|
hakimashou posted:I'm not content that the state will execute innocents, in the pursuit of justice. ......really? The real-world, actual factual application of "its moral to give murderers the death penalty" leads directly to "the state will execute innocent people" precisely because our system is flawed and makes errors. That is the connection between those two points.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
LeJackal posted:......really? I mean... The state also imprisons innocent people sometimes, because the system is flawed and makes errors. I don't think anyone thinks it's OK that innocent people get imprisoned, but neither would anyone think we shouldn't imprison anyone because of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I mean... I don't think its okay to imprison innocent people either but once exonerated the falsely imprisoned can be released and compensated in some form. The consequences of a false execution are not so easily mitigated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I mean... Many people think that if the system makes an error, there should be some attempt at restitution beyond a simple acknowledgment and apology. While even time spent imprisoned can't be restored, at least with a freed prisoner the state can clear their record and offer some kind of monetary compensation as a concrete acknowledgment that a moral debt exists. Nothing can be done for those who are executed, and their families are unlikely to view any monetary compensation as remotely comparable in value to the life of their loved one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Eh, in some weird hypothetical world where killing criminals actually had a significant positive effect greater than the inevitable negative effect of killing the occasional innocent person, I think it would be okay (for the same reason as your government car analogy). Of course, that isn't the world we live in and there is virtually zero benefit to killing criminals over simply imprisoning them for life, so that calculus will never come out in favor of the death penalty (unless the person in question just doesn't care much about innocent people being executed). While someone could argue "well, if we reduce the rights of criminals to appeal the death penalty it would cost less, causing life imprisonment to be more expensive", such a change would also result in an increased number of killed innocents so there isn't really any way to toggle things so that it makes sense. LeJackal posted:......really? Eletriarnation posted:Nothing can be done for those who are executed, and their families are unlikely to view any monetary compensation as remotely comparable in value to the life of their loved one. hakimashou posted:I suppose?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I'm not content that the state will execute innocents, in the pursuit of justice. I don't agree with you on the morality issue, but I can understand and respect your viewpoint. It's an interesting discussion to have, provided it's at a theoretical level. The issue of executing innocents is why I oppose the death penalty, and we seem to be in agreement on this. I find it annoying when people on both sides try to use the morality arguments as the reason to be for or against the death penalty in practice, or pretend as though that's the only argument worth making. I base my opposition on a different argument, one which I think carries far more weight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:
When you swap 'kill' with 'execute' the meaning of the statement changes fundamentally, so naw, your argument is invalid here. You're trying to equate the accidental, negligent, or maybe even reckless motor vehicle accident with agents of the state strapping a person down and injecting them with chemicals with the intent to kill them. These are not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:When you swap 'kill' with 'execute' the meaning of the statement changes fundamentally, so naw, your argument is invalid here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why not? There is no specific intent to kill when a government driver gets behind the wheel of a vehicle. There is a VERY specific intent to kill when a government employee executes someone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:There is no specific intent to kill when a government driver gets behind the wheel of a vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sorry, I meant: what practical reason should anyone have for ever caring about this distinction? You're the one trying to conflate the two. Explain why they are the same?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:You're the one trying to conflate the two. Explain why they are the same?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:Because there exists no practical reason to care about that distinction for the purposes of being opposed to any innocents being killed as a result of government actions? Like if you say "Fuji apples and honeycrisp apples are different, and we should treat them differently" and I say "While I agree those are distinguishable types of apples, I see no reason to distinguish them for this purpose", I don't know what more you want from me. Uh, there is? If we stopped all government action that could potentially, by accident, end a life then the government could not carry out all its duties like infrastructure maintenance. We could easily stop the government from executing people and it wouldn't interfere with that. So there is a practical difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Keeping deaths caused by government actions to a minimum is always preferable. In the case of vehicular deaths there is a whole host of actions which could be implemented. For example a moratorium on driving more than 10 hours in a day, or hiring cars with a proven safety record, or limiting the car speed. All of those have costs associated with them, which need to be weighed up in the final analysis. In the case of reducing state executions of innocents there are two options: stop doing it, or implement a series of lengthy and costly appeals processes to try to make certain that anyone actually executed is guilty. Only one of those is foolproof, and happens to be the cheaper option as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Uh, there is? If we stopped all government action that could potentially, by accident, end a life then the government could not carry out all its duties like infrastructure maintenance. We could easily stop the government from executing people and it wouldn't interfere with that. So there is a practical difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is a weird sentence. Clearly compensating the families is a thing which can be done for those who are executed. Like why even bring it up if you think it isn't? Families might not view money as adequate, but that's equally true of innocent people who were imprisoned. Further, whether people think the compensation is adequate is wholly irrelevant if all we're trying to do is make a concrete acknowledgment of a moral debt. LeJackal's right that the consequences of a false execution are not as easily mitigated, but it's not impossible to try. I brought it up because if I said "we can't do anything, at all" it would be the obvious response and as a general rule I try to anticipate potential counters to my arguments, not just wander into them blindly. You are correct that money might not be (probably would not be) considered adequate compensation for wrongful imprisonment as well, but as a society we generally accept both that some level of imprisonment is necessary for a criminal justice system and that false positives, while lamentable, will happen. It is less clear that execution is necessary to prevent ongoing harm to society from offenders when we have life imprisonment as an option. Additionally, unlike life imprisonment it is impossible to rescind a sentence of execution even in part if we discover that we have a false positive after administering it. I do not think that "all we're trying to do is make a concrete acknowledgment of a moral debt," because I don't think a token effort is worthwhile - if (when) our system harms people, it should make reasonable efforts to try and compensate for that. Causing unnecessary levels of harm because "we can't really fix it either way, why does it matter" is counterproductive. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
twodot posted:So government activities that will foreseeably result in ending lives is acceptable so long as those activities accomplish some goal you approve of? If that's the case we're back to it not being the case that you are fundamentally opposed to the government occasionally killing innocents, just that you don't think the value of the death penalty justifies it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:So government activities that will foreseeably result in ending lives is acceptable so long as those activities accomplish some goal you approve of? I don't approve of the goal of the government being to kill its own citizens, weirdly. Also, there is a difference between 'statistically infrastructure repair/upkeep will cause the accidental deaths of 3.2 citizens' and 'today Jesse Smith will be executed by a deliberate action of the state' and that difference is specific intent. Also one has a goal that is demonstrably beneficial to society as a whole, too. twodot posted:If that's the case we're back to it not being the case that you are fundamentally opposed to the government occasionally killing innocents, just that you don't think the value of the death penalty justifies it. I recognize that the universe is full of chaos and that any action, or inaction, may lead eventually to death. I don't believe the government should active try to murder its own citizens and, when possible, minimize the risk to them when going about its goals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I recognize that the universe is full of chaos and that any action, or inaction, may lead eventually to death. I don't believe the government should active try to murder its own citizens and, when possible, minimize the risk to them when going about its goals. Submarine Sandpaper posted:"accidental" death penalty killings exclusively impact the innocent demographic; a deprivation of civil rights. Random gvt deaths don't. Eletriarnation posted:I brought it up because if I said "we can't do anything, at all" it would be the obvious response and as a general rule I try to anticipate potential counters to my arguments, not just wander into them blindly. quote:I do not think that "all we're trying to do is make a concrete acknowledgment of a moral debt," because I don't think a token effort is worthwhile - if (when) our system harms people, it should make reasonable efforts to try and compensate for that. Causing unnecessary levels of harm because "we can't really fix it either way, why does it matter" is counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
i think the death penalty is fine if restricted to really really bad people, like jeff dahmer, judas, hitler, hitler jr, mecha-hitler etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't understand the point. We agree that imprisoning innocent people is also a deprivation of civil rights, correct?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:I missed the counterargument. You said "Nothing can be done for those who are executed", but I don't see any explanation for how "giving money to their family" isn't a thing that can be done for those who are executed. It is "a thing that can be done" sure, I am saying that it's wildly insufficient. You could give the family a cake saying "sorry for your loss" too, that's also "a thing that can be done" but it doesn't do much to diminish the horror of wrongful death.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:If this is your actual position why are we bothering to talk about innocents? Murder is the killing of an innocent. Now I know you're trolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Murder is the killing of an innocent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sorry, I thought That is a first. Contrawise, just because agents of the state execute a person does not make it de facto lawful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:I missed the counterargument. You said "Nothing can be done for those who are executed", but I don't see any explanation for how "giving money to their family" isn't a thing that can be done for those who are executed. That's doing something for the family of the wrongfully executed person, not for the wrongfully executed person. What about people who had a lovely, abusive family whom they wouldn't want collecting benefits from their unjust execution? Or people who simply have no family?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
what if somebody falsly confesses to a murder with the intent of being found wrongly convicted post-execution and getting their family awarded millions in damages, in a very elaborate scheme
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:what if somebody falsly confesses to a murder with the intent of being found wrongly convicted post-execution and getting their family awarded millions in damages, in a very elaborate scheme Frankly at that point I think they earned it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:That's doing something for the family of the wrongfully executed person, not for the wrongfully executed person. What about people who had a lovely, abusive family whom they wouldn't want collecting benefits from their unjust execution? Or people who simply have no family? LeJackal posted:That is a first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:I thought for the purpose of this conversation we were talking about agents of the state that lawfully execute people. Do you think there's a productive conversation to be had about whether it's good for agents of the state to unlawfully kill people? Yes, I do, because they have done so in the past and continue to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's still doing something for them. Maybe it's not something they like, but I don't see how anyone can declare it's categorically impossible to do something for a dead person. This seems tangential and pointless unless you're willing to argue that the ability to give blood money to the family of the executed makes it OK that occasionally someone gets wrongfully executed. I only brought it up to try to avoid the tangent in the first place, fat lot of good that did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Yes, I do, because they have done so in the past and continue to do so. Eletriarnation posted:This seems tangential and pointless unless you're willing to argue that the ability to give blood money to the family of the executed makes it OK that occasionally someone gets wrongfully executed. I only brought it up to try to avoid the tangent in the first place, fat lot of good that did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:It certainly doesn't make it OK that occasionally someone gets wrongfully executed, but I'd also argue that being able to transfer money directly to released prisoners doesn't make it OK that occasionally someone gets wrongfully imprisoned. Like no one has looked at the imprisonment system and said "It's really hard to tell which people are guilty and which people are innocent, let's just lean towards assuming people are guilty, and if we're wrong we'll just give them a bundle of cash, no harm, no foul". You're right because, as I said earlier, we generally accept that some form of imprisonment is necessary for a criminal justice system to be effective at preventing criminals from causing further harm to society. I do not consider this to be the case for execution, as a similar level of prevention can be achieved with life imprisonment. What part of that do you disagree with or, if you agree, why do you think the necessary evil of wrongful imprisonment justifies the unnecessary evil of wrongful execution? Like, you're basically saying "Sure, that thing (that we could prevent) is bad but there's this other thing over here (that we can't prevent) and it's bad too!" Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:I missed the counterargument. You said "Nothing can be done for those who are executed", but I don't see any explanation for how "giving money to their family" isn't a thing that can be done for those who are executed. I'm sorry, could you explain how "giving money to still-alive people who are not me" helps me, if I am wrongfully executed? That helps my family, which is good, but it doesn't help me, I am still dead and money doesn't help that. I certainly wouldn't consider it just compensation for being wrongfully imprisoned if you gave money to my parents and did nothing for me. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Not a fan of weregild then, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:I don't agree with you on the morality issue, but I can understand and respect your viewpoint. It's an interesting discussion to have, provided it's at a theoretical level. The issue of executing innocents is why I oppose the death penalty, and we seem to be in agreement on this. Ya, because laws and courts are imperfect I think we probably shouldn't have the death penalty. I think that's a good argument against having it. I don't think "the death penalty is always morally wrong." Is a good argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:You're right because, as I said earlier, we generally accept that some form of imprisonment is necessary for a criminal justice system to be effective at preventing criminals from causing further harm to society. I do not consider this to be the case for execution, as a similar level of prevention can be achieved with life imprisonment. What part of that do you disagree with or, if you agree, why do you think the necessary evil of wrongful imprisonment justifies the unnecessary evil of wrongful execution? Eletriarnation posted:Like, you're basically saying "Sure, that thing (that we could prevent) is bad but there's this other thing over here (that we can't prevent) and it's bad too!" VitalSigns posted:I'm sorry, could you explain how "giving money to still-alive people who are not me" helps me, if I am wrongfully executed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Ya, because laws and courts are imperfect I think we probably shouldn't have the death penalty. I think that's a good argument against having it. I agree completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:And I certainly wouldn't consider it just compensation for being wrongfully imprisoned if you released me and gave me money. So either compensation for wrongful punishment can't ever exist, or we have to accept that subjective standards for what just compensation constitutes are irrelevant. Maybe subjectively you wouldn't consider it sufficient compensation for being imprisoned, but objectively you did receive compensation. The same isn't true if you're killed, paying money to your family (if you have one) isn't compensating you, it's compensating someone else. So these situations aren't equivalent and we can't claim that "well we would pay you if you were imprisoned, therefore we'll just pay someone else if you're executed wrongfully" are equivalent remedies. "Someone who is dead can't be compensated at all" is a serious problem that can't be handwaved away so easily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
twodot posted:It's still doing something for them. Maybe it's not something they like, but I don't see how anyone can declare it's categorically impossible to do something for a dead person. Again, that's for the family, not for the dead person - dead people can't utilize money. Did you know some people don't have a family (Im asking because you ignored that aspect last time)? If a person who doesn't have a family is wrongfully executed, they're just out of luck, too bad for them? Phantom Star fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 04:08
|
|