|
Jerry Cotton posted:What part of this was not explained in my post? So is your gimmick that, since any given person would almost certainly elect to not be subject to the death penalty if given the option, the pro death penalty position is inherently hypocritical? Because most people would also elect to be immune to traffic tickets too if given the option.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
If it were only them sure. But I doubt most people would choose to be immune to traffic tickets if it meant everyone else would get that option as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If it were only them sure. But I doubt most people would choose to be immune to traffic tickets if it meant everyone else would get that option as well. Which is why Jerry Cotton's (hopefully) ironic "only people who agree with the death penalty should be executed, checkmate deathtards" argument is a new low even by the standards of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So is your gimmick that, since any given person would almost certainly elect to not be subject to the death penalty if given the option, the pro death penalty position is inherently hypocritical? Because most people would also elect to be immune to traffic tickets too if given the option. Get back to me when traffic tickets kill people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Get back to me when traffic tickets kill people. "In 2007, speeding was a contributing factor in 31 percent of all fatal crashes, and 13,040 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"In 2007, speeding was a contributing factor in 31 percent of all fatal crashes, and 13,040 lives were lost in speeding-related crashes." That's not what he said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Starshark posted:That's not what he said. What he said was a deliberately obtuse non sequitur that failed to address my point in any meaningful way; "but the death penalty kills people" doesn't cause an illogical argument to suddenly make sense. Also, LOL if you think that making traffic laws optional wouldn't kill far more people every year than eliminating death penalty appeals would.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
It would kill less minorities which I think you'd be against DR
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
traffic tickets kill people in the sense that how punitively high the fines are set is a direct impairment for the working poor to live their lives it's one of the things the ACLU is working on as a matter of fact quote:Unconstitutional driver’s license suspension policies have important implications for California’s communities of color. A 2016 report from LCCR reveals dramatic racial and socioeconomic disparities in driver’s license suspensions and arrests related to unpaid traffic fines and fees. Public records from the California Department of Motor Vehicles and U.S. Census data demonstrate that in primarily Black and Latino communities, driver’s license suspension rates range as high as five times the state average. Moreover, data collected from fifteen police and sheriff’s departments across California show that Black motorists are far more likely to be arrested for driving with a suspended license for failure to pay an infraction citation than White motorists. Rates of driver’s license suspensions due to a failure to appear or pay a ticket are directly correlated with poverty indicators and with race. so actually, i wouldn't joke about that the entirety of the justice system is incredibly busted
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
stone cold posted:traffic tickets kill people in the sense that how punitively high the fines are set is a direct impairment for the working poor to live their lives  Yeah, not being allowed to drive because you're too poor to pay your fines is definitely bullshit in places where reliable transportation is required to have a job, and your own vehicle is basically the only option for securing that, but on the other hand, it's not LITERALLY PHYSICALLY DYING and also probably the best, most humane option we have in terms of enforcement tools. The fact that you typed that out and thought "yep, this is a reasonable comparison for the death penalty thread" is absolutely hysterical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Counterpoint: police departments shouldn't get to pad their budgets with fines and the also incredibly broken practice of civil asset forfeiture. Also, you stack up enough debt, you get sent to modern day debtors prison, and guess what? They add even more debt. Also, people have been tossed in jail and left to die over literal 200 dollar parking tickets, like David Stojcevski. You're the one who made the comparison without thinking about the nitty gritty, maybe you should own that the justice system is incredibly broken, and that's the system you want in charge of executing people. Like, ok Submarine Sandpaper posted:It would kill less minorities which I think you'd be against DR but given this, I doubt that you'll own that DR
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
would you like to hear a story about Marcel Williams, the second execution on the docket tonight in Arkansas? https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856672527854260225 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856672900673413122 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856672998291640320 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856673192886272000 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856673320078635009 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856674056292233216 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856674382063828992 https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856674742027288576 Remember folks: https://twitter.com/helenprejean/status/856658585652211713
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Counterpoint: police departments shouldn't get to pad their budgets with fines and the also incredibly broken practice of civil asset forfeiture. Also, you stack up enough debt, you get sent to modern day debtors prison, and guess what? They add even more debt. David Stojcevski wasn't sent to prison to die over a parking ticket, he was sent to jail for 30 days for failure to appear over a moving violation, where he died of drug withdrawal, so GJ not even knowing the basic facts of the example you chose. It does rather neatly highlight the point I was making when I responded to you: if a poor person decides to disregard a lawful court order to appear, what should happen to them? Clearly you oppose fining them more, and you seem opposed to jailing them in lieu of a fine. Should we bring back the stocks, lashings, or public humiliation? The Justice system needs to have some power to impose penalties on those who break its rules, what should those be if not fines and imprisonment? This is all rather tangential to the original point I was making, which is the one actually relevant to the death penalty: Jerry Cotton made the incredibly stupid suggestion that only those who agreed with the death penalty should be subject to the death penalty, which is stupid because the reason people agree to be bound by laws in the first place is because the law also applies to other members of society. Do you agree with Jerry Cotton, or did you insert yourself in a totally irrelevant tangent because I used traffic tickets as an example and boy howdy do you want to talk about fines and the poor this week?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
If you think executions are good you should go into a lottery to do them yourself, with an axe. On TV. Let's bring back the headsman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
buddy here's a thought, nobody should be executed and we shouldn't send people to debtors prison also the initial fine stojcevski couldn't pay that landed him in jail was $772, but ok, im the monster i don't understand why you seem to think reform of the justice system is a dumb axe to grind, but according to above posters you also love minority death so
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
stone cold posted:buddy here's a thought, nobody should be executed and we shouldn't send people to debtors prison stone cold posted:according to above posters you also love minority death so
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So what should be done with those who break the law but lack the means to pay the fine? gee how about not tossing people who don't pay their fines in loving jail for one. checking if they have the means to pay, and if they don't they don't fuckin pay. this isn't hard, it's already being carried out some places for people who break the law by not paying their fines Dead Reckoning posted:Have you stopped beating your wife yet, stone cold? not married, not physically violent but what a stunner that you don't properly dispute your lust for blood you're a real sack of poo poo e: for those who don't want to click the link quote:On June 1, 2016, the plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement with Benton County. As part of the settlement, Benton County agreed to reforms to protect the rights of poor people charged with nonpayment of court fines and fees. Under the terms of the agreement: you can also peep what else is going on here stone cold fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Whoa you can't do that, then more people will choose to be poor so they can break the law with impunity. The punishment for being poor must be swift and brutal, to incentivize people into choosing not to be poor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Whoa you can't do that, then more people will choose to be poor so they can break the law with impunity. Oh god, you reminded me of a post I think in trump admin thread that was like, look if we only up the minwage to 15 dollars an hour, police brutality will disappear because then poor POCs will be able to afford good lawyers
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
The death penalty is good because money is a much stronger predictor of who will executed than whatever actual crime the person did. In this way our society deters poverty, a noble humanitarian goal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
stone cold posted:gee how about not tossing people who don't pay their fines in loving jail for one. checking if they have the means to pay, and if they don't they don't fuckin pay. this isn't hard, it's already being carried out some places for [url=https://www.aclu.org/cases/fuentes-v-benton-county]people who break the law by not paying their fines stone cold posted:not married, not physically violent but what a stunner that you don't properly dispute your lust for blood
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm fine with waiving court costs or not collecting a judgement from someone who lacks the ability to pay, but I don't think someone should be allowed to continue to drive recklessly because they lack the means to pay their traffic tickets, or choose to not appear in court indefinitely because they lack the means to pay their fines, which were the examples we were discussing. What do you think we should do to law breakers in those situations? You seem to be avoiding the question. i know you're not super great at reading dear but if you scroll up you'll see quote:On June 1, 2016, the plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement with Benton County. As part of the settlement, Benton County agreed to reforms to protect the rights of poor people charged with nonpayment of court fines and fees. Under the terms of the agreement: Dead Reckoning posted:I'm sad you didn't get the reference, but I don't feel the need to seriously dispute every frivolous ad hom thrown at me. aren't you the one who threatened an unarmed person with a lit flare
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
stone cold posted:i know you're not super great at reading dear but if you scroll up you'll see stone cold posted:aren't you the one who threatened an unarmed person with a lit flare
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The original article you posted was about driver's license suspensions w/r/t unpaid tickets. So should the state just skip straight to suspending licenses of poor people, while the rich can pay their way out? Same with failures to appear, should the poor just go directly to jail? if you can't read the actual things that are happening in court decisions i can't help you dear like if you move your mouse (your computer mouse, not a physical animal mouse, dear) click those links, you can see what's been happening like, hey, peep this story out of norcal, and use your brain cells real good to figure out how your questions might be relevant quote:The plaintiffs argue that though the DMV has the legal authority to suspend the licenses of people who have willfully failed to pay a traffic fine, poverty does not equate to "willfulness." Traffic courts must give people a meaningful opportunity to prove their inability to pay, and if they have not done so, it is illegal for the DMV to carry out the court's request for a license suspension. quote:Unconstitutional driver's license suspension policies have important implications for California's communities of color. A 2016 report reveals dramatic racial and socioeconomic disparities in driver's license suspensions and arrests related to unpaid traffic fines and fees. Public records from the California Department of Motor Vehicles and U.S. Census data demonstrate that in primarily Black and Latino communities, driver's license suspension rates range as high as five times the state average. i bolded this one for you sweetheart so you can read it very clear: quote:Bay Area Legal Aid
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
You still aren't answering my question. Is there a "justice in moving violations" thread we can take this to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You still aren't answering my question. Is there a "justice in moving violations" thread we can take this to? Dear, if you can't comprehend, don't take their licenses and if they can't pay they can't pay, reading threads might be a touch too difficult for you. Like, honey, I don't know how I can make this clearer to you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
I think the UK is supposed to be moving to fines being a portion of income. Applying it to the thread topic, how about execution only for the rich?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Dear, if you can't comprehend, don't take their licenses and if they can't pay they can't pay, reading threads might be a touch too difficult for you. Like, honey, I don't know how I can make this clearer to you. So I think the companion question to "don't punish people for not paying fines they allegedly can't afford" is "how do you enforce order among people you can't fine" and it's a legitimate question that the advocacy groups you're quoting don't have to address but that society does. If you're too poor to pay a speeding ticket, what prevents you from speeding whenever you want to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm fine with waiving court costs or not collecting a judgement from someone who lacks the ability to pay, but I don't think someone should be allowed to continue to drive recklessly because they lack the means to pay their traffic tickets, or choose to not appear in court indefinitely because they lack the means to pay their fines, which were the examples we were discussing. What do you think we should do to law breakers in those situations? You seem to be avoiding the question. Suspending someone's license for non-payment isn't a punishment for reckless driving; it's an inducement to pay, which isn't going to do anything except screw someone over if they can't pay in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So I think the companion question to "don't punish people for not paying fines they allegedly can't afford" is "how do you enforce order among people you can't fine" and it's a legitimate question that the advocacy groups you're quoting don't have to address but that society does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
There are a lot of people who deserve to die. I just don't trust human justice systems to get it right all the time, and to know that innocent people will inevitably be executed is far more offensive to any decent person than knowing that not all lovely people get their just deserts. Besides, the death penalty is extremely expensive to administer, and ineffective as a deterrent. Advocates of the death penalty harp on the revenge factor, but bare revenge shouldn't be a part of any penal system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Jethro posted:Not fining people who can't pay fines is not the same as letting people off scot-free. If someone can't pay, they still get a ticket, and have to take time out of their lives to demonstrate they are unable to pay. And I think most places, at least in the US, have mechanisms to suspend licenses for continued violations within a given time period. This policy isn't about never suspending anyone's license if they're poor, it's about not suspending someone's license just because they can't pay a fine and the violation would not otherwise call for a license suspension. TheImmigrant posted:There are a lot of people who deserve to die. I just don't trust human justice systems to get it right all the time, and to know that innocent people will inevitably be executed is far more offensive to any decent person than knowing that not all lovely people get their just deserts. TheImmigrant posted:Besides, the death penalty is extremely expensive to administer, and ineffective as a deterrent. Advocates of the death penalty harp on the revenge factor, but bare revenge shouldn't be a part of any penal system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I've always thought this was an odd argument, because it applies equally to any application of deadly force by the state in pursuit of its objectives. The argument only works if you don't think imposing criminal sanctions is a legitimate purpose of government. if the death penalty were literally the only penalty for crime then this might make sense but there's an entire range of punishments for crime that do not involve deadly force. what is the difference between life in prison and death that the latter is so much better than the former that we should do it, period? Why is death a punishment that fits certain crimes that life in prison does not? And does the government actually applies those two penalties based on severity of crime? I'll give you a hint to that last one, it's "gently caress no". People in favor of the death penalty should have to advocate for why putting someone to death is a punishment that would be effective in a way that life in prison is not. It's not a deterrent, it's not cheaper, so what is the point? In short: Dead Reckoning posted:It's not revenge, it's retribution, which is an entirely legitimate purpose of the justice system. If someone commits a wrong act, and offers no likelihood of rehabilitation, has no means of restitution, and for whatever reason incapacitation or deterrence are unlikely to be achieved by penalizing them, it is still entirely correct that they be punished. Punishing bad behavior is a matter of justice even if the punishment serves no ancillary purpose. I know this isn't universally agreed on though. When is this ever a thing? in what situation does someone commit a crime that putting them in prison for life is not adequate?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So I think the companion question to "don't punish people for not paying fines they allegedly can't afford" is "how do you enforce order among people you can't fine" and it's a legitimate question that the advocacy groups you're quoting don't have to address but that society does. Speeding so much will be bad for their gas milage, and since they are poor they will be unable to afford gas before long. Beyond that, some alternative punishments come to mind - for example you could punish with cumulative increases to capital gains taxes, estate taxes, or take away the speeder's eligibility to be named a CEO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
There's a proposal in my province to "enforce" the payment of tickets by not allowing someone with an outstanding ticket to register a vehicle. Although this still could result in someone who can't pay, yet needs a car, driving without registration or unable to drive, it does have the notable advantage that it doesn't actually suspend the person's license, so if they need to drive a vehicle for work they can still do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:if the death penalty were literally the only penalty for crime then this might make sense but there's an entire range of punishments for crime that do not involve deadly force. DC Murderverse posted:People in favor of the death penalty should have to advocate for why putting someone to death is a punishment that would be effective in a way that life in prison is not. It's not a deterrent, it's not cheaper, so what is the point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
What is your distinction between revenge and retribution? And, divorced from deterrence, what societal good does retribution advance? If you think retribution in itself is a valid policy goal, where and how do you draw a line between lethal injection and burning at the stake? A major difference between the death penalty and a prison sentence is that only one can be corrected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
The idea that locking someone in a cage for their rest of their life has absolutely zero restraining effect on their ability to commit future crimes is absurd. I'm not sure what utility any conclusion starting from such an absurd premise could possibly have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
quote:I've always thought this was an odd argument, because it applies equally to any application of deadly force by the state in pursuit of its objectives. The argument only works if you don't think imposing criminal sanctions is a legitimate purpose of government. That is not justice, it's revenge. TheImmigrant posted:What is your distinction between revenge and retribution? And, divorced from deterrence, what societal good does retribution advance? If you think retribution in itself is a valid policy goal, where and how do you draw a line between lethal injection and burning at the stake? In fairness there are plenty of theories that do infact argue retribution is a valid and societally useful facet of the justice system. Because humans are bastards and can't abstract emotions well, retributive justice is there so we can effectively get the emotional high of seeing someone who has done wrong by us punished. The societal benefit to the state enacting that is that people have faith that the justice system will allow them to experience this emotional high by enacting retributive punishment. The consequences of not doing this are that people might lose faith in the idea that the justice system is there to serve them, and will start enacting vigilante 'justice' to get that same emotional high. a neurotic ai fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I was answering philosophical questions, not practical ones, because that's how the argument was framed. The questions at issue were, "is it legitimate to use deadly force to achieve government ends when there is a statistical certainty that eventually an innocent person will be killed" and "is retribution a valid goal of the justice system", both of which I answer in the affirmative. Whether life in prison is an equally effective incapacitation/deterrent is irrelevant to the question of whether a death sentence is ever justified, unless you're already presupposing that A) retribution isn't a legitimate goal of the justice system, and B) the government is obliged to impose the least harmful punishment that achieves whatever it is that you deem legitimate ends. what criteria is there that the death penalty fulfills more than life in prison? And does that criteria outweigh the potential for error (not just in executing innocents, but also the bias towards executing minorities, men, and poor people)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 08:51
|
|