|
blarzgh posted:What about the people who say, "The Willingham story isn't proof that the system of Capital Punishment needs to go away, just that the people or groups who made such a tragic mistake should be held accountable."? Intriguingly such people never suggest that the jurors themselves be executed.
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
twodot posted:This is wrong. Imprisoning someone for any length of time is final, because time can not be reversed. Fining someone for any amount of money is final because time can not be reversed. People can be released from prisons, and fines can be repaid, yet still the length of time where those conditions were applied can not be undone. You can attempt to compensate somebody for being wrongfully imprisoned, to put them back in the position they would have been if they had not been wrongfully imprisoned. You cannot attempt to compensate somebody who has been executed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:Right, please see where I asked why punishments with remedies is a valuable goal. Sometimes we punish innocent people, sometimes those innocent people will get remedies, sometimes they will not, this is intrinsic to all punishments. Because in civilised societies we believe that it is wrong to punish somebody for no reason. This means that if we do accidentally punish somebody for no reason, we attempt to compensate them to put them in the position that they would have been in had they not been punished for no reason. Sometimes we are not able to adequately compensate a person who has been punished for no reason, but this does not mean that our belief that it is wrong to punish somebody for no reason is not sincere, or that we do not consider that persons punished for no reason should be compensated. The death penalty, however, means that it will never be possible to adequately compensate a person if they have accidentally been punished for no reason. This is not consistent with the belief that it is wrong to punish a person for no reason, and is therefore rejected by civilised societies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:Whether we punish people for no reason, and whether we compensate incorrectly punished people are completely unrelated concepts, so please go ahead and drop that line of rhetoric. Do you think people who are wrongfully punished should be compensated? If so, why?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:This question is a lot more complex than you realize. First of all, there are many people who have been wrongfully punished who fundamentally can not be compensated. Should we do an impossible thing? I'm not even sure what that question means. Should we compensate wrongfully punished people when we are able? Yes, not only is it probably important for people to have faith in the justice system, it also creates incentives for the government to not wrongfully punish people. So you agree that it is wrong to punish people for no reason, and that where possible we should seek to compensate those who have been wrongfully punished. You also acknowledge that these are, in fact, related concepts. This is a good start for living in a civilised society. You would presumably, therefore, agree that modes of punishment where compensation is literally impossible and could never be possible under any conceivable circumstance - as opposed to modes of punishment where compensation is conceivably possible, although not necessarily in all cases - are fundamentally less desirable since they are fundamentally inconsistent with the general principle that people ought not to be punished for no reason, and if they are, should be compensated if possible?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, so you are also adopting "We should only apply punishments which can be stopped" as an axiom? Is there a reason why punishments which can be stopped are good? Frankly the concept for preferring an ever lasting punishment over a limited one is kind of bizarre to me. I find you guilty of a crime you did not commit. Would you choose a fine (knowing that this could be remitted when your innocence is proved) or chemically induced irreversible autism and a SA forums account? In your cosmology, these penalties are basically identical so you might as well flip a coin.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, these are unrelated concepts. There are both true, but that doesn't make them related. If you still think they are related, feel free to directly state their relation. We compensate people for being wrongly punished (i.e. punished for no reason) becuase it is wrong to punish people for no reason. Jesus, dude, I know you think you're being some kind of incisive intellect but you're coming across like ELIZA with autism and a hard-on for injustice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:I never said it was their fault. Nude Bog Lurker just doesn't understand how words work. You knew very well the meaning those words communicated, and chose to interpret it as literally as possible to avoid facing to the implications of your argument: You literally see no moral difference between the state fining a wrongfully convicted person and executing them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
twodot posted:Cool straw man, but I started this thread directly stating I'm opposed to the death penalty, so try again: You accept that people should not be punished unless they have committed an offence for which that punishment is the prescribed penalty (or, as neurotypicals might understand it, 'no reason'). You accept that where a person has been punished when they have not committed an offence for which that punishment is the prescribed penalty, the state should seek to compensate that person. You grudgingly accept that the reason that the state should seek to compensate that person is that people should not be punished unless they have committed an offence for which that punishment is the prescribed penalty. Despite this, you see no issue with the state prescribing penalties for which no compensation is possible. You see no inconsistency between this and the principle that where a person has been punished when they have not committed an offence for which that punishment is the prescribed penalty, the state should seek to compensate that person. This is because you are not as clever as you think you are, and rather than face up to this you are going to dance around this post with another tedious attempt at junior attorney reasoning rather than engage with the substance.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:I was going to dance around this post, but there isn't an actual argument to dance around. You appear to want me to engage with substance, but the only thing in here is you poorly characterizing what I believe. Where's the substance? Do you seriously expect me to argue with myself? So you seriously think that there's nothing wrong with the state adopting punishments for which it cannot compensate somebody if they have been wrongly inflicted, even though you also think that the state should seek to compensate those wrongfully punished? Honestly, at this point I'm just trying to work out what you actually think.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:What? I've directly stated what I actually think multiple times. The death penalty is bad, but not because it is uniquely irrevocable (all carried out punishments can not be undone). You're trying to corner me into a poorly constructed logic trap, for reasons I don't understand. What you've oh-so-cutely avoided saying is that you don't think a person can be compensated for being imprisoned. I presume you have avoided saying this because you realise deep down that this position is incompatible with every modern system of justice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:Because it's nonsensical! Can you stop a fine already paid? A prison sentence already served? Of course not, yet we regard those as just punishments.  If I take your money as a fine, I can never make this right.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:We can conceivably compensate you, but we can never give back the loss opportunities missed because of the punishment (otherwise it would not be a punishment). Presumably if I broke into your house and stole your computer, you wouldn't want it back since I could never return the lost opportunities to practice your autism in D&D. twodot posted:Yes it is better to mistakenly take away 10 years of a person's life than to kill them, please see where I already addressed this argument, that following this reasoning implies an infinite regression of softer and softer punishments for the fear of being mistaken. I don't think I've ever seen the slippery slope argument used to explain why we should keep killing innocent people before.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Kimble: I didn't kill my wife! Special Agent Twodot: Yes, but how will you ever recover the lost opportunities from being in prison? Might as well go back on death row, you realise if we let you go soon we'll start treating prisoners humanely! Kimble: yes i see now there was no point trying to exonerate myself, i might as well get in the chair now
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
twodot posted:No? You asked why I think appeals matter, and I told you. I don't understand why you think it's not related. Do you think appeals should be allowed on questions of fact?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 02:25
|
|