|
DoggPickle posted:This is basically the dumbest argument that I've ever read. When people are mean or evil to other people, when they're scary or violent. it's quite obvious, even though it may be difficult to put down in words. lol the dumbest argument when you go by the affirmation of a negative for a moral axiom. Shame your parents didn't abort, should that lead to the death penalty?
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
DoggPickle posted:This is basically the dumbest argument that I've ever read. When people are mean or evil to other people, when they're scary or violent. it's quite obvious, even though it may be difficult to put down in words. Many American Christians would see abortion doctors as horribly evil people who commit murder for a living, and that perspective is quite obvious to them. quote:But absolutely any person who hits another person is a crazy rear end in a top hat and they need some jail. Absolutely any? You support jail time for people who hit someone in self-defense?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:You can't guillotine the rich if the death penalty is banned. Checkmate, liberals. counterpoint: rich people can afford better lawyers than poor people, which means that the death penalty affects the poor at a greater rate than the rich. therefore the death penalty achieves the opposite of your goal if your goal is "kill the rich"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:But, I wouldn't believe it was morally wrong to execute people guilty of murder You seem to think it's the only acceptable punishment. Do we look any more closely than the charge and verdict?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:If I was wrongfully convicted of murder I would probably oppose the justice system's implementation of the death penalty, which I pretty much already do. It is morally wrong to have a society that executes innocent people for the crimes of others. You cannot have a perfect society that convicts people with absolute certainty. It is then always morally wrong to execute people guilty of murder, as you cannot assert with absolute certainty that they are guilty. As such, you cannot treat the issues separately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
T8R posted:It is morally wrong to have a society that executes innocent people for the crimes of others. You cannot have a perfect society that convicts people with absolute certainty. It is then always morally wrong to execute people guilty of murder, as you cannot assert with absolute certainty that they are guilty. As such, you cannot treat the issues separately. You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases. In those cases surely the guilty should be executed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, is there? So, in no cases should anybody be executed, sounds good to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
stone cold posted:There is no such thing as absolute certainty, is there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is really not persuasive to me. I don't think we should have a death penalty, but it can't be because capital-t Truth doesn't exist. Innocent people die in prison (for reasons unrelated to capital punishment), we can't ever be sure any sort of penalty won't effectively be a death sentence, and we can't be sure anyone receiving a penalty is guilty of the crime they've been convicted of. If the standard you're pushing requires absolute certainty then I don't see how society can function. I have asked many questions unanswered ITT and outlined many reasons why I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I highly recommend you read the post I responded to which stated: hakimashou posted:You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases. That is a statement of absolute certainty which renders itself both useless and specious. Hence, my response.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I have asked many questions unanswered ITT and outlined many reasons why I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I highly recommend you read the post I responded to which stated:
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:If absolute certainty did exist would that change your opinion? No, but that's because I think the death penalty fails in two key ways: one, I think the state should not have the right to execute-and that's a personal moral thing-and, two, capital punishment served absolutely no efficacious purpose in the criminal justice system. It has been repeatedly proven that it serves, if anything, as the opposite of a deterrence to murder. Moreover, achieving absolute certainty would require such a huge change to the fundamental ways in which we investigate and prosecute crimes in this country, such that I feel like commenting on such a hypothetical, nonexistent criminal justice system serves no purpose when discussing the reality of how the death penalty is carried out today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Then why the gently caress are you bothering to argue about absolute certainty in the death penalty thread if you can win the argument even in the presence of absolute certainty?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:Then why the tuck are you bothering to argue about absolute certainty in the death penalty thread if you can win the argument even in the presence of absolute certainty? If you would again read the original post to which I was responding: hakimashou posted:You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases. This is how it came up. I'm not sure you saw it in the previous post? But that's what I had responded to. This is the context in which absolute certainty had come up? Did you miss that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
stone cold posted:If you would again read the original post to which I was responding: Edit: Like I understand how you came up with it, I'm asking why you posted it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is this post literally just acknowledging you're attempting to score points on technical details rather than present a unified framework that could convince people who disagree with you? This is a post acknowledging that on forums we typically respond to other posts and do not post in a vacuum? I don't get what your problem is, but all I did was respond to hakimashou pointing out how stupid the idea of absolute certainty of guilt is, and I feel like you're misreading the exchange entirely. I don't quite think you understand what happened but hakimashou posted: hakimashou posted:You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases. To which I responded: stone cold posted:There is no such thing as absolute certainty, is there? I hope this matter is clarified, as I think your missing of the point must be rather tedious for others to read! On the other hand, I certainly hope that any ambiguities were cleared up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
stone cold posted:This is a post acknowledging that on forums we typically respond to other posts and do not post in a vacuum? I don't get what your problem is, but all I did was respond to hakimashou pointing out how stupid the idea of absolute certainty of guilt is, and I feel like you're misreading the exchange entirely. I don't quite think you understand what happened but hakimashou posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:I suppose my problem is that you didn't point out how the stupid the idea of absolute certainty of guilt is. They asserted it existed, you asserted it doesn't, neither of you bothered to define their terms or make an effort to show they were right or the other person was wrong. If you're attempting to convince people that think absolute certainty does, sometimes, exist, you are doing a complete poo poo job at it. In this particular case, it turns out you're right, but I have no clue why you would think someone who disagreed with you could read your post and be convinced you're right. In my derision, I'm fairly certain my dismissal of absolute guilt as a notion was dismissing it as stupid. Hope this helps, and hope you had the matter clarified via the context clues! e: Also, I should certainly hope based on the op of this thread that terms like guilt and death penalty were clearly defined in the context of this thread, or is reading ops not a thing now? 
stone cold fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
stone cold posted:In my derision, I'm fairly certain my dismissal of absolute guilt as a notion was dismissing it as stupid. Hope this helps, and hope you had the matter clarified via the context clues! You have to use ridiculous hyperbole and sick burns, otherwise how will we know what your position is?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:I suppose my problem is that you didn't point out how the stupid the idea of absolute certainty of guilt is. They asserted it existed, you asserted it doesn't, neither of you bothered to define their terms or make an effort to show they were right or the other person was wrong. If you're attempting to convince people that think absolute certainty does, sometimes, exist, you are doing a complete poo poo job at it. In this particular case, it turns out you're right, but I have no clue why you would think someone who disagreed with you could read your post and be convinced you're right. Why do lawyers always post like this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:You have to use ridiculous hyperbole and sick burns, otherwise how will we know what your position is? Oh no! Absolute certainty is as rank as Hitler and the posting was bad? did i do it right?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases. We must accept that the justice system will always be imperfect. As such there is no physical way to apply a law that will with 100% accuracy convict only guilty persons. Absolute certainty must be attained with every judgement for executions, which by the nature of reality will not always be correct. Therefore innocents will be convicted and executed for the crimes of others. The death penalty remains morally incorrect. Certainly the needs of society requires a system that can lawfully judge criminals for crimes. Judgements which due to the nature of our reality will always be flawed. Society must weigh the moral ramifications of innocent people being convicted versus the needs of a safe and lawful society. This is why we have the appeals system, which allows innocent people who are wrongfully convicted to attempt to prove their innocence. Innocent people who have been executed cannot appeal, this is also morally wrong. Finally, society does not need to execute criminals, the need for justice can be achieved with other sentences. Sentences which do not violate morality in such a perverse way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
For those who haven't already, I'd recommend you all to read Ultimate Punishment by Scott Turow. It's a great account from a lawyer about his time on a commission that investigated the death penalty in Illinois in the early 2000s and has a very clear-eyed view of all of the pro- and anti-death penalty arguments. (I'll give you a hint of how he feels: after reading the commission's report, the governor of Illinois commuted the death sentences of everyone on death row in Illinois to life in prison and put a moratorium on further death sentences.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Not bad guys, people guilty of murder.  hakimashou posted:You can't be absolutely certain in every case that perpetrator is guilty, but you can in some cases. 1) no you can't 2) lol at basing a sentence on how sure you are they're guilty. A conviction must be safe or not safe. Giving the death sentence on the grounds you're real sure the'yre guilty is exactly as stupid as giving someone 6 months for murder if the case was really weak. In practice if this happened then of course every murder case would end with the death penalty because to do otherwise would be to tacitly admit the conviction was unsafe
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Dude's not very good at the devil's advocate thing; good use of brevity though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
stone cold posted:There is no such thing as absolute certainty, is there? This, of course, is not how the article started out. It started out, "so-and-so, an innocent man on death row." This sort of thing is drat tiresome to see again and again from the leftist anti-DP set. A guy goes rampaging, gets convicted on evidence six ways from Sunday, and the National Lawyers Guild will still say the bastard's pure as the driven snow. And all of you all who are anti-DP because "killing is always wrong," just wait'll you hear what libertarians have to say about taxes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:Many years ago I came across an article in a leftist publication about a death row prisoner whose case had failed appeal. After reading the article, I looked up his appeals ruling. The summary of the prior case history was as follows: This guy escaped from prison and holed up in a house next to a family. The next day the whole family had been killed (with an axe, I think) and there were biological traces of the fugitive all over the crime scene. There was more evidence besides that, but that's what I remember. I'd actually be more interested in reading the article than your take on the case, to be quite honest, because I think you come in with a rather huge bias. Ah yes, the opposition to state sanctioned murder is exactly the same as the libertarian lust to destroy the government and dodge tax. You're quite clever, aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
We should really just be hanging people again. With the advent of calculators and synthetic ropes the chances of a clean, humane neck snap are higher than ever now and it wont be overseen by some rural county sherriff. Much cheaper and simpler than the hosed up drug cocktail or gas chamber, less gory and painful than shooting or guillotine.
MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Having no death penalty is just as unfeasible as having no taxes. I mean can you name a country with no death penalty? Didn't think so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Having no death penalty is just as unfeasible as having no taxes. I mean can you name a country with no death penalty? Didn't think so. We just do it without the messy business of a trial down here. And gut services to Aboriginal communities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
I just feel that execution just lionizes the use of murder to obtain justice, placing the idea in peoples minds that those whom are evil should be slain. This leads to murders by people who mistakenly believe themselves judge, jury, and executioner. We basically support the idea of murder as just when we murder people who are helpless to stop us from killing them if we decide to. It isn't the same as war, since war is either a matter of self-defense, and so is just, or is not, and so is likely not just (unless there is a persuasive reason maybe? I might tighten this up). As it is, killing someone is of no use, at least when it doesn't somehow magically bring back those they slew. Revenge is no true comfort to a grieving family, it doesn't bring back those they lost. thechosenone fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I just feel that execution just lionizes the use of murder to obtain justice, placing the idea in peoples minds that those whom are evil should be slain. This leads to murders by people who mistakenly believe themselves judge, jury, and executioner. We basically support the idea of murder as just when we murder people who are helpless to stop us from killing them if we decide to. It isn't the same as war, since war is either a matter of self-defense, and so is just, or is not, and so is likely not just (unless there is a persuasive reason maybe? I might tighten this up). If you agree with Kant, this is no objection at all. If people have to be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to another end - like comforting a grieving family, or bringing back the dead, or any other "use" at all - then we shouldn't even consider any of these things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You seem to think it's the only acceptable punishment. Do we look any more closely than the charge and verdict? Good morning. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:
I disagree. It's easy to think of examples where evidence would demonstrate guilt. We already base the severity of sentencing in some cases on how sure we are the perpetrator is guilty. If we know somone killed someone else but can't be sure of their mental state, for example whether the crime was premeditated, we sometimes convict them of murder in a less harshly punished degree. There are also cases where somone possesses some proscribed items, but their punishment hinges on how sure we can be that they intended to distribute them. Another example is hate crimes. It also seems to me that if we accept the idea we can never truly prove anyone guilty of any crime, then we ought never to impose harsh punishments for anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Really, when you think about it, the death penalty is just a secular form of human sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
T8R posted:It is morally wrong to have a society that executes innocent people for the crimes of others. You cannot have a perfect society that convicts people with absolute certainty. It is then always morally wrong to execute people guilty of murder, as you cannot assert with absolute certainty that they are guilty. As such, you cannot treat the issues separately. It's bad to have a society that punishes innocent people in any way for the crimes of others. I think we might be better off abolishing the death penalty in the US because I'm not convinced it is fairly and humanely applied. However, I don't believe it is morally wrong to execute people who are guilty of murder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You seem to think it's the only acceptable punishment. Do we look any more closely than the charge and verdict? It's the punishment that best fits the crime. It fits it perfectly. "Guilty" is a pregnant term though. It's entirely possible that one person can cause another person to die and not be guilty of murder or fully morally culpable. Which is one objection to capital punishment as applied in the US. But not an objection to the morality of executing a truly guilty murderer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
We in frozen Scandinavia land just tie people to trees until they die. Very cheap!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:We in frozen Scandinavia land just tie people to trees until they die. Very cheap! I thought you Viking types nailed their guts to a tree and made them walk around it until they disemboweled themselves. Don't tell me it's another myth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I disagree. It's easy to think of examples where evidence would demonstrate guilt. You convict someone with a shitload of drugs because it's beyond reasonable doubt that it's for more than personal use. They don't have more evidence of the crime of drug possession, they have sufficient evidence of a different crime -intent to supply. It's not about proving absolute guilt, just proving it beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:58 |
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:You convict someone with a shitload of drugs because it's beyond reasonable doubt that it's for more than personal use. They don't have more evidence of the crime of drug possession, they have sufficient evidence of a different crime -intent to supply. But what if they just really really like getting high and wanted to buy in bulk? You can't read someone's mind, and can't trust what they say. There are provisions in the law where guilt is presumed based on some threshold of evidence, like X amount of drugs, but a jury can still refuse to convict if they aren't sufficiently convinced. Different degrees of murder are better examples anyway. John hits George with his car and kills him. Does John get life without parole? The death penalty? 25 years? 10? Is he not punished at all? Does he just have to give George's family money? It all depends on how sure we are of his guilt, even if we know for sure that it happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:07
|
|