|
katlington posted:Even then, is that an argument against the nitrogen suffocation method from that documentary? I don't know enough about nitrogen suffocation to have an opinion about it- I know enough about the broader arguments around capital punishment and execution to not consider the documentary a credible source. It's really frustrating to see the fringe ethicist they used for it cited as the summation of the pro side. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Jan 18, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't know enough about nitrogen suffocation to have an opinion about it- I know enough about the broader arguments around capital punishment and execution to not consider the documentary a credible source. It's really frustrating to see the fringe ethicist they used for it cited as the summation of the pro side. It makes you very happy then you die. There's no pain involved. The person in the documentary had a problem with it because it was too humane, that's not an issue for you? Are you ok with a death penalty like I described?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Oxygen deprivation is probably the most humane way to take a life. I disagree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfsMMVgIToA
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
Nitrogen works a little bit differently. But I think we should bring back the guillotine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That documentary is the bane of my existence when it comes to capital punishment debates. It's garbage, but everyone on the anti side has seen it and thinks it represents the pro side accurately. I think it represents the punishment-focused argument of some adherents but it isn't like there's an abundance of merit to other pro-execution arguments. You can't just unhook constitutional rights from the train so those costs aren't logically separable, deterrence doesn't make for an easy proof, tradition isn't terribly compelling, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nitrogen works a little bit differently. But I think we should bring back the guillotine. I actually agree. If you're going to murder people, don't be sly about it. The guillotine is more effective than lethal injection and it doesn't allow for euphemisms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
katlington posted:It makes you very happy then you die. There's no pain involved. The person in the documentary had a problem with it because it was too humane, that's not an issue for you? Are you ok with a death penalty like I described? My problem isn't with the death penalty if it were to function correctly as proposed-it's that I don't trust the film as a source of information on it. And since I've repeatedly called that guy a nut, it's safe to say his position isn't my position. FAUXTON posted:I think it represents the punishment-focused argument of some adherents but it isn't like there's an abundance of merit to other pro-execution arguments. You can't just unhook constitutional rights from the train so those costs aren't logically separable, deterrence doesn't make for an easy proof, tradition isn't terribly compelling, etc. Deterrence can have merit, even if the proof is complex. Complexity is the key issue here, really- arguing the effects of deterrence, or looking at the details of the costs of the appeals process in different states and understanding which ones actually apply versus procedural gamesmanship, requires discussing details. But why do that when the only rationale anyone could really have is being abloodthirsty retributivist, like this one guy on that documentary I saw...My problem with the documentary is that it occupies the field with a simpler moral framing for the issue such that details stop mattering. In that way, it's like a lot of political issue documentaries. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My problem isn't with the death penalty if it were to function correctly as proposed-it's that I don't trust the film as a source of information on it. And since I've repeatedly called that guy a nut, it's safe to say his position isn't my position. I have a simple way to clear up this incredibly complex moral gray area for you: the state should stop killing people for committing crimes, then we can stop debating the issue in a way you don't like. edit: this is too flip. Also whether or not you trust the documentary as a source of information is irrelevant, the people in it said the things they said, and polemics don't have to meet your standards. MC Nietzche fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My problem isn't with the death penalty if it were to function correctly as proposed-it's that I don't trust the film as a source of information on it. A source of information on inert gas asphyxiation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Deterrence can have merit, even if the proof is complex. Complexity is the key issue here, really- arguing the effects of deterrence, or looking at the details of the costs of the appeals process in different states and understanding which ones actually apply versus procedural gamesmanship, requires discussing details. Oh it certainly carries merit, it's just eclipsed by how minimal the deterrent effect is. Cost has the same problem, where it requires numerous assumptions regarding process to achieve a favorable cost balance. Sure, if prisoners didn't exercise their constitutional rights to the fullest extent and/or their counsel didn't advocate for them as forcefully as legally possible, then capital punishment would be cheaper on a comprehensive basis. Also if we shoved convicts off a cliff we wouldn't have to pay for the sedatives, paralytics, and needles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Caros posted:I actually agree. If you're going to murder people, don't be sly about it. The guillotine is more effective than lethal injection and it doesn't allow for euphemisms. A pneumatic guillotine would be strong enough to do what would be necessary and most likely wouldn't gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Oh it certainly carries merit, it's just eclipsed by how minimal the deterrent effect is. Sorry, I wasn't being clear there. The class of deterrence arguments can have merit- the problem is that explaining or measuring deterrence effects are complicated, like the measurement or evaluation of the cost arguments (that one study wouldn't probably suffice, in either direction). These arguments are vulnerable to abuse through their complexity, and the discourse is polluted by a flat deontological response approach, particularly, in this case, on the anti side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Those antis, polluting the discourse with their irrational "don't kill people we can't be sure are guilty" deontological response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Sorry, I wasn't being clear there. The class of deterrence arguments can have merit- the problem is that explaining or measuring deterrence effects are complicated, like the measurement or evaluation of the cost arguments (that one study wouldn't probably suffice, in either direction). These arguments are vulnerable to abuse through their complexity, and the discourse is polluted by a flat deontological response approach, particularly, in this case, on the anti side. The difficulty with the complexity of the deterrence and cost arguments is that they risk creating (if not outright requiring) a sort of vacuum in order to be treated with weight equal to their anti-execution counterpart. Alone, killing a prisoner is cheap and the costs of death row incarceration, alone, are likely not significantly different from those of life-sans-parole given the fact that one tends to be shorter than the other. However, the expenses cited by anti-execution advocates are typically incurred through what is more or less the appeals process (given that it is substantively a cause of costs as well as an allowance for procedural measures which may not necessarily be considered appeals in fact) and arguing that they are separable from the costs of capital punishment leads to arguing the feasibility of separating a prisoner from their rights under procedural due process, even if the type of defense counsel frequently retained in capital appeals tends toward the uncommonly tenacious. Deterrence is probably more likely than cost to evoke the deontological response. I'd say "deontological" isn't a great term because it misrepresents the prison environment within the US, but incarceration for life is arguably less direct a way of killing someone than literally injecting poison so it plays.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Those antis, polluting the discourse with their irrational "don't kill people we can't be sure are guilty" deontological response. Hey man, it may turn out to be cheaper to just execute that guy to deter other criminals, despite his dubious guilt. Finding out for sure would just cost too much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:A pneumatic guillotine would be strong enough to do what would be necessary and most likely wouldn't gently caress up. We can also sell advertising space on the front of the blade to recoup costs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Those antis, polluting the discourse with their irrational "don't kill people we can't be sure are guilty" deontological response. That's not anti death penalty, that's anti process. Those get conflated all the time but probably shouldn't be. It's valid to argue the US should not be executing people where there is a scintilla of doubt (taking that or something similar as a new standard) and still not weep any tears about what happened to Tim McVeigh and various other people whose guilt is beyond that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Hey man, it may turn out to be cheaper to just execute that guy to deter other criminals, despite his dubious guilt. Finding out for sure would just cost too much. I talked about this- part of the problem of performing a cost analysis is that it's hard to get into without also parsing the other problems of the prison and justice system. FAUXTON posted:The difficulty with the complexity of the deterrence and cost arguments is that they risk creating (if not outright requiring) a sort of vacuum in order to be treated with weight equal to their anti-execution counterpart. Alone, killing a prisoner is cheap and the costs of death row incarceration, alone, are likely not significantly different from those of life-sans-parole given the fact that one tends to be shorter than the other. However, the expenses cited by anti-execution advocates are typically incurred through what is more or less the appeals process (given that it is substantively a cause of costs as well as an allowance for procedural measures which may not necessarily be considered appeals in fact) and arguing that they are separable from the costs of capital punishment leads to arguing the feasibility of separating a prisoner from their rights under procedural due process, even if the type of defense counsel frequently retained in capital appeals tends toward the uncommonly tenacious. I'm not arguing that you compare the costs of equipment and operation alone (especially since those are also finicky), or in a vacuum. But I do think parsing those costs, in detail, is necessary to evaluate that argument. I suspect that some elements of what we think of as the rights-driven (there's that deontology as moral impetus weighing in again) procedural process aren't actually a part of that process, and represent non-egitimate exploitation of those normally valid procedural measures as cost-increasing or delaying efforts. An effective defense tactic that really shouldn't be effective is to just make it so costly for the state to carry out its sentence (here I mean any sentence, not just capital punishment) that the prosecutor has to drop it so their office can still function. Identifying and removing those methods, which exploit system defects as a means to power, would give us a clearer idea of cost. To be clear, prosecutors do the same thing, and it's also common in civil case settings, and I think such practices should be targeted and minimized across the board- they're just less immediately relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:I have a simple way to clear up this incredibly complex moral gray area for you: the state should stop killing people for committing crimes, then we can stop debating the issue in a way you don't like. VitalSigns posted:Those antis, polluting the discourse with their irrational "don't kill people we can't be sure are guilty" deontological response. Keep worthless posts like this out of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Adar posted:That's not anti death penalty, that's anti process. Those get conflated all the time but probably shouldn't be. It's valid to argue the US should not be executing people where there is a scintilla of doubt (taking that or something similar as a new standard) and still not weep any tears about what happened to Tim McVeigh and various other people whose guilt is beyond that point. I think the issue with this is how one writes a statute that allows for the execution of people whose guilt is 'obvious' without the same system still being used to murder innocent people, albeit perhaps at a smaller rate, because for a lot of people frankly one innocent person killed in service of an execution that ultimately has little effect beyond vengeance is unpalatable. For a long time I was pro death penalty because of people like Russel Williams, a Canadian colonel who confessed to raping and murdering two women along with mountains of physical evidence against him, or Paul Bernardo who videotaped the rape and murder of several young girls including his fourteen year old sister in law. The issue comes down that the concept of 'absolute guilt' doesn't really exist, and if we set up a system where people we are really, really, really sure are guilty can be executed, it'll probably still lead to improper executions, particularly in places like Texas where they will undoubtedly want to stretch that requirement to its very limit
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not arguing that you compare the costs of equipment and operation alone (especially since those are also finicky), or in a vacuum. But I do think parsing those costs, in detail, is necessary to evaluate that argument. I suspect that some elements of what we think of as the rights-driven (there's that deontology as moral impetus weighing in again) procedural process aren't actually a part of that process, and represent non-egitimate exploitation of those normally valid procedural measures as cost-increasing or delaying efforts. You seem pretty reasonable, and I understand that there are good-faith arguments for the death penalty, but I would urge you to reconsider the specific objection that many or most death penalty appeals are "non-legitimate", implicitly justifying a diminished access to the appeals process. Even if you don't think that the "legitimacy" of an appeal is something that can only appropriately be determined by a judge after the appeal has actually been submitted, there is a pretty large set of evidence documenting the necessity of a careful (and long!) appeals process. For starters, out of the 150 death row cases since 1973 of complete acquittals or absolute pardons (due to new evidence), the average number of years between sentencing and exoneration is over a decade. The three most recent people to be exonerated from death row spent 39 years in prison. It's hard to imagine a more streamlined process that would have allowed these men to avoid being killed by the state for crimes they didn't commit. Second, aside from the practical concern to err on the side of caution, there's actually pretty strict standards for death penalty appeals already, which are pretty limiting. The mid-90s brought a confluence of legal decisions, funding changes, and statutory measures that raised the bar on habeas rights: quote:In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that inmates, under most circumstances, can file only one petition for a writ of habeas corpus.[3] Thus, an individual cannot spend years developing new petitions on different issues (and hence begin a series of journeys through the state and federal court systems); instead, he or she must place every argument possible in one petition. That same year, Congress eliminated funding for Post-Conviction Capital Defender Organizations. As Ronald J. Tabak succinctly explains, "these resource centers located and/or guided counsel from private law firms in many state post-conviction and federal habeas cases, and represented many death row inmates."[4] Most importantly, these centers did the research necessary for many inmates' lawyers to adequately develop habeas claims, and it is unclear whether many lawyers would willingly take on a capital post-conviction appeal if they had to do all of the evidentiary research themselves.[5] And since many death row inmates are now inadequately defended, or defend themselves, their petitions are far easier to dismiss. Men are still spending decades in jail before acquittal even with these restrictions. That suggest that the problem might be something else. And third, federal or universal limitations on the appeals process poorly accommodates the vast variation in death penalty prosecutions. California recently had a commission study this within the state: quote:[California] gave fifty eight This commission also very clearly identifies why many appeals processes take so long: the problem isn't "illegitimate" appeals, one of the main problems is actually supplying qualified public defenders to the men on death row, who are almost invariably poor. There's a massive backlog in assigning appropriate representation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:You seem pretty reasonable, and I understand that there are good-faith arguments for the death penalty, but I would urge you to reconsider the specific objection that many or most death penalty appeals are "non-legitimate", implicitly justifying a diminished access to the appeals process. Even if you don't think that the "legitimacy" of an appeal is something that can only appropriately be determined by a judge after the appeal has actually been submitted, there is a pretty large set of evidence documenting the necessity of a careful (and long!) appeals process. That's a great response, thank you! Yeah, as mentioned earlier, the problem is a full accounting would require also addressing other structural defects of the criminal justice system, the lack of public defencers being a major one. But it's worth noting that addressing these defects would also have the effect of reducing the currently claimed costs of the death penalty. That said, be aware that your first pair of sources from deathpenalty.info are invalid- to accurately make claims about process costs you need a sample of all individuals sentenced to capital punishment, not just a subsample of individuals that are later exonerated-it's effectively a cherrypicked data argument. Generally, be careful with DPIC- they're not a neutral party on this, so they're prone to misframed stat arguments of that sort. A good way to start with the cost argument would be to locate, break down and evaluate the different "cost of sentencing" reports that are out there- they're the basis for claims on both sides of the cost argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's a great response, thank you! Yeah, as mentioned earlier, the problem is a full accounting would require also addressing other structural defects of the criminal justice system, the lack of public defencers being a major one. But it's worth noting that addressing these defects would also have the effect of reducing the currently claimed costs of the death penalty. That said, be aware that your first pair of sources from deathpenalty.info are invalid- to accurately make claims about process costs you need a sample of all individuals sentenced to capital punishment, not just a subsample of individuals that are later exonerated-it's effectively a cherrypicked data argument. Generally, be careful with DPIC- they're not a neutral party on this, so they're prone to misframed stat arguments of that sort. You're correct that this subsample isn't an appropriate reflection of typical cost, but that isn't what I cited it for. It is THE definitive source for a complete accounting of people who have been completely and unambiguously exonerated from death row. If you revisit my post, you'll see that I cited it for the narrow claim that the typical time to exoneration is "over a decade" - specifically, 11.3 years. That is a different statistic from "average appeals length", but it is an important and pertinent one - if we don't want innocent people to die by execution, the data shows that long appeals may be necessary given the current deficiencies of the system. Personally, considering the number and extent of current deficiencies you've commented on, I'm surprised you aren't in the "theoretically useful but practically problematic" camp. What is your limit for the number of practical problems necessary before you would advocate against the death penalty until the practical problems are addressed? My line was the racial inequity...
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:You're correct that this subsample isn't an appropriate reflection of typical cost, but that isn't what I cited it for. It is THE definitive source for a complete accounting of people who have been completely and unambiguously exonerated from death row. If you revisit my post, you'll see that I cited it for the narrow claim that the typical time to exoneration is "over a decade" - specifically, 11.3 years. That is a different statistic from "average appeals length", but it is an important and pertinent one - if we don't want innocent people to die by execution, the data shows that long appeals may be necessary given the current deficiencies of the system. Well, by your own accounting a large part of length of time to exoneration is not a function of the system working- this would require making other changes to the system prior to a meaningful cost analysis. The answer to that isn't to stop applying the death penalty, it's to resolvethe other structural problems, whatever their effect on "length". I don't see the validity of the death penalty in terms of a number of problems with it- or in terms of individual outcomes. As a matter of course, criminal sentencing is going to have error on both sides- we will kill, or imprison for life, the innocent, and we will fail to do the same for the guilty. An absolute bar on innocent deaths is impossible, whether there is capital punishment or not. The full calculus would be in terms of societal outcomes, and that metric is a lot more complicated. As a direct result, my own position on the death penalty is actually undecided- it's just that my other exposure to arguments structurally similar to the common anti-death penalty arguments makes me very hostile to them. A society in which these sorts of arguments- from either side- determine policy would be a much worse place. As such, I see my main role as criticizing these arguments (because we're not going to get their right-wing equivalent on the SA forums) and trying to get to better ones.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Caros posted:I think the issue with this is how one writes a statute that allows for the execution of people whose guilt is 'obvious' without the same system still being used to murder innocent people, albeit perhaps at a smaller rate, because for a lot of people frankly one innocent person killed in service of an execution that ultimately has little effect beyond vengeance is unpalatable. Again, that's an issue of process. DP should not be an option for present day run of the mill criminal trials in the US both because of the possibility of error and the racial disparities in its application. But it's a stretch to argue that this extends to a Paul Bernardo or a Dzhokar Tsarnaev/McVeigh etc. In practice a "scintilla of doubt" standard would restrict its application to self-proclaimed terrorists who have actively committed murder, serial killers and crimes entirely caught on tape. At that point you're talking about a population of high profile defendants who rarely go to trial other than to plead insanity; the mountain of controversy the death penalty generates largely does not exist in those cases. Discendo Vox posted:Well, by your own accounting a large part of length of time to exoneration is not a function of the system working- this would require making other changes to the system prior to a meaningful cost analysis. The answer to that isn't to stop applying the death penalty, it's to resolvethe other structural problems, whatever their effect on "length". Those structural problems are severe enough in most cases that the death penalty should be off the table in the places where it is most used for reasons that go beyond individual error - the stats say every or almost every current member of Texas' death row is guilty but two thirds of the blacks would have gotten 25 or life if they were white. The Warren court would've insta-shut that down and with good reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Well, by your own accounting a large part of length of time to exoneration is not a function of the system working- this would require making other changes to the system prior to a meaningful cost analysis. The answer to that isn't to stop applying the death penalty, it's to resolvethe other structural problems, whatever their effect on "length". Good - a diversity of well argued opinions is important. Echo chambers tend to veer towards extremism. But disregarding actual application of the law doesn't strike you as disingenuous? It's like insisting that we roll loaded dice to settle a dispute because a theoretically perfect dice would be fair. You're trivially correct that the appropriate response to that situation is obtaining fair dice, but it also seems pretty apparent that one should refrain from further use of the rigged dice until that occurs. If you think the current system is broken in terms of the fairness of the outcomes, it's ethically consistent to support its pause. For example, many vegetarians I know say they would eat lab grown meat in a heartbeat. Problems with the process of in individual outcomes matter, no?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
That's actually incomplete, per your link: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. ONE LUCITE BALL CONTAINING LUNAR MATERIAL (ONE MOON ROCK) AND ONE TEN INCH BY FOURTEEN INCH WOODEN PLAQUE Crazy. You missed the ten inch by fourteen inch wooden plaque!
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:Good - a diversity of well argued opinions is important. Echo chambers tend to veer towards extremism. That depends on the setting and ramifications of stopping rolling the dice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
I wonder if Stephen King was aware of this case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
This can only end in a Babality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
Ough, jeez, I remember that one. What a mess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Ough, jeez, I remember that one. What a mess. I believe there was an episode of radiolab about it, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
SCOTUS is taking on bans on solicitation in local judicial elections by candidates. I give you one chance to guess how this is going to go. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/u...v=top-news&_r=0
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
If we assume that the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage in one state must be recognized in other states (under the Full Faith and Credit Clause), how would a ruling like that affect items such as Concealed Carry laws? Would it not be considered a similar set up where if one state recognizes it, other states must recognize it too?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Ough, jeez, I remember that one. What a mess. Cutting a baby in half so both mothers can claim it turns messy really fast if neither gives in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:02 |
|
|
duz posted:Cutting a baby in half so both mothers can claim it turns messy really fast if neither gives in. This isn't even remotely what that case was about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2015 16:11
|
|
