Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2015, 03:39 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2015 12:23 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(20-05-2015 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  A dead man cannot regret at leisure. He cannot torment himself with his own questions, his own remorse.
What would I care if the person has regret or not. My only interest is my safety and where my tax money goes.

In that case, given that life in prison is cheaper, what is your objection to that expedient?

(20-05-2015 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  A dead person cannot recidivate, so there are two ways we can achieve that goal.

Yes. So why choose the more expensive, and the most intractable in the event of an error?

(20-05-2015 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Yet even you implicitly admit that the death penalty is a greater financial burden.
Yes, I am aware of the cost. My position is to make executions cheaper than life imprisonment, otherwise there would be no point in executions.

Except, as has already been noted at least twice, that would come at the expense of more innocents being put to death -- a punishment the state cannot ameliorate -- and at the same time, the cost of doing that might not show up on a balance-sheet, but it sure as hell will show up in the corrosion of confidence in the justice system, which is something no society should recklessly risk.

(20-05-2015 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  And exactly how does life imprisonment without parole fail in that regard? The miniscule chance of escape? The opportunity to murder an inmate?
We have to give them a life times supply of food, heat, shelter, and imprisonment. A bullet is cheaper than that.

Not when you consider the appeals process.

Please read what is being posted. Your selective vision is hampering this conversation. I know you'd like to make the death penalty cheaper, but how would you go about it? By curtailing appeals, of course.

Have you really not thought out the implications of your position?

(20-05-2015 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  This is a fallacious comparison. An intruder in my home would be at large, and most likely armed. A prisoner in a cell is obviously not at large, and almost always unarmed. The potential for harm emanating from the two different scenarios is clearly so different as to render this comparison irrelevant.
Merely pointing out that the common goal is to remove the threat from society rather than to dish out "justice". This was my response to your claim that killing a person for killing persons doesn't make sense from a justice perspective.

And my point is that your comparison is irrelevant, because one killing saves lives, while the other killing doesn't bring back lives already lost.

(20-05-2015 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  So, removing the threat is the goal. We could acheive this with life imprisonment or with execution. If we can make execution much cheaper than life imprisonment then I am all for saving money.

At what cost? Think beyond the balance-sheet.


(20-05-2015 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 02:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  2) It is too expensive, and the only way to cut its cost is to expose more innocent people to unjust killing.

Are you suggesting that we already cut legal costs regarding determining the guilt of a person that we lock up for a life time?

Firstly, I notice that you completely ignored my first objection. Why is that?

Secondly, how you drew your inaccurate inference is beyond me. Have you not considered the fact that because the convict's life is on the line, the legal expenses are the higher, because no one wants to say, "okay, whatever, go on ahead and kill me"? The reason non-capital crimes cost so much less is not because we the people cut corners on the costs, but because the criminal is more willing to acquiesce to a penalty that doesn't kill him.

That I suggested anything along the lines of your insinuation arises solely from a fantastic and inaccurate reading.

(20-05-2015 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  By my reckoning, if we are so sure that a person is guilty such that we will lock them up until they die, then we have already done our due diligence. The next matter is a matter of cost savings, ether the cost of a bullet or a life time supply of food and accommodation. I'd rather give a lifetime supply of food to the victim than to the criminal.

Yet, you haven't once explained how you'd cut costs. Why is that? Is it because you have no idea how you'd achieve those savings ... or is it because you know exactly what such economies entail, and are not comfortable defending them?

Be specific. How many appeals would you allow, how much money would you apportion to such legal bills, and what would be your cutoff?

How many dead innocents are you willing to accept in such economizing? And if one of those dead were your son, would you be as blithe?

I didn't think so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 04:35 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(20-05-2015 12:44 PM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  If there still existed a wilderness to which they could be exiled to live out the rest of their days with no risk to and no help from the society that they harmed then that would be fine with me.

Isn't that Australia? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 04:39 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(20-05-2015 04:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 12:44 PM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  If there still existed a wilderness to which they could be exiled to live out the rest of their days with no risk to and no help from the society that they harmed then that would be fine with me.

Isn't that Australia? Consider

Think the overflow goes to New Zealand now.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 04:44 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(20-05-2015 03:39 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  In that case, given that life in prison is cheaper, what is your objection to that expedient?
I'm all for the cheaper option. I just think that death penalty can be made cheaper than life imprisonment.
(20-05-2015 03:39 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Except, as has already been noted at least twice, that would come at the expense of more innocents being put to death
I don't see why less due diligence is applied to lifers. A life time in prison is still a wasted life.
To me, both positions require the same level of due diligence.

(20-05-2015 03:39 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  We have to give them a life times supply of food, heat, shelter, and imprisonment. A bullet is cheaper than that.

Not when you consider the appeals process.
Do lifers not also get the appeals process?
(20-05-2015 03:39 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  And my point is that your comparison is irrelevant, because one killing saves lives, while the other killing doesn't bring back lives already lost.
I think you completely lost the point of the analogy. All analogies have differences to the original scenario, if you are focussing on the difference then you have lost the point of it. Your argument was about "justice" I addressed that aspect stating that the goal was not justice but was to remove the threat. Putting a person in prison or executing them both achieve the goal of removing the threat. For a person defending themselves with a gun the goal is to remove the threat. That is what the analogy focuses on. If we as a society execute people that are threats, it certainly stops them from raping and murdering again. If they are in prison already then yes, they aren't committing murders but then why should we pay to keep them alive if we have no intent ever to release them back into society?
(20-05-2015 03:39 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Have you not considered the fact that because the convict's life is on the line, the legal expenses are the higher,
I consider life imprisonment to be equal to "Life on the line"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(20-05-2015 12:44 PM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 01:59 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  There's no moral clarity for a death penalty, neither the expense nor the effect of deterrent has ever been shown to be justifiable.

The death penalty should not be considered a deterrent. It should be a means of removing a person from society who would otherwise continue to do great harm to other people. They would have violated the social code to the extent that they are never trusted to participate in the society again.

If there still existed a wilderness to which they could be exiled to live out the rest of their days with no risk to and no help from the society that they harmed then that would be fine with me. Otherwise, they should be locked away from society with only the basic necessities of life or offered a quick death as an alternative should they prefer it.
Offer of death or life imprisonment seems to negate any hope for rehabilitation,mitigating circumstances, age when offence was committed etc......
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 05:50 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(20-05-2015 04:52 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 12:44 PM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  The death penalty should not be considered a deterrent. It should be a means of removing a person from society who would otherwise continue to do great harm to other people. They would have violated the social code to the extent that they are never trusted to participate in the society again.

If there still existed a wilderness to which they could be exiled to live out the rest of their days with no risk to and no help from the society that they harmed then that would be fine with me. Otherwise, they should be locked away from society with only the basic necessities of life or offered a quick death as an alternative should they prefer it.
Offer of death or life imprisonment seems to negate any hope for rehabilitation,mitigating circumstances, age when offence was committed etc......
I don't think everyone gets life in prison and hence this alternative, just those that are too dangerous to let out again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2015, 11:36 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2015 11:41 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(20-05-2015 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm all for the cheaper option. I just think that death penalty can be made cheaper than life imprisonment.

And you've already been asked a couple of time how you'd make that happen, with no answer from you; so I will ask you again: how do you propose to economize on the costs of capital punishment? And I will demand once more, and hopefully with a better response, that you be specific.

If you cannot meet those questions, do not reply to this post at all.

(20-05-2015 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't see why less due diligence is applied to lifers. A life time in prison is still a wasted life.

To me, both positions require the same level of due diligence.

So, you think that every sentence, no matter how small, should have the appeals process of a death penalty case available, as if the life of the accused were on the line?

Should a shoplifting case be financed by the government for twenty years? Burglary? Auto theft? Home invasion?

This is a silly argument, and I don't think you're really thinking this through.


(20-05-2015 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Do lifers not also get the appeals process?

Of course they do, but, -- get this -- because they don't stand trial for their life, they're less willing to fight to the end.

Funny how that works, don'tcha think?

(20-05-2015 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think you completely lost the point of the analogy. All analogies have differences to the original scenario, if you are focussing on the difference then you have lost the point of it. Your argument was about "justice" I addressed that aspect stating that the goal was not justice but was to remove the threat. Putting a person in prison or executing them both achieve the goal of removing the threat. For a person defending themselves with a gun the goal is to remove the threat. That is what the analogy focuses on. If we as a society execute people that are threats, it certainly stops them from raping and murdering again. If they are in prison already then yes, they aren't committing murders but then why should we pay to keep them alive if we have no intent ever to release them back into society?

You still haven't explained how you will make that cheaper.

So long as you dodge that question, and that is what you are doing, I'm going to regard your dodging as, well, dodging.

(20-05-2015 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I consider life imprisonment to be equal to "Life on the line"

Yes, I already gathered that. But you've yet to explain why others clearly don't share your view; go look up the appeals stats on death penalty cases vs non-death penalty cases, and bring numbers. Why do you think your view matters? What evidence do you have? Why are the appeals costs in non-death-penalty cases so much lower?

And -- because your STILL haven't answered the question: how do you propose to reduce the cost of the death penalty without raising the rate of innocent penalties?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2015, 01:11 AM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(20-05-2015 11:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(20-05-2015 04:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't see why less due diligence is applied to lifers. A life time in prison is still a wasted life.

To me, both positions require the same level of due diligence.

So, you think that every sentence, no matter how small, should have the appeals process of a death penalty case available, as if the life of the accused were on the line?

Should a shoplifting case be financed by the government for twenty years? Burglary? Auto theft? Home invasion?

This is a silly argument, and I don't think you're really thinking this through.
Um, did you actually read my post?
Focus on this bit
"I don't see why less due diligence is applied to lifers. A life time in prison is still a wasted life."
Since when does a shoplifter get life imprisonment?

Oh, and that point that you imagined that I have avoided answering. Do you remember me stating that a bullet is cheaper than a life time supply of food?
We swap one for the other and save money in the process.
The lifer gets the same opportunity for defense as does the person facing a death sentence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 08:41 AM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
The Best of the Left Podcast - #925 A bad idea for all the reasons (Death Penalty)

http://www.bestoftheleft.com/_925_a_bad_...th_penalty

Today we take a look at the US death penalty from all angles. Cultural norms? We’re an outlier. Protecting the innocent? We kill innocent people. Following the letter of the law? We’re absolutely breaking the 8th amendment to the constitution. Fiscal responsibility? Death penalty costs about 3 times more than life imprisonment. And don’t forget about the racially biased implementation and the structurally biased trail system of death penalty cases.






























[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
27-05-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?

1 more step towards critical mass. Once half of states outlaw this barbaric practice it will tip the balance of the 8th and force the issue. Cruel, unusual, barbaric, ineffective, prone to error, irrevocable, no deterrent to crime, more expensive by 3 fold than life imprisonment, is there any upside to being on the short list with North Korea and Iran in still allowing this?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: