by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:36 am
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Vistulange » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:44 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/
So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?
I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.
As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?
The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.
(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)
by The Greater Ohio Valley » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:45 am
Vistulange wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/
So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?
I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.
As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?
The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.
(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)
You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:46 am
Vistulange wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/
So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?
I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.
As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?
The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.
(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)
You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Page » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:48 am
by The Greater Ohio Valley » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:49 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Vistulange wrote:You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.
Would you prefer they get raped by their cellmate, beaten by the guards, let out into a society where no one wants to hire them, be denied welfare so they've no option but to steal again, end up in prison again, and have the whole cycle repeat itself for the rest of their lives?
by Page » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:49 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Vistulange wrote:You see, there's this thing called due process. It tries to minimize the risk of executing an innocent, or hell, even in countries where there is no capital punishment, the conviction of innocents based upon fabricated evidence, mishandled evidence, police tampering with evidence, poorly handled trials (by the judge or the jury, where such exists), and so many things that can go wrong with a criminal (or civil, really) trial.
Would you prefer they get raped by their cellmate, beaten by the guards, let out into a society where no one wants to hire them, be denied welfare so they've no option but to steal again, end up in prison again, and have the whole cycle repeat itself for the rest of their lives?
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:57 am
Page wrote:The death penalty shouldn't exist and prisoners shouldn't be at risk of bodily harm. It works just fine for Norway.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Gormwood » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:14 am
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:19 am
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:20 am
Gormwood wrote:Given that people on death row have been found innocent years after their conviction or even postmortem, no. Just because some psychopaths use it as an excuse to put off their execution doesn't mean cutting off the last resort of people potentially cheated by the criminal justice system.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Thepeopl » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:22 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Page wrote:The death penalty shouldn't exist and prisoners shouldn't be at risk of bodily harm. It works just fine for Norway.
Norway got there by having a unionized work force and therefore good enough working conditions that people feel less need to resort to crime. I admire what they've achieved, and all countries should strive to imitate it, but if we reduce deterrence before we get there, we have no way of knowing how many more people would resort to crime without fear holding them back.
by Forsher » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:27 am
by Ifreann » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:29 am
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:31 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Gormwood wrote:Given that people on death row have been found innocent years after their conviction or even postmortem, no. Just because some psychopaths use it as an excuse to put off their execution doesn't mean cutting off the last resort of people potentially cheated by the criminal justice system.
People have been executed even when the appeals process agreed with their conviction. The risk of them being executed is still there, just somewhat reduced at the expense of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and a several year delay. If the risk is not acceptable, why not make the workplace more appealing, welfare more accessible, and prison more humane and the death penalty sought more sparingly? Again, whose interests does this supposed "middle ground" serve?
by The Two Jerseys » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:32 am
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:33 am
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:35 am
Forsher wrote:You will never be able to convince me that life without the possibility of parole is a less cruel sentence than "you shall be taken from this place and hanged". However, either way, we should be sure that we're being a prick to the right person so... no, appeals shouldn't be scrapped in death penalty cases.
(I would suggest death penalties apply only in cases with exceedingly clear evidence and/or confessions. That last point probably sounds bizarre but, remember, I hold life sentences to be infinitely more fucked up than death sentences.
I suspect most anti death penalty advocates wouldn't have too many problems with abolishing life sentences either.)
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:41 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:People have been executed even when the appeals process agreed with their conviction. The risk of them being executed is still there, just somewhat reduced at the expense of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars and a several year delay. If the risk is not acceptable, why not make the workplace more appealing, welfare more accessible, and prison more humane and the death penalty sought more sparingly? Again, whose interests does this supposed "middle ground" serve?
Well making it more expensive for the State makes it sought "more sparingly". The delay might also make it less satisfying for ... everyone who is in favor of it. Making it also less sought.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Vassenor » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:44 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/
So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals? Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?
I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes. If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all? The whole thing is "unfalsifiable," sure; but its critics obviously don't care about that or they wouldn't be making unfalsifiable claims about what's "really" motivating its advocates.
As well, it allows people who think saving convicts' lives justifies lying to say it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to "execute" folks. Nonsense. Bullets aren't that expensive. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through appeals. You're spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on marginally more certainty than the certainty that is considered certainty enough to throw people in the rape house. Who are they trying to impress? If it's people who do not think unfalsifiable deterrence is enough to justify the risk of doing such things to the innocent, why do they leave prisoners to rape and beat each other for the rest of their lives, or deny convicts welfare and jobs alike when they get out so they have no choice but to steal and end up in prison again?
The whole thing just strikes me as an attempt to "split the difference" and pander to a middle ground that doesn't exist. Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.
(The irony is, I think murderers have more reason to fear prison; whether they actually do or not; than many non-murderers. Even other criminals hate murderers' guts. But conmen and the like would thrive in prison... how do you scare people out of running scams other than by threatening to execute them?)
by Sundiata » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:45 am
by Gravlen » Sun Jul 26, 2020 7:45 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/will-federal-government-actually-execute-dylann-roof/
So basically there's been a delay in the guy's execution because it's tied up in "appeals." But if people are afraid the guy might somehow be innocent, would it be any more acceptable to throw an innocent man in prison to get raped and beaten by other criminals?
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Why not scrap the appeals process and tell the trial judge to get it right the first time?
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:I thought the point of the death penalty was to make would-be criminals who somehow don't fear prison afraid to commit their crimes.
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:If that's the case, how "scary" is it to have another few years to face your fate, make up your mind about what you want for a last meal, etc...? If we truly want to scare people out of committing crimes, wouldn't it send a more effective message to have them executed right there and then in the courtroom immediately after they were convicted? What reason to stop short of that doesn't double as a reason not to have a death penalty at all?
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Here's my idea of a middle ground; create jobs people can take pride in so there's less reason to resort to welfare, create easier access to welfare so there's less reason to resort to crime, then use prison more sparingly and save the death penalty for those who need to be made examples of among would-be criminals who do not fear prison.
by Thepeopl » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:01 am
by Glorious Hong Kong » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:03 am
by Salandriagado » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:09 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Cerespasia, Cyptopir, Elejamie
Advertisement