|
hakimashou posted:But what if they just really really like getting high and wanted to buy in bulk? If it's beyond reasonable doubt he was to blame, it's manslaughter. If it's also beyond reasonable doubt it was a deliberate killing, it's murder. Those are different crimes. Other factors that can affect the sentence length are motive (eg hate crime) and prior convictions, but that's not extra evidence of guilt of either of those crimes, that's evidence they represent a clear danger and/or are more likely to re-offend. Degrees of murder don't exist in my country so I can't comment much on that distinction.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Hakimashou is deliberately mixing up the concept of responsibility and the concept of forethought and intent, calling them all "guilt" in order to play rhetorical tricks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Again, a lot of people are arguing theory in here. In cases of absolute certainty, if guilt can ever be absolute, etc. It doesn't matter. It really doesn't. We know, in reality, that even physical evidence can be misleading, false, or fabricated. That's a known fact. Eye witness testimony is actually even less accurate. Imprisoning people is imperfect, but it's not as imperfect as the death penalty. The death penalty as implemented in the United States in 2017 is a bad tool and doesn't do the job it's advertised to do. If nothing else it should be stopped until the entire justice system is overhauled based on evidence of what actually works to deter crime and foster a more peaceful society. Then we can come back to the discussion of whether or not we ought to kill certain people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Hakimashou is deliberately mixing up the concept of responsibility and the concept of forethought and intent, calling them all "guilt" in order to play rhetorical tricks. No, I think he's one of those people who thinks that words mean exactly what he wants them to mean and we should all just get on his wavelength. I'm trying really hard to avoid using the word 'schizophrenia' here. I really am.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:(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.) But George Ryan was (indirectly) responsible for the deaths of six children so of course he had no trouble codling murderers 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
It sickens me when I know that a murderer gets to live despite having committed a terrible crime. It is a totally unfair, totally infuriating, totally heart-breaking situation. It's because of that empathy and sympathy towards the victim, that I never want anyone to have to go through what they did. Not even the murderer. There are many, many people who should never have been born, but unfortunately they were. They were born with bad genetics, or into a bad environment, or into bad morals, or into a bad religion, or a bad cult. I can't see how killing them rather than rehabilitating / imprisoning them offers even one, single advantage over the latter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Starshark posted:No, I think he's one of those people who thinks that words mean exactly what he wants them to mean and we should all just get on his wavelength. I'm trying really hard to avoid using the word 'schizophrenia' here. I really am. I think we can agree that for the question of whether or not it is moral to execute people who are guilty of murder, we can use "guilty" to mean something along the lines of "fully culpable, responsible, and deserving of punishment." There are plenty of examples you can think of that fit the bill. A criminal kills a witness so he cannot testify. Somone kills someone else to gain payment of life insurance. Someone's family member is killed to force them to divulge a secret. A victim of a kidnapping is killed when no ransom is paid. A person is killed to terrorize other people of the same skin color, religion, or sexual orientation. In these examples, the perpetrator is surely fully responsible and morally culpable for the crime. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
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.  What's wrong with you, you dumbass? quote:140 countries worldwide, more than two-thirds, are abolitionist in law or practice. If you don't know loving any facts, you should get the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure bitterandtwisted was mocking the analogy to taxes and not literally asserting the universality of capital punishment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
fuckin 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
e: I made a real bad oopsie, gazpacho bad, bitterandtwisted ok
stone cold fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Are you drunk or just daft? I was mocking that post you just quoted. My own country has no death penalty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Are you drunk or just daft? Oh dang bitterandtwisted, I am just "daft," it would seem, because I genuinely mixed you up with this gazpacho idiot. Haha, that's my bad, and sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
No worries 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
I feel that Ian Hislop sums up my view pretty well: https://youtu.be/_DrsVhzbLzU For you to use the death penalty, you must have perfect proof. You can't get perfect proof therefore you cannot use the death penalty because you will inevitably kill innocent people which is itself murder. I'm not particularly worried about the morality or hypotheticals at the moment because we don't live in a hypothetical world, so until you can get Ultra Proof it's just so much window dressing. (Keep in mind, too, that even if you point out cases where people where totally guilty, massive miscarriages of justice are totally a thing).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Mr Toes posted:I feel that Ian Hislop sums up my view pretty well:
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why the double standard? There's a bunch of activities the government does which definitely kill innocent people sometimes. I've never heard anyone argue that the government either needs to acquire perfect knowledge, or Ultra Proof, whatever we call it, that what it's doing won't kill an innocent or not perform the activity for anything else. There's trade offs certainly. The fact that the police occasionally murder innocent people doesn't mean we should throw out the concept of patrols. And very arguably the innocent person murder rate of the death penalty is high enough to not justify whatever benefit people think it has (very arguably it actually has no benefit, but if you thought that you wouldn't need to argue about standards of proof). But I don't see why the government needs to meet an impossible standard in whether an innocent person dies as a result of the death penalty versus any other activity that can foreseeably kill innocent people. That's an interesting point. I think the difference lies (at least to me) is that in the instance you've cited (police patrols) you might argue that the police have little time to act and so mistakes (or otherwise) are made - this may also be considered the case with drone strikes, although I think those are wrong as well. Here in the UK the occasional murder of innocents by police is at least a reasonably big deal (see the fact that the Charles de Menenzes scandal is still dogging the new Met commissioner), and I think that mitigation is achieved by reducing the number of police with guns to a specialist unit rather than everyone with a badge. That was a bit rambly, but the tl;dr is that the difference between those cases and someone in court is that people are (supposedly) having to act immediately to prevent further harm -stopping a gunman / terrorist / what have you. Once someone is caught and in prison, that immediate threat is gone, so why kill them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:
Do you recognize the impossibility of having a society that can execute people morally?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
T8R posted:Do you recognize the impossibility of having a society that can execute people morally? No not at all. It might be difficult, but there's no reason to believe it's impossible if we put our minds to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
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. The problem is the justice system isn't, and never will be, perfect. You can't reliably just look at criminals and go "oh it's just obvious he/she committed the crime" or "oh, they're obviously a terrible crazy person!" As long as you allow the death penalty, innocent people will be put to death. There is no avoiding this, and talking about some hypothetical situation where everyone put to death was actually guilty is pointless. So the death penalty ultimately comes down to whether you value the "justice" of putting a terrible criminal to death (versus giving them life in prison) over the lives of a non-zero number of innocent people. And I can pretty confidently say that anyone who thinks innocent lives are an acceptable price to pay for a justice that is proven to not even reduce crime rates has some pretty hosed up values. I think most pro-death penalty people just aren't bright enough to think things through and realize that it's not as simple as "well we should really kill the super bad people, right??" Because, in practice, as long as the death penalty is on the books it WILL end up being used against the innocent. The only potential exception to this is limiting the death penalty to literal war criminals or something. edit: Also, if you want to punish people based off of the harm they cause others, people who perpetrate large-scale white collar crime/corruption probably cause more net harm than murderers. Someone who runs a business/scam that helps driving thousands of people into poverty has undoubtedly caused more suffering than a murderer. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The problem is the justice system isn't, and never will be, perfect. You can't reliably just look at criminals and go "oh it's just obvious he/she committed the crime" or "oh, they're obviously a terrible crazy person!" As long as you allow the death penalty, innocent people will be put to death. There is no avoiding this, and talking about some hypothetical situation where everyone put to death was actually guilty is pointless. Sometimes prison sentences are also death sentences. There is some irreducible minimum of innocent people who will be punished through error or contrivance. It's the inescapable cost of doing business if you're going to punish people for their crimes. Which said, there are plenty of easy to imagine cases where evidence would clearly and unequivocally demonstrate guilt. It might be difficult to devise a justice system where the death penalty was only imposed in these cases, but there's no reason to believe it would be impossible. None of it matters to the question of whether or not executing people who are guilty of murder is immoral though. "We should abolish the death penalty because of the risk we might execute someone innocent" is a perfectly valid position to hold, but I don't think "we should abolish the death penalty because it is morally wrong to execute a murderer" is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:No not at all. You must have completely missed half the things I've posted then. Furthermore, point to one legal system in all of history that even comes close to having the judicial perfection close enough to not execute innocent people. There are none. T8R fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
T8R posted:You must have completely missed half the things I've posted then. I don't agree with them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I don't agree with them. Well then, maybe you should share your disagreements?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
T8R posted:Well then, maybe you should share your disagreements? There are plenty of easy to imagine cases where evidence would clearly and unequivocally demonstrate guilt. It might be difficult to devise a justice system where the death penalty was only imposed in these cases, but there's no reason to believe it would be impossible. 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.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Consider: Closed circuit television recordings show John enter George's office building. They show him get into an elevator and go up to the floor where George's office is. Recordings which show his face show him walk into George's office and confront him, then shoot him to death. George is seen to say "John! No! Please don't kill me! I have a family!" Recordings show John leave and get into his car, traffic cameras show his car drive to an alley, and surveillance footage shows him put a bundle into a dumpster. The bundle is later found to contain clothing with George's blood on it, and the gun used to shoot George, which records indicate John purchased a couple days before. His fingerprints are on the gun and on the rounds and shell casings inside. There is no evidence that the surveillance footage from any of the unconnected sources has been tampered with. John's wife tells investigators that she had an affair with George and that John swore he would hunt George down and kill him in retribution. When confronted with the evidence, John admits shooting George. Are we sure enough that John is guilty of murder that we can punish him for his crime? hakimashou fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:There are plenty of easy to imagine cases where evidence would clearly and unequivocally demonstrate guilt. There are also plenty of easy to imagine and quite a few real cases where supposedly clear and unequivocal guilt has been later proven incorrect. People can be framed, law enforcement can plant evidence, judges and juries can make mistakes, appeals can be denied wrongfully. These things are impossible to eliminate in society. The fallibility of society is what makes it impossible to separate the morality of executions with the risk of innocent death.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
T8R posted:There are also plenty of easy to imagine and quite a few real cases where supposedly clear and unequivocal guilt has been later proven incorrect. People can be framed, law enforcement can plant evidence, judges and juries can make mistakes, appeals can be denied wrongfully. These things are impossible to eliminate in society. I didn't say it would be easy, I said I didn't think it would be impossible, if we put our minds to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Consider: It wasn't John, it was an impostor who looked like him. John's wife is lying. The blood was planted on the bundle. The impostor purchased or stole the gun. John was coerced by the police; alternatively John is being blackmailed into lying about his guilt. Perhaps someone has threatened to kill his friends or family. There is no DNA evidence belonging to John in your statement. It doesn't even need to be this case specifically. Another case with these similar specifications could be flawed as well. Just because one case may be "a perfect storm" does not mean others will be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
T8R posted:It wasn't John, it was an impostor who looked like him. John's wife is lying. The blood was planted on the bundle. The impostor purchased or stole the gun. John was coerced by the police; alternatively John is being blackmailed into lying about his guilt. Perhaps someone has threatened to kill his friends or family. There is no DNA evidence belonging to John in your statement. Maybe aliens were controlling his mind? Consider that the deficiencies in evidence you bring up are satisfied. An even more "perfect storm" than the one I described. At what point do we reach the wall where reasonable doubt, or even plausible doubt, crosses over into "there is no such thing as proof or truth?" You can't have a justice system where "nobody can really know anything" is a compelling defense in the face of extremely good evidence. It would be wrong to punish anyone for anything, since no guilt could ever be established under any circumstances. It's absurd. It also undermines any utilitarian penal system. If we can never under any circumstances be made to believe a perpetrator actually committed a crime, but instead see all crimes as fundamentally unsolvable mysteries, we can't incarcerate him to protect others or to deter crime. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
stone cold posted:e: I made a real bad oopsie, gazpacho bad, bitterandtwisted ok I didn't find that article. Best I remember, I found it by way of one of the more prominent Leninst groups.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:You can't have a justice system where "nobody can really know anything" is a compelling defense in the face of extremely good evidence. It would be wrong to punish anyone for anything, since no guilt could ever be established under any circumstances. It's absurd. Which is why our system tries to convict people beyond all reasonable doubt and yet it still fails. Let's not compound that failure by killing people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Consider: First off, who's verified that the footage is untampered with, besides law enforcement? Secondly, since this was a crime of passion, has John showed any remorse? Thirdly, do closet circuit surveillance cameras have sound now, that's kind of neat if so. Punish him for the crime if he's shown remorse and this was a crime of passion with 40 to life with possibility of parole, imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:Actually I'm kinda good. The US penal system, OTOH, is so screwed up that I'm not sure capital punishment is even the worst thing about it. If it's wrong, it is a final wrong and not a grinding one. I'm not entirely convinced it is better for an innocent person to be condemned to life imprisonment in some hell than to be put out of his misery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I'm not entirely convinced it is better for an innocent person to be condemned to life imprisonment in some hell than to be put out of his misery. Then why do you lust for murderer blood so much? Like, let's lay our cards on the table, the pro-death penalty side is doing it for bloodlust/vengeance reasons, right? It's proven to not be a deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Which is why our system tries to convict people beyond all reasonable doubt and yet it still fails. Let's not compound that failure by killing people. We should probably end capital punishment in the US. But, I don't think it's wrong for people guilty of murder to get the death penalty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:Actually I'm kinda good. The US penal system, OTOH, is so screwed up that I'm not sure capital punishment is even the worst thing about it. If it's wrong, it is a final wrong and not a grinding one. Absolutely, I mean this is a system built entirely on the back of slavery, just as modern law enforcement is. But this is the capital punishment thread so  S'ok, I'm sure it'll turn up one way or another 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Then why do you lust for murderer blood so much? I don't at all, I just don't think it's wrong to execute murderers. If we have to treat people as ends in themselves, not as means to some other end, then we can't justify the death penalty as a deterrent, only as a just punishment. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I'm not entirely convinced it is better for an innocent person to be condemned to life imprisonment in some hell than to be put out of his misery. Perhaps we can eliminate the death penalty and also reform the criminal justice system, food for thought. We can solve more than one problem at once. And putting an innocent person "out of their misery," is absolutely repugnant as a concept, and you should feel some real shame for using that as a warped justification to take your twisted moral high ground.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
I dunno, 10 years for first offense crime of passion homocide seems to be working ok for sweden or whoever
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 02:37
|
|
