A Pound of Flesh? Two? All of it? (Drunk/drink Drivers)

[No Names Left Damn It]

I find it interesting that you take this stance. It seems unlike you. I always figured you for someone who would rabidly opposte the death penalty under any circumstances. *shrug* you learn something new.

I was thinking this. It sounds like something I'd be saying.

[Rolling squid]

It's speedy and public. The police are impartial. It's deifintely in the state and sitrict where the crime was committed. They will be informed of the anture and cause. They will be confronted with the witness (who is holding the gun). They shall have access to any other witnesses (hence, the second car). The ONLY thing you could argue that isn't being provided is Counsel. My personal sugegstion for fixing that problem is to let them call a pre-arranged number, that ONLY handles this kind of case. As soon as the Counsel hears the circumstances, they will offer the best advice they can in such circumstances - 'pray'.

The police cannot be considered an impartial jury of peers. If they are, then why not just throw out the entire justice system, and have everything decided at the moment of arrest, regardless of the morality or constitutionality of the situation?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It's speedy and public. The police are impartial. It's deifintely in the state and sitrict where the crime was committed. They will be informed of the anture and cause. They will be confronted with the witness (who is holding the gun). They shall have access to any other witnesses (hence, the second car). The ONLY thing you could argue that isn't being provided is Counsel. My personal sugegstion for fixing that problem is to let them call a pre-arranged number, that ONLY handles this kind of case. As soon as the Counsel hears the circumstances, they will offer the best advice they can in such circumstances - 'pray'.

The police cannot be considered an impartial jury of peers. If they are, then why not just throw out the entire justice system, and have everything decided at the moment of arrest, regardless of the morality or constitutionality of the situation?

Behold, the law of the future:

[Grave_n_idle]

Is this based on anything other than emotion? Shouldn't you, as a scientist, strive to eliminate emotions in your life and strive to be entirely logical and rational constantly?

This isn't based on emotion.

The problem of drunk-driving is a clear and present danger, are there are no effective ways to combat it. Well, there is one...

[Greed and Death]

Too harsh. Extreme punishments and death penalties have been shown not to deter crimes.
Instead we should focus on rehabilitating the drunk drivers.

[Rolling squid]

You have yet to justify how murder is the solution to drunk driving.

I assume, by 'murder', you mean the execution of drunk-drivers?

An appeal to emotion, I think. But, I'll let it pass.

It is the 'solution' because of basic math. If you take all of the drunk-drivers, and you subtract one, and you continue to subtrat one, and subtrat one, and subtract one - drunk-drivers will tend towards zero.

By murder I mean:

At base, murder consists of an intentional unlawful act with a design to kill and fatal consequences

Which is what the police shooting people at the roadside is. And you have yet to provide any data that proves that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. So your argument has no moral base, no legal base, and no logical base.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Is this based on anything other than emotion? Shouldn't you, as a scientist, strive to eliminate emotions in your life and strive to be entirely logical and rational constantly?

This isn't based on emotion.

The problem of drunk-driving is a clear and present danger, are there are no effective ways to combat it. Well, there is one...

When you start saying shit like "The police are impartial," a statement so wrong that only the severely deluded could ever believe them, I see that your claim of being rational is bullshit. You aren't acting with the same rigor as a scientist would. A scientist should act like one at all times.

[Grave_n_idle]

If an officer is being fired on, there is 'due process' that enables him to return lethal force. You seem to think 'due process' means no one can get hurt.

It doesn't, and it's malleable.

Missing the point. An officer can respond with lethal force against a gun-wielding maniac because he is an immediate deadly threat. That's only the case as long as he remains armed, or for practical purposes, as long as the officer believes that the maniac remains armed.

This is why your analogy doesn't hold up. When an officer summarily executes a drunk driver, it's not like shooting an armed maniac. It's like shooting a maniac who's already been disarmed. The latter doesn't pose a threat that justifies lethal force in response.

No, the analogy holds up perfectly. You don't think the cops should shoot the now-disarmed-lunatic. I have no such qualms.

[Grave_n_idle]

It also assumes that any value that that person may have had, or any potential they may have, is completely nullified by one action, done under the influence. While drunk drivers deserve punishment - sometimes very severe punishment - I don't think it's in our interest to be exterminating undesirables, especially where criminological data tells us it isn't necessary and is needlessly destructive.

Drunk drivers have no value.

[Rolling squid]

If an officer is being fired on, there is 'due process' that enables him to return lethal force. You seem to think 'due process' means no one can get hurt.

It doesn't, and it's malleable.

Missing the point. An officer can respond with lethal force against a gun-wielding maniac because he is an immediate deadly threat. That's only the case as long as he remains armed, or for practical purposes, as long as the officer believes that the maniac remains armed.

This is why your analogy doesn't hold up. When an officer summarily executes a drunk driver, it's not like shooting an armed maniac. It's like shooting a maniac who's already been disarmed. The latter doesn't pose a threat that justifies lethal force in response.

No, the analogy holds up perfectly. You don't think the cops should shoot the now-disarmed-lunatic. I have no such qualms.

And the majority of people think that giving cops the power to summarily execute people who pose no threat is a bad idea.

Drunk drivers have no value.

They're humans. Furthermore, one mistake does not provide justification for death.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It also assumes that any value that that person may have had, or any potential they may have, is completely nullified by one action, done under the influence. While drunk drivers deserve punishment - sometimes very severe punishment - I don't think it's in our interest to be exterminating undesirables, especially where criminological data tells us it isn't necessary and is needlessly destructive.

Drunk drivers have no value.

This, of course, depends upon the entirely subjective word "value," but how can you make this statement? What if somebody like Leonard Susskind was caught drunk driving, would all of his scientific contributions cease to exist? This type of statement shows that you are thinking with emotion. You are not being rational. You are not acting as a proper scientist should.

[Grave_n_idle]

I didn't say 'deterrent'. I said that they don't reoffend if their brains are on the highway.

I find it interesting that you take this stance. It seems unlike you. I always figured you for someone who would rabidly opposte the death penalty under any circumstances. *shrug* you learn something new.

Whilst I don't agree with the methodology you suggest (but, seeing the futility of the legal system, do not regard it as much better) I certainly understand your dissatisfaction at the... lightness drunk driving is treated with.

People often assume that because i am pro-gay-rights, pro-equality, pro-reproductive rights, etc... that I must be against the death penalty. They see it as a conflict that I could support execution - but it's really not - I am in favour of a death penalty for the same reason I am FOR gay marriage, or abortion rights - I believe in a just society, where people do not fear the actions of others.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I didn't say 'deterrent'. I said that they don't reoffend if their brains are on the highway.

I find it interesting that you take this stance. It seems unlike you. I always figured you for someone who would rabidly opposte the death penalty under any circumstances. *shrug* you learn something new.

Whilst I don't agree with the methodology you suggest (but, seeing the futility of the legal system, do not regard it as much better) I certainly understand your dissatisfaction at the... lightness drunk driving is treated with.

People often assume that because i am pro-gay-rights, pro-equality, pro-reproductive rights, etc... that I must be against the death penalty. They see it as a conflict that I could support execution - but it's really not - I am in favour of a death penalty for the same reason I am FOR gay marriage, or abortion rights - I believe in a just society, where people do not fear the actions of others.

Justice is an unscientific idea. Your lack of scientific thinking is showing.

[Grave_n_idle]

Produce evidence that the death penalty actually functions as a deterrent or your argument is shit.

Who is this addressed to?

If you cannot demonstrate that killing drunks would be a benefit to society overall, then your idea should be rejected. One of these conditions should be that it actually lowers the amount of drunk driving. Of course, this is not the only condition, but it is necessary.

If you execute all the drunk-drivers, the amount of drunk-driving is lowered, no?

How could this NOT be a benefit?

[No Names Left Damn It]

Drunk drivers have no value.

I totally agree.

[Pepe Dominguez]

It also assumes that any value that that person may have had, or any potential they may have, is completely nullified by one action, done under the influence. While drunk drivers deserve punishment - sometimes very severe punishment - I don't think it's in our interest to be exterminating undesirables, especially where criminological data tells us it isn't necessary and is needlessly destructive.

Drunk drivers have no value.

All people have some value. In some cases it's a value less than the harm they do to society, which is where prison and, in extremes, the death penalty comes in. But how can you say that one action on one occasion is indicative of the sum total of their worth or potential? The basic fact of our bounded rationality guarantees that no one can judge that with perfect accuracy, but if anyone is to judge, it ought to be, well, a *judge*, don't you think? If nothing else, the DUI-killer who isn't summarily executed might live to pay some compensation to the victims or their families while they're incapacitated through imprisonment.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's speedy and public. The police are impartial. It's deifintely in the state and sitrict where the crime was committed. They will be informed of the anture and cause. They will be confronted with the witness (who is holding the gun). They shall have access to any other witnesses (hence, the second car). The ONLY thing you could argue that isn't being provided is Counsel. My personal sugegstion for fixing that problem is to let them call a pre-arranged number, that ONLY handles this kind of case. As soon as the Counsel hears the circumstances, they will offer the best advice they can in such circumstances - 'pray'.

The police cannot be considered an impartial jury of peers. If they are, then why not just throw out the entire justice system, and have everything decided at the moment of arrest, regardless of the morality or constitutionality of the situation?

Because not all situations are this clear cut.

In case of rape, for example - a girl cries rape, and you catch two people in the act of sexual congress. There is a possibility that the sex is consensual and the 'rape' claim is PART of it, no?

In the case of drunk driving - if the person is drunk, and they are driving - that's it. That's all she wrote.

[Copiosa Scotia]

If an officer is being fired on, there is 'due process' that enables him to return lethal force. You seem to think 'due process' means no one can get hurt.

It doesn't, and it's malleable.

Missing the point. An officer can respond with lethal force against a gun-wielding maniac because he is an immediate deadly threat. That's only the case as long as he remains armed, or for practical purposes, as long as the officer believes that the maniac remains armed.

This is why your analogy doesn't hold up. When an officer summarily executes a drunk driver, it's not like shooting an armed maniac. It's like shooting a maniac who's already been disarmed. The latter doesn't pose a threat that justifies lethal force in response.

No, the analogy holds up perfectly. You don't think the cops should shoot the now-disarmed-lunatic. I have no such qualms.

That's fine, so long as you don't actually expect your analogy to convince anyone of anything. (Which seems to me to be the entire purpose of analogical reasoning, but I could be wrong.) The police aren't allowed to do what you're suggesting they should, and I think most would agree that they shouldn't.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

If you execute all the drunk-drivers, the amount of drunk-driving is lowered, no?

How could this NOT be a benefit?

You need to factor in all the economic costs, the costs of the loss of labor, the costs to go through with this plan, potential sociological costs etc. There is always a trade-off. You can't brush this aside.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

If you execute all the drunk-drivers, the amount of drunk-driving is lowered, no?

How could this NOT be a benefit?

Because its morally wrong... .

[Grave_n_idle]

Too harsh. Extreme punishments and death penalties have been shown not to deter crimes.
Instead we should focus on rehabilitating the drunk drivers.

You'd have to prove they CAN be rehabilitated.

[Grave_n_idle]

And the majority of people think that giving cops the power to summarily execute people who pose no threat is a bad idea.

Not just anybody. Within certain circumstances.

And, well, it wouldn't be the first time the majority has been wrong.

They're humans. Furthermore, one mistake does not provide justification for death.

Drunk-driving is not a mistake. You choose to drink, you choose to drive - that's choice.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Drunk drivers have no value.

Everyone has value..they have a life..so there life has a value.

[No Names Left Damn It]

Everyone has value..they have a life..so there life has a value.

Not all lives are valuable.

[Concurria]

Everyone has value..they have a life..so there life has a value.

Not all lives are valuable.

This is a falsehood.