

I wasn't aware that killing people was the only way to stop crime.

Who said that it was?

It is, however, the only 100% certain way to stop recidivism.

Killings of one person, or any any number of people, doesn't halt crime, less stop crime. Ideas, concepts, plots, don't die with their creator; they'rs always another person who picks up exactly where the previous left off. Often, blood shed, especially made by executions, only intensifies small issues, into deadly ailment, backfiring in dramatic irony. Death only ends life; it never ends ideas.