|
Radbot posted:Tell me more about why thinking a single innocent person be hung is bad being a stupid idea. I'm referring to the Blackstone ratio, and the fact that the underlying logic is to replace ten with "infinite" because in reality it's an expression of a naive deontological absolute. Not My Leg posted:You know that's the argument that the dissent makes, right? That the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual. Your claim that the death penalty is obviously not unconstitutional, because we allowed the death penalty when we adopted the Bill of Rights, is just wrong. I'm not trying to engage with Breyer (which is in the same procedural defects vein), I'm engaging with the "the death penalty is wrong because it is wrong" argument, which is what I was responding to and is at the actual root of the political forces mobilizing against the death penalty. As a bioethicist, it's frustrating primarily because this movement is complicating efforts to fix the problems in the current clinical ethics training and acculturation system.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Oh, the Arizona case turned out good? Yes, written by Ginsberg and Kennedy joined without reservation, the elections clause permits the legislature of the state to be the public acting in a public referendum cutting the state legislature out entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Well there's a perfect example in that a huge amount of the rabbis who wouldn't perform a gay marriage also wouldn't perform a marriage between a jew and a non-jew and are mysteriously somehow still allowed to do that and haven't been forced to stop by the interracial marriage mafia forcing secular demands down the throats of all religions Also, there were probably rabbis performing gay religious marriages with no corresponding civil marriages in various states before gay marriage was legal there. (Seems especially likely in New York...), yet somehow those same people weren't screaming about how these rabbis' religious rights were being oppressed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Also, there were probably rabbis performing gay religious marriages with no corresponding civil marriages in various states before gay marriage was legal there. (Seems especially likely in New York...), yet somehow those same people weren't screaming about how these rabbis' religious rights were being oppressed. I can take that from probably to definitely since my moms were gay jewish married here in California way before a civil marriage was legal
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
The Supreme Court has just issued a stay for the new Texas abortion restrictions while they consider the case. Thats not necessarily unusual since they often will stay a decision pending appeal, but in this case the vote on the stay was 5-4. The conservatives would have allowed the restrictions to go into effect (which would effectively close several abortion clinics) while the case was being considered. I don't think cert has been granted yet, but with the stay, that seems likely. Northjayhawk fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Your genre? Superabundant. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm referring to the Blackstone ratio, and the fact that the underlying logic is to replace ten with "infinite" because in reality it's an expression of a naive deontological absolute. OK, you are aware that number is representative of an idea and isn't actually a fixed number, right? Just because someone doesn't agree with that specific ratio doesn't mean they "don't know about Blackstone" (as if he were some source of immutable moral truth).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
am I missing something or is Robert's central contention in the Arizona case - that there was no need to pass the 17th amendment, because you could interpret selecting senators by the state legislature as permitting popular vote - immensely dumb like, stupefyingly, immensely, terribly dumb to the extent i can only imagine it is politeness that makes ginsburg not call him an idiot explicitly because the point was not to permit the people to elect senators but to require them and to cut the state legislature out of the picture entirely, this is so obviously idiotic i can't help but wonder if I'm missing something
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Radbot posted:OK, you are aware that number is representative of an idea and isn't actually a fixed number, right? Just because someone doesn't agree with that specific ratio doesn't mean they "don't know about Blackstone" (as if he were some source of immutable moral truth). I am aware that it's not a fixed number- the point is that the number exists and isn't infinite. Treating the number as infinite makes any sort of justice system impossible because it would require absolute epistemic certainty. Categorical arguments against the death penalty relying on uncertainty in outcomes rely on treating that number as infinite. Generally, if a moral calculus involves assigning an infinite value to a given event, and that event isn't the extinction of all human life to the destruction of organized society, it's not so much a moral calculus as a moral tarot deck- its application is selective and incoherent, reliant on a limited consideration of causal effects. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
like hello john roberts, this is history speaking, direct election of senators was done before the 17th:quote:Oregon pioneered direct election and experimented with different measures over several years until it succeeded in 1907. Soon after, Nebraska followed suit and laid the foundation for other states to adopt measures reflecting the people's will. Senators who resisted reform had difficulty ignoring the growing support for direct election of senators. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
I'm still surprised no one has brought back the guillotine. That's quick and cheap. capital punishment is for the weak
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:like hello john roberts, this is history speaking, direct election of senators was done before the 17th: This quote from Robert's opinion implies that pre-17A the people actually weren't allowed to directly elect senators. They could have a referendum, and the winner of the referendum would be ratified by the legislature. quote:In fact, as the decades rolled by without an amendment, 28 of the 45 States settled for the next best thing by holding a popular vote on candidates for Senate, then pressuring state legislators into choosing the winner. I don't know how accurate this statement is though. At the least it doesn't appear to be contradicted by the majority opinion. edit: Yeah it looks pretty accurate. Here's what constituted Oregon's direct election of senators, which was the first one: http://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_U.S._Senate_Elections,_Measure_14_%28June_1908%29 esquilax fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:am I missing something or is Robert's central contention in the Arizona case - that there was no need to pass the 17th amendment, because you could interpret selecting senators by the state legislature as permitting popular vote - immensely dumb No I think you're reading it correctly. Reminder John Roberts told us that racism was over. That gay marriage didn't need to be done by judicial fiat because you know people would vote for it ~eventually~
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am aware that it's not a fixed number- the point is that the number exists and isn't infinite. Treating the number as infinite makes any sort of justice system impossible because it would require absolute epistemic certainty. Categorical arguments against the death penalty relying on uncertainty in outcomes rely on treating that number as infinite. There's a bit of a difference between 'go free' and 'not be killed.' It's perfectly reasonable to say "I'd rather not execute anybody in order to avoid executing an innocent person" and still be aware of and accept the risk of imprisoning innocent people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
John Roberts seems like someone that hates doing his actual job and would rather the legislature do it for him because lazyness or something Its been a while since I read the Constitution, but isn't the death penalty explicitly authorized wrt treason? Could the DP actually be ruled unconstitutional despite that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I am aware that it's not a fixed number- the point is that the number exists and isn't infinite. Treating the number as infinite makes any sort of justice system impossible because it would require absolute epistemic certainty. Categorical arguments against the death penalty relying on uncertainty in outcomes rely on treating that number as infinite. I don't see how any of this gets to their point "we know we make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't dole out punishments that can't be taken back or compensated in any way."
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
DOOP posted:John Roberts seems like someone that hates doing his actual job and would rather the legislature do it for him because lazyness or something No, the constitution left it up to congress to define the punishment. (with a couple restrictions, for example you can't punish their family)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
DOOP posted:John Roberts seems like someone that hates doing his actual job and would rather the legislature do it for him because lazyness or something If you were trying to defend him, you'd say something akin to, "He believes that its expressly not his job to do things the legislature is able to do."
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If you were trying to defend him, you'd say something akin to, "He believes that its expressly not his job to do things the legislature is able to do." You could say that but it would be pretty silly to ascribe that belief to the author of Shelby County v. Holder
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm referring to the Blackstone ratio, and the fact that the underlying logic is to replace ten with "infinite" because in reality it's an expression of a naive deontological absolute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:There's a bit of a difference between 'go free' and 'not be killed.' It's perfectly reasonable to say "I'd rather not execute anybody in order to avoid executing an innocent person" and still be aware of and accept the risk of imprisoning innocent people. Radbot posted:I don't see how any of this gets to their point "we know we make mistakes, therefore we shouldn't dole out punishments that can't be taken back or compensated in any way." In both cases, because human lives don't have infinite moral value. Epistemic uncertainty is not a sufficient justification for inaction- if it were then it could not be used to justify any ethical system. Blackstone also discusses circumstances and standards justifying the death penalty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
I don't give a gently caress what Blackstone said or didn't say, to be clear, just trying to peel away the muck you're trying to heap on anti-death penalty arguments. Your whole post assumes that if people aren't given the death penalty, they'd be let free instead (through "inaction"), which is pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:In both cases, because human lives don't have infinite moral value. Epistemic uncertainty is not a sufficient justification for inaction- if it were then it could not be used to justify any ethical system. Blackstone also discusses circumstances and standards justifying the death penalty. 1. America has a finite population. We don't need to claim that a human life has infinite moral value to say that it's not worth feeding a single innocent into the meat grinder to keep the death penalty lobby happy, let alone the number who actually die. 2. Even if the pro-death penalty lobby's feelings were that valuable relative to a human life, the anti-death penalty lobby is of commensurate size and feels strongly about the issue as well. 3. You appear to be the sort of consequentialist who thinks it's a moral imperative to torture one person to death to avoid 3^^^^3 people getting harmless dust specks in their eyes. Is this a fair characterisation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I don't give a gently caress what Blackstone said or didn't say, to be clear, just trying to peel away the muck you're trying to heap on anti-death penalty arguments. Your whole post assumes that if people aren't given the death penalty, they'd be let free instead (through "inaction"), which is pretty dumb. Anti-death penalty arguments are garbage because they assume a life of imprisonment is somehow kinder or more of a mercy than death. Is executing an innocent person really all that much worse than letting them spend the entirety of their life behind bars in your philosophy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:In both cases, because human lives don't have infinite moral value. Epistemic uncertainty is not a sufficient justification for inaction- if it were then it could not be used to justify any ethical system. Blackstone also discusses circumstances and standards justifying the death penalty. The choice is not between action and inaction, it is between execution and life imprisonment. Assuming that we should consider this from a utilitarian perspective (which I don't actually grant) execution is only justifiable if the benefit of executing an individual as compared to imprisoning them for life outweighs the increased harm associated with executing an innocent person as compared to imprisoning them for a period until they are exonerated (which may be life in some cases). I would argue that the harm inherent in executing an innocent individual, as compared to allowing them to live, is extremely high (even if it cannot be precisely defined), and therefore the death penalty needs to provide extreme benefits as compared to life imprisonment. I have not seen evidence that it provides those benefits, therefore, based solely on the uncertainty inherent in our justice system, execution should not be preferred to life imprisonment. If you have evidence of some exceptional benefit, I would like to see it. E: GlyphGryph posted:Anti-death penalty arguments are garbage because they assume a life of imprisonment is somehow kinder or more of a mercy than death. But then pro-death penalty arguments are garbage as well, unless you are arguing that we should be reserving life imprisonment for the worst of the worst, and executing the merely terrible as a measure of compassion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Anti-death penalty arguments are garbage because they assume a life of imprisonment is somehow kinder or more of a mercy than death. In the event that evidence is found which exonerates the innocent person, is it better for them to have been kept in prison for a long period and then released, or executed and then posthumously proven innocent?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Anti-death penalty arguments are garbage because they assume a life of imprisonment is somehow kinder or more of a mercy than death. You can't un-execute someone, and they remain dead forever. I hope this little tidbit of information can be of use to you somehow when next you think about whether imprisoning or executing the innocent is the better option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is executing an innocent person really all that much worse than letting them spend the entirety of their life behind bars in your philosophy? This is easy to check. Are there any death row prisoners who, say, fight a lengthy legal battle just to avoid execution and instead receive life in prison? Who have decided that the latter is preferable to the former based on their own evaluation of their individual circumstances and preferences? Can you think of any recent examples of such people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Execution is cheaper (or could be, and notice that this is cycling back to and argument analogous to the "access to the drugs" issues), and removes the risk of subsequent harms by the individual. I'm not engaging on this further; I keep making the mistake of reading the SCOTUS thread when something significant has happened, when that's the exact worst time to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Anti-death penalty arguments are garbage because they assume a life of imprisonment is somehow kinder or more of a mercy than death. Ask this guy or this guy or this guy whether they would rather have a sentence that could be reversed or not. It'd be nice if you could ask this guy, but you can't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Execution is cheaper (or could be, and notice that this is cycling back to and argument analogous to the "access to the drugs" issues), and removes the risk of subsequent harms by the individual. I'm not engaging on this further; I keep making the mistake of reading the SCOTUS thread when something significant has happened, when that's the exact worst time to do it. Life imprisonment also removes the risk of subsequent harm. And your first point is by no means clear without citations. I'd expect the ~10 years of appeals alone to cost more than life in prison, no matter what drugs you use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:In the event that evidence is found which exonerates the innocent person, is it better for them to have been kept in prison for a long period and then released, or executed and then posthumously proven innocent? I think there's a tipping point, though where it tips probably varies from person to person. Is it crueler to kill a man in war, or capture him and enslave him for 20 years, pulling him away from his life and family, before dropping him back without support in a world that has moved on his absence? I think the second is obviously crueler, though I don't find death to be an inherently cruel event and understand others may have different opinions here. The question is rather does whatever freedom we grant back to someone proven innocent and freed make up for the time they spent imprisoned? I imagine sometimes it does, and most of the time it does not (but then, the vast majority of the time we do not free people at all). Sir Kodiak posted:This is easy to check. Are there any death row prisoners who, say, fight a lengthy legal battle just to avoid execution and instead receive life in prison? Who have decided that the latter is preferable to the former based on their own evaluation of their individual circumstances and preferences? Can you think of any recent examples of such people? Not My Leg posted:But then pro-death penalty arguments are garbage as well, unless you are arguing that we should be reserving life imprisonment for the worst of the worst, and executing the merely terrible as a measure of compassion. I honestly find it odd how cruel people see execution as, yet they justify self-defense and killing in war even of innocents as collateral damage as acceptable. At least we don't have to worry about any supreme court judges advocating my philosophy any time soon. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not engaging on this further; I keep making the mistake of reading the SCOTUS thread when something significant has happened, when that's the exact worst time to do it. Considering you just handwaved the issue of the execution of the innocent away with "it can be cheaper" and "BUT WE HAVE TO BE SURE", and seem to have your head firmly in the punitive penology sand, can you maybe not come back? Please? GlyphGryph posted:At least we don't have to worry about any supreme court judges advocating my philosophy any time soon. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Fear and the desire to survive are both powerful forces, but not particularly relevant in terms of cruelty. What I'm wondering here is how you determined that a lifetime in maximum security is worse than execution that we should value as a better source of information than that of people actually in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Regardless, the current death row situation where people spend decades imprisoned with the constant threat of a painful death lingering over them before succumbing is pretty bad! At least I'm sure we can agree on that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
pumpinglemma posted:Life imprisonment also removes the risk of subsequent harm. And your first point is by no means clear without citations. I'd expect the ~10 years of appeals alone to cost more than life in prison, no matter what drugs you use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Regardless, the current death row situation where people spend decades imprisoned with the constant threat of a painful death lingering over them before succumbing is pretty bad! At least I'm sure we can agree on that. Of course, but what about an answer to my question?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Execution is cheaper (or could be, and notice that this is cycling back to and argument analogous to the "access to the drugs" issues), and removes the risk of subsequent harms by the individual. I'm not engaging on this further; I keep making the mistake of reading the SCOTUS thread when something significant has happened, when that's the exact worst time to do it. If the law and its underpinnings can't be made clear to people to whom it applies, that's a problem for the legitimacy of the law or, more likely, a flaw in the offered explanation. Law can't be restricted to the sorcery of a select few trained in its arcana. This isn't Warhammer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
teejayh posted:I don't think this is the case in an American prison system. I'd equate life in prison just as cruel and unusual as a death sentence. Especially given how we treat felons in society too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Execution is cheaper (or could be, and notice that this is cycling back to and argument analogous to the "access to the drugs" issues), and removes the risk of subsequent harms by the individual. I'm not engaging on this further; I keep making the mistake of reading the SCOTUS thread when something significant has happened, when that's the exact worst time to do it. Execution is not cheaper than life in prison, and it's not because of the cost of drugs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 23:36
|
|
