The End of The Death Penalty in America
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2014, 08:08 AM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(26-02-2014 07:54 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Then don't talk to him. It's a pretty easy solution.

If you wanna continue, then don't jump on your moral high horse.

Fair enough.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(25-02-2014 05:08 PM)toadaly Wrote:  I really don't see a material difference between say, 0.8 and 1, or maybe even up to around 1.2.

Globally that's 15000 people per year.

You can't simultaneously say "exact numbers are meaningless" and "lower numbers are better".
Tongue

(25-02-2014 05:08 PM)toadaly Wrote:  There's no value in drawing a hard threshold somewhere and counting exactly how many nations fall below it. That's just a pissing contest, and I don't have interest in that.

Statistics are awesome things. Misused statistics are awful things.

There is a great deal of benefit in making actual grounded comparisons; it is certainly highly obtuse to say comparisons cannot be made. There is however a great potential for misunderstanding when data is improperly applied.

My point was merely this: single-year data points for small populations are inherently highly variant. A greater level of detail is needed to form any meaningful conclusions.

(25-02-2014 05:08 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
Quote:And that's mostly what's being discussed. Individual morals can't be disputed, but societal cost/benefit sure can be...

...but you have to choose the criteria for that trade, which brings you right back to the ethics and desires of the individuals. If the goal is to minimize recidivism, well, the death penalty for even trivial crimes is a good way of doing that - aka China and North Korea. If the goal is to minimize cost, then it's not. If the goal is to ensure that no innocent person ever gets executed, then the death penalty fails. If the goal is to maximize vengeance, then Norway's system fails miserably. The criteria you pick for your trade are a reflection of your ethics and values.

Of course. And part of living in a free and open society is implicit acknowledgement that one's personal beliefs will not be reflected by society at large.

One can't argue to morals, because they are in large part hardwired, and unless one is careful it very rapidly dissolves into condemning other people for being different. That is why appealing to "vengeance" is a terrible argument - because it is an entirely moral argument. One can (and people do) argue to other ends - cost, deterrence, recidivism, etc.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 10:03 AM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(26-02-2014 06:48 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Ah, so you don't even know what the word "hypocritical" means? You clearly don't because I have done nothing to indicate that I am.

Sure you have. You just don't see it. You're just a typical whiny pussy who throws a tantrum every time you see someone who doesn't share your ethics. If you don't want to be assumed to be female, and you don't like being called effeminate, then change your avatar and don't behave like a 10 year old girl.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 10:09 AM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(26-02-2014 10:03 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 06:48 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Ah, so you don't even know what the word "hypocritical" means? You clearly don't because I have done nothing to indicate that I am.

Sure you have. You just don't see it. You're just a typical whiny pussy who throws a tantrum every time you see someone who doesn't share your ethics. If you don't want to be assumed to be female, and you don't like being called effeminate, then change your avatar and don't behave like a 10 year old girl.

I like how I am supposed to respected you clearly non-thought out position of revenge good because.... but Logica who has presented an actual case can be dismissed because you don't like his avatar. What should I expect from someone who thinks Frankksj is some kind of wiseman.

(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
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
26-02-2014, 10:14 AM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(26-02-2014 10:03 AM)toadaly Wrote:  Sure you have. You just don't see it. You're just a typical whiny pussy who throws a tantrum every time you see someone who doesn't share your ethics. If you don't want to be assumed to be female, and you don't like being called effeminate, then change your avatar and don't behave like a 10 year old girl.

Where am I whiny? So far I have railed against you for your persistent willful ignorance. You continue to use double-standard morality to justify brutality. If that is your one argument, an entirely morality-based one, get the fuck out and grow up. If you have a more practical reason, go ahead and provide it. My argument is not purely moral. While I have moral quandaries with it, the justifications provided by advocates are totally untrue and are, often times, harmful.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 10:54 AM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(26-02-2014 09:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Globally that's 15000 people per year.

You can't simultaneously say "exact numbers are meaningless" and "lower numbers are better".
Tongue

Well, lower numbers are probably better, all else equal, but the accuracy of the measurements is not reflective of the precision of the reporting, IMHO, as demonstrated by the 2011 murder rate in Norway, which nearly tippled from that of the prior year. ...either that, or maybe this is indicating of failure of their "let's just be nice" policy, which was implemented in 2001.

At any rate, the point of bringing up Singapore and other countries, was not to show how wonderful things are everywhere else, but merely to counter the claim made in this post.

Revenant's claim was that punishment doesn't work, but rehab does, yet the example he provided doesn't demonstrate that point.

Quote:There is a great deal of benefit in making actual grounded comparisons; it is certainly highly obtuse to say comparisons cannot be made. There is however a great potential for misunderstanding when data is improperly applied.

Statistics are fine, but drawing an arbitrary line in the sand at exactly Norway's 2010 number is absurd. Why? What's magic about that? ...and then arguing that we can't use the most recent number as well. These things make no sense at all. There is no meaningful point to be made with such an exercise.

(25-02-2014 05:08 PM)toadaly Wrote:  One can't argue to morals, because they are in large part hardwired, and unless one is careful it very rapidly dissolves into condemning other people for being different. That is why appealing to "vengeance" is a terrible argument - because it is an entirely moral argument. One can (and people do) argue to other ends - cost, deterrence, recidivism, etc.

Vengeance is, and always has been, the root of justice systems. These systems came into existence in the first place to prevent victims from exacting revenge, leading to escalating chaos. ...it's better to have a 3rd party first make sure that the guy accused is actually guilty, and then apply measured vengeance that's enough to satisfy the victims without being way out of proportion.

I'm not making an argument from morals, but instead from human nature. We are wired to seek vengeance, just as other social animals are. Arguing that we *shouldn't* use that as a basis for criminal justice, is an argument from morals.

...unless you don't agree that we are hard wired to seek revenge? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. Big Grin

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 11:33 AM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  Statistics are fine, but drawing an arbitrary line in the sand at exactly Norway's 2010 number is absurd. Why? What's magic about that? ...and then arguing that we can't use the most recent number as well. These things make no sense at all. There is no meaningful point to be made with such an exercise.

Did I not make myself clear?

Single data points for high-variance data are meaningless when taken in isolation.

I therefore thought it worthwhile to point out that single data points for high-variance data were not a sufficiently solid justification for drawing conclusions.

(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  Vengeance is, and always has been, the root of justice systems.

Citation needed.

I can't find "enact revenge" anywhere on this list.

(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  These systems came into existence in the first place to prevent victims from exacting revenge, leading to escalating chaos. ...it's better to have a 3rd party first make sure that the guy accused is actually guilty, and then apply measured vengeance that's enough to satisfy the victims without being way out of proportion.

That's elaborating on the assertion, not substantiating it.

(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  I'm not making an argument from morals, but instead from human nature. We are wired to seek vengeance, just as other social animals are.

What, so a naturalistic fallacy is better?

"I'm not arguing to my morals, I'm arguing to everyone's" is not a substantive distinction.

(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  Arguing that we *shouldn't* use that as a basis for criminal justice, is an argument from morals.

... no it isn't.

Back it on up. What is the underlying question:
"What is the purpose of a legal system?"

The answer is not vengeance. It is social cohesion.

One may well argue - or assert, as you do - that a desire for vengeance is, if not a necessary component, at least a prevailing component in acting to achieve social cohesion. But you'd have to actually argue that.
(and, in theory, have a sufficient portion of the electorate onside so as to actually enact anything to such an end)

I am certainly showing my own biases. I am very utilitarian. Revenge is highly deontological. But moral arguments don't convince people. "But I like revenge" is not going to convince anyone. With regards to specific practices (ie, capital punishment) within existing legal and judicial frameworks (take your pick) it is incomparably more productive to argue to other considerations.

(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  ...unless you don't agree that we are hard wired to seek revenge? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. Big Grin

That moral impulse like all others is subject to innate statistical variation among human beings. I absolutely reject the idea that all humans are hardwired to seek revenge. I myself see no particular virtue in it.

I'm good on bridges, though; alpha male never did buy the one I wanted to unload...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 12:07 PM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
Two life sentences have just been handed down to two Muslim converts who killed an unarmed soldier on the streets of London.
One has been told he will die in prison, the other that he faces at least 45 years.
I hope they suffer a hell on earth.
They certainly won't find many friends in a UK prison.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes englishrose's post
26-02-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(26-02-2014 11:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  Statistics are fine, but drawing an arbitrary line in the sand at exactly Norway's 2010 number is absurd. Why? What's magic about that? ...and then arguing that we can't use the most recent number as well. These things make no sense at all. There is no meaningful point to be made with such an exercise.

Did I not make myself clear?

Single data points for high-variance data are meaningless when taken in isolation.

I therefore thought it worthwhile to point out that single data points for high-variance data were not a sufficiently solid justification for drawing conclusions.

(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  Vengeance is, and always has been, the root of justice systems.

Citation needed.

I can't find "enact revenge" anywhere on this list.

(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  These systems came into existence in the first place to prevent victims from exacting revenge, leading to escalating chaos. ...it's better to have a 3rd party first make sure that the guy accused is actually guilty, and then apply measured vengeance that's enough to satisfy the victims without being way out of proportion.

That's elaborating on the assertion, not substantiating it.

(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  I'm not making an argument from morals, but instead from human nature. We are wired to seek vengeance, just as other social animals are.

What, so a naturalistic fallacy is better?

"I'm not arguing to my morals, I'm arguing to everyone's" is not a substantive distinction.

(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  Arguing that we *shouldn't* use that as a basis for criminal justice, is an argument from morals.

... no it isn't.

Back it on up. What is the underlying question:
"What is the purpose of a legal system?"

The answer is not vengeance. It is social cohesion.

One may well argue - or assert, as you do - that a desire for vengeance is, if not a necessary component, at least a prevailing component in acting to achieve social cohesion. But you'd have to actually argue that.
(and, in theory, have a sufficient portion of the electorate onside so as to actually enact anything to such an end)

I am certainly showing my own biases. I am very utilitarian. Revenge is highly deontological. But moral arguments don't convince people. "But I like revenge" is not going to convince anyone. With regards to specific practices (ie, capital punishment) within existing legal and judicial frameworks (take your pick) it is incomparably more productive to argue to other considerations.

(26-02-2014 10:54 AM)toadaly Wrote:  ...unless you don't agree that we are hard wired to seek revenge? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. Big Grin

That moral impulse like all others is subject to innate statistical variation among human beings. I absolutely reject the idea that all humans are hardwired to seek revenge. I myself see no particular virtue in it.

I'm good on bridges, though; alpha male never did buy the one I wanted to unload...

I feel like I learned that revenge usually just makes you feel worse instead of better back in middle school. I also feel like I want a legal system that works for the good of society not helps individuals and small groups to get even. My idea of a good legal system is one that seeks to prevent crimes and rehabilitate criminals, not one that seeks revenge.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2014, 01:05 PM
RE: The End of The Death Penalty in America
(26-02-2014 12:58 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(26-02-2014 11:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Did I not make myself clear?

Single data points for high-variance data are meaningless when taken in isolation.

I therefore thought it worthwhile to point out that single data points for high-variance data were not a sufficiently solid justification for drawing conclusions.


Citation needed.

I can't find "enact revenge" anywhere on this list.


That's elaborating on the assertion, not substantiating it.


What, so a naturalistic fallacy is better?

"I'm not arguing to my morals, I'm arguing to everyone's" is not a substantive distinction.


... no it isn't.

Back it on up. What is the underlying question:
"What is the purpose of a legal system?"

The answer is not vengeance. It is social cohesion.

One may well argue - or assert, as you do - that a desire for vengeance is, if not a necessary component, at least a prevailing component in acting to achieve social cohesion. But you'd have to actually argue that.
(and, in theory, have a sufficient portion of the electorate onside so as to actually enact anything to such an end)

I am certainly showing my own biases. I am very utilitarian. Revenge is highly deontological. But moral arguments don't convince people. "But I like revenge" is not going to convince anyone. With regards to specific practices (ie, capital punishment) within existing legal and judicial frameworks (take your pick) it is incomparably more productive to argue to other considerations.


That moral impulse like all others is subject to innate statistical variation among human beings. I absolutely reject the idea that all humans are hardwired to seek revenge. I myself see no particular virtue in it.

I'm good on bridges, though; alpha male never did buy the one I wanted to unload...

I feel like I learned that revenge usually just makes you feel worse instead of better back in middle school. I also feel like I want a legal system that works for the good of society not helps individuals and small groups to get even. My idea of a good legal system is one that seeks to prevent crimes and rehabilitate criminals, not one that seeks revenge.

Yes this is known as Rule of Law rather than might makes right. Revenge is not a system for orderly justice it is just an uninformed appeal to emotion.

(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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: