|
twodot posted:What does the issue of necessity have to do with whether compensation can exist or not? If we can arrive at your position without considering compensation, why bring it up? I brought up compensation because I don't think that it's a relevant argument against the harms of the death penalty, and wanted to preemptively avoid tedious posts about it. You somehow missed this and are asking me why I think it's relevant. We agree that you can't fully compensate for the harms of either imprisoning those falsely found guilty or of executing them. The salient difference is that you can avoid the harm altogether with execution by just not executing anyone.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted: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? Eletriarnation posted:I brought up compensation because I don't think that it's a relevant argument against the harms of the death penalty, and wanted to preemptively avoid tedious posts about it. You somehow missed this and are asking me why I think it's relevant. VitalSigns posted:Maybe subjectively you wouldn't consider it sufficient compensation for being imprisoned, but objectively you did receive compensation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
OK I've changed my mind. I'm now in favour of executing people who make disingenuous and terrible arguments on the internet. Seriously, through a whole bunch of semantic bullshit you're now trying to define giving money to person B to be something which benefits person A, who is dead. The gently caress is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:OK I've changed my mind. I'm now in favour of executing people who make disingenuous and terrible arguments on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't think it's semantic, since I think core mechanic of compensation here is the acknowledgement of an institutional failure, not that we want particular wronged people to specifically have $50k or whatever, since it's fundamentally impossible to truly pay back lost time, broken careers, neglected relationships, whatever abuse they might have endured, and such. But you apparently think its semantic, so what does giving a freed prisoner $50k practically accomplish that giving the heirs of an executed prisoner $50k doesn't? I mean... In the first case the prisoner gets to enjoy $50k and whatever satisfaction comes from ultimately being vindicated. In the second case the prisoner isn't able to enjoy anything, ever, at all. From the POV of the prisoner in the second case there's no difference between giving their heirs $50k, fining their heirs $50k for execution supplies, or executing their heirs to get an RL achievement. The prisoner ceased to have a POV when they died.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I mean...
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't think it's semantic, since I think core mechanic of compensation here is the acknowledgement of an institutional failure, not that we want particular wronged people to specifically have $50k or whatever, since it's fundamentally impossible to truly pay back lost time, broken careers, neglected relationships, whatever abuse they might have endured, and such. But you apparently think its semantic, so what does giving a freed prisoner $50k practically accomplish that giving the heirs of an executed prisoner $50k doesn't? It accomplishes compensating the person who was unjustly harmed by the state. Having to type that out makes me feel disgusted. If you aren't trolling, your brain is broken as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Odd how when the state settles out of court, giving gobs of money to surviving family members, it's with the express disclaimer that the state is not admitting to a mistake or acknowledging an institutional failure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It accomplishes compensating the person who was unjustly harmed by the state. I suppose if you view the concept of justice as existing on aggregate rather than individually, it doesn't make as much difference who gets compensated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I suppose if you view the concept of justice as existing on aggregate rather than individually, it doesn't make as much difference who gets compensated. Maybe the state should mete out punishment to random citizens rather than guilty individuals whenever a crime is committed. You know, to serve justice on aggregate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Maybe the state should mete out punishment to random citizens rather than guilty individuals whenever a crime is committed. You know, to serve justice on aggregate. I mean as in, the point of it is that the state in this idea is the entity being "punished" in theory by being required to give up its resources and do something theoretically good to make up for the bad thing it did. Again the idea's similar to weregild so it's not a completely insane one, though I would probably argue it doesn't really work because if you punish the state you punish everyone and why shouldn't the state just give out a load of money anyway if it could? The idea that generalized restitution can be part of the sentence for a crime is not that weird, it just mostly makes sense when you're dealing with individual people rather than states, which can't really learn the way a person can, and whose sole duty is already, supposedly, to promote as much welfare as possible. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, it's for them. If I do a thing, I get to decide who it is for. If there's no one to give money to, we can plant a tree for them. That's nonsense. If my peace loving, Buddhist monk brother gets killed and I seek revenge, then Im not actually doing it for my brother, Im doing it for myself, despite what I might say or think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, they were objectively compensated, you just think they were compensated in a way that isn't useful to them. No they were objectively not compensated. If "compensation" isn't useful to the victim then it's not compensation now is it. If compensation doesn't have to be useful then shoot we don't need lawsuits anymore, we can just compensate people with happy thoughts, not too useful but who cares.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I'm not content that the state will execute innocents, in the pursuit of justice. 100% Agree. There are specific differences that weren't pointed out so far about the "costs" of keeping someone in jail for life or giving them a swift death penalty. Obviously we are paying for the convicted to live all those years in relatively sparse housing with food etc.. but there is also the impact that the offender has on the other inmates for 30+ years (knowing that there is literally nothing he can do to make his life worse). There is the impact that he/she has on the guards. There's the humanitarian concern that life in prison is a worse fate than death. There's the possible recidivism or other learned criminal behaviors that might occur WITHIN the prison. The ongoing strained relationships with anyone outside that keeps pulling other people down and sucking their money and time for endless years. Can we admit that 99% of people on death row loving DID IT? I was laughing at an earlier post that suggested we have some kind of higher standard than "beyond all reasonable doubt", like "holy poo poo, he is TOTALLY SUPER-DUPER guilty", and I don't actually see why we can't add a separate standard of guilt into our court system, where the Jury can choose the GUILTY AS gently caress option. We're trusting juries to decide guilt or innocence. Can't we trust them to decide if someone's case is "whishy-washy but we're pretty sure it's true" or "he's so obviously a creepy murderer that we are literally scared to sit here". 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
even the Russian Federation does not have the death penalty anymore
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Can we admit that 99% of people on death row loving DID IT? I was laughing at an earlier post that suggested we have some kind of higher standard than "beyond all reasonable doubt", like "holy poo poo, he is TOTALLY SUPER-DUPER guilty", and I don't actually see why we can't add a separate standard of guilt into our court system, where the Jury can choose the GUILTY AS gently caress option. We're trusting juries to decide guilt or innocence. Can't we trust them to decide if someone's case is "whishy-washy but we're pretty sure it's true" or "he's so obviously a creepy murderer that we are literally scared to sit here". No.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:No. Is there some statistic from an independent organization that can give us a fairly realistic view of the innocence/guilt of all people on death row? I would be happy to absorb it into my worldview.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Is there some statistic from an independent organization that can give us a fairly realistic view of the innocence/guilt of all people on death row? I would be happy to absorb it into my worldview. No.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:No. SO what does that mean? There is no such independent agency? Or you think that the death penalty is inherently wrong and therefore wouldn't even share any relevant report?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:SO what does that mean? There is no such independent agency? Or you think that the death penalty is inherently wrong and therefore wouldn't even share any relevant report? That there is no realistic way to measure with a great degree of accuracy due to a confluence of resources, time, and the opposition of judges, prosecutors, and police to the exoneration of a falsely convicted person. You can stop trolling now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
There is the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" evidentiary standard that isn't used in the U.S., which is stricter than "beyond a reasonable doubt." It wouldn't be impossible to codify a law that said the death penalty requires a higher evidentiary standard as well as aggravating circumstances. (I still believe the death penalty is pointless, but if we're going to have it, reducing innocent people being executed is still good.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:There is the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" evidentiary standard that isn't used in the U.S., which is stricter than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Where is it used? Wound't that result in every case being tried under the 'beyond shadow of a doubt' standard because to do otherwise would be to admit the conviction was unsafe? Do they also have a "lovely" evidentiary standard where you get community service for murder because they're really not convinced you did it? E: what would be an example of a case that, to you, passes the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard but not 'beyond shadow of a doubt'? bitterandtwisted fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Where is it used? The "lovely" standard of evidence is called "preponderance of evidence" and is the standard used in U.S. civil law. It's just what it sounds like; if the evidence overall indicates that you did it, but there are still some reasonable doubts, you can be found guilty. It's not that you get community service for murder, it's that the they don't give a poo poo if you're wrongfully convicted of going over on your parking meter. We could have system that said "murder charges require the current standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but if you want to add the death penalty, the evidence standard is more strict. If the standard for murder is met, but not for capital punishment, then you're still in jail for murder." But you want examples? It's hard to offer them, because almost every convicted murderer fits that description of beyond a reasonable doubt. George Zimmerman, who should have been convicted. Oscar Pistorius was convicted, but not beyond the shadow of a doubt, in my opinion. Hell, Lee Harvey Oswald never had a court trial, and he's known to have done it, but not beyond the shadow of a doubt. Jack Ruby was beyond the shadow of a doubt guilty. Overwhelming evidence, no credible defense. It's not common to have absolutely no question that you have the right person, and that the death was murder and not self-defense, or accidental, or justified in some other way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:i don't know if the standard is legally used anywhere, because it's not going to be achieved in most cases. With the nature of evidence and testimony, it's easy for there to be an unlikely (but still not insane) doubt. It's mostly philosophical wanking, because in any complex case, you're quickly in a gray area that makes the point moot. This is a great point. We already have two different standards for conviction in civil and criminal court. Why couldn't the death penalty require a third wording of the standard? "Substantial, unimpeachable, and overwhelming evidence of guilt". Or something along those lines. The tricky bit would be the idea that anyone who commits multiple murders is most likely suffering from some kind of mental condition, even if it's overwhelming apathy like a sociopath, and then it turns into an argument about whether we should attempt to "treat" these people or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Even if, hypothetically, a criminal's 100% guilt could be ascertained, what would be gained by executing this person?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Zesty Mordant posted:Even if, hypothetically, a criminal's 100% guilt could be ascertained, what would be gained by executing this person? *They will not re-offend *They will not "Theoretically" cost more money to house and feed *They will not be an emotional or financial drain on their friends and family for the next 30 odd years *They will never injure another prisoner or guard *You're creating a net gain in the average morality of the population (albeit .0000001%) *It's less horrifying (to some) than life in prison with no parole *They will not temp another prisoner or guard into any other illegal action *They deserve it *If there is an aggrieved party, they will get revenge/justice, (it's the same to me) *Assuming that the syst em is impartial and impeccably correct, it is a deterrent for others who might be on the fence about killing their wives/pregnant girlfriends etc. Nobody can or can't prove the actual deterrent effect because we've never had a system that is clearly impartial and correct, but if you're talking purely theory, those are my reasons why execution is useful. Some are undeniable truths, some are clearly impossible to prove at this or maybe any time, and some are matters of personal ethics and morality. This is just PURE thought experiment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Strictly you could achieve most of those in general by just killing people at random.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Strictly you could achieve most of those in general by just killing people at random. Not really. You're not generally paying for the food and housing of a random person, or expecting a random person to commit crimes against others. Random killings certainly wouldn't influence people not to commit murder. A random person is not a net drain on their family and friends. Killing a random person wouldn't increase the morality of the total population, because by definition, they're random and therefore average. Killing a random person is also not better than the current alternative, letting them be, whereas it is possibly better than life in prison. And most of all, they don't deserve it. I don't see how your post makes any sense at all, except shrugging off the "future crimes and bad influence" bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Not really. Well, people killed at random: *Will not commit any more crimes. *Will never require social security *Will never be an emotional or financial drain on their friends and family. *Will never injure anyone. *Stand, presumably, at least a 50% chance of increasing the net morality of the population. *Is less horrifying (to some) than living in general. *Will not tempt other people to do illegal things *Might deserve it *If they have aggrieved someone they will get revenge/justice. *Assuming that people are perfectly rational, will deter others from procreating which will help with overpopulation. So really the only benefits to executing people convicted of crimes over just random people is on a couple of your initial points being somewhat more likely to apply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, people killed at random: Haha you had to say "might" deserve it and "if" they have aggrieved anyone. About 6 of those points are more likely to apply, which makes them more useful than random killings. If I say that I agree with you on the last bit, then I'm a sociopath, even though we absolutely need to cut down the birthrate at some point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Well the person being executed under the guise of criminal justice might not have aggrieved someone or deserve it either. But even if we grant that it's slightly more likely to apply to criminals it doesn't really change the fact that, by the majority of those criteria, killing people in general is actually good. Which also means anyone you would execute for murder is actually good and so you can't execute them. Except you should anyway because it's good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well the person being executed under the guise of criminal justice might not have aggrieved someone or deserve it either. Well the hypothetical that I was responding to, was 100% absolute guilt, so in that case, they have most definitely deserved it, or unless the person they killed had literally no friends or family, they have caused a grievance. It does change the fact, because all those things are more applicable to a murderer. More likely to reoffend, more likely to be a drain on society, more likely to be a bad influence. How many people can you screw up by proxy in 20-40 years? IDK a lot? People in prison are by and large dumbasses and susceptible to persuasion. Because all these things are more applicable to a murderer and not the "average" person, I really don't understand your leap of logic here. OT, I don't think we should kill random people, but we could really use a birth policy. It's not going to be in my lifetime that we kill the planet with our crazy amount of babies so I don't really care. Sociopath spotted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:Please, in the future don't make affirmative declarations like "Nothing can be done for those who are executed" that are irrelevant to your argument, and we won't have to argue whether anything can be done for those who are executed, because it's plainly true something can be done. You should instead say things like "I don't care whether anything can be done for those who are executed". Look man, if you want to be all turbopedant about it nothing can be done for them unless you can raise them from the dead, giving money to someone else doesn't help them. I told you multiple times I only brought it up because I wanted to avoid wasting time discussing it in depth and you decided you wanted to beat that horse to death all by yourself. You still haven't made any kind of relevant response that I saw to my real argument of "execution doesn't help a criminal justice system to actually accomplish any goal except revenge, considering that life imprisonment is an option" so if you want to keep going give that one a whirl too. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Opposition to the death penalty pretty much has shaped my political worldview.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Look man, if you want to be all turbopedant about it nothing can be done for them unless you can raise them from the dead, giving money to someone else doesn't help them. I told you multiple times I only brought it up because I wanted to avoid wasting time discussing it in depth and you decided you wanted to beat that horse to death all by yourself. quote:You still haven't made any kind of relevant response that I saw to my real argument of "execution doesn't help a criminal justice system to actually accomplish any goal except revenge, considering that life imprisonment is an option" so if you want to keep going give that one a whirl too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:*They will not re-offend I'm not entirely sure how these two fit together. In your view, if they think life in jail is worse, then wouldn't they deserve *that* instead? Also, DoggPickle posted:Can we admit that 99% of people on death row loving DID IT? I was laughing at an earlier post that suggested we have some kind of higher standard than "beyond all reasonable doubt", like "holy poo poo, he is TOTALLY SUPER-DUPER guilty", and I don't actually see why we can't add a separate standard of guilt into our court system, where the Jury can choose the GUILTY AS gently caress option. We're trusting juries to decide guilt or innocence. Can't we trust them to decide if someone's case is "whishy-washy but we're pretty sure it's true" or "he's so obviously a creepy murderer that we are literally scared to sit here". Obviously anyone on death row who is not innocent "did it", but it's a matter of being able to tell which are innocent and not. There's no set number of innocent people in prison at any given time, so you can't say "well these 10 people are innocent so everyone else did it." Also, technically "guilty" would be the option you're referring to because "whishy-washy but we're pretty sure it's true" is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" and thus, would be "not guilty" (if every jury were impartial and followed rules perfectly). edit: and yet there are still people who are declared guilty who aren't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:Of course it doesn't help them, but it's doing a thing for them. If I do a thing for someone, that person is in no way guaranteed to be helped, or even affected at all. quote:Why would I argue against the argument that is correct instead of the argument that is incorrect? This comment is weird to me. You made two claims, I'm posting about the claim you made that is incorrect. If you don't need that claim or want that claim, stop talking about it. Your "real" argument isn't even a complete argument. Someone who supports the death penalty can just see that and think "Yeah, and revenge is an important/primary goal of our justice system, so we should keep killing people". I'd disagree with that person, but my point here is the only interesting thing to say about your "real" argument is that it's only persuasive to people who already agree with you. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Can we admit that 99% of people on death row loving DID IT? I was laughing at an earlier post that suggested we have some kind of higher standard than "beyond all reasonable doubt", like "holy poo poo, he is TOTALLY SUPER-DUPER guilty", and I don't actually see why we can't add a separate standard of guilt into our court system, where the Jury can choose the GUILTY AS gently caress option. We're trusting juries to decide guilt or innocence. Can't we trust them to decide if someone's case is "whishy-washy but we're pretty sure it's true" or "he's so obviously a creepy murderer that we are literally scared to sit here". Try 96% And, funny thing, it turns out that minorities (specifically, African Americans) make up the vast majority of wrongful convictions, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:Of course it doesn't help them, but it's doing a thing for them. If I do a thing for someone, that person is in no way guaranteed to be helped, or even affected at all. No. It isn't. You cannot do anything for dead people. Because they are dead. It is impossible. That's what "dead" means. Rather than picking such a stupid hill to die on, just acknowledge the truth that you can't "do a thing" for the dead and make the argument that this is unimportant because some other benefits of execution like prevention/deterrence/revenge/communal sense of justice/your boner/whatever outweigh the inability to compensate some percentage of the executed who turn out to be innocent. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
When the issue of capital punishment comes up I'm always reminded of the famous quote, "I would rather one innocent man be executed than have a hundred guilty men spend life in prison."
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 13:08
|
|
