|
falcon2424 posted:Not really. I think we all oppose illegitimate courts and corrupt practices. The case you linked is horrifying. A court can come to the wrong outcome, though, even if all the participants are acting in good faith. Shouldn't society at least allow for that possibility? You probably can never fully compensate someone for years spent in confinement but you can't compensate them at all if you've executed them.
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because there's no conceivable benefit that would justify doing something like that even to a bad person. E: killing a murderer has at least one benefit, you can be 100% sure he'll never reoffend. Raping a rapist doesn't even guarantee that. Obvious conclusion: rape then execute rapists for 0% recidivism. But if the rapists' victims are still alive they must be executed to balance the moral scales.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay but the death penalty doesn't have any greater deterrent effect on capital crimes than life in prison does, we know that empirically. It does cut recidivism by 100% percent, though! edit: Life without parole is just a really, really drawn out execution if you think about it. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Murderers are angels of mercy QED Abolish life. It's the only moral choice, when you think about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Specifically, you're acting as though your moral opinions are objectively correct. That's a lot more horrifying to anyone who doesn't hold them. "Justice" as a concept doesn't make any sense without a moral code that describes what is just. Choosing to execute murderers vs jailing them vs fining them vs counseling them vs I don't know...forcing them to pay weregild... all involve moral judgements about the value of life, the moral status of murder, accountability, etc. You can't really have a justice system that escapes from morality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I notice you have no data on the other one hundred plus countries for public opinion on the death penalty, but I'm glad you assume that the UK speaks for most of the world, that's fantastic and not a stellar example of intellectual disingenuousness and cowardice. The courts haven't held the 8th ammendment to prohibit capital punishment. stone cold posted:Idiot. Don't sign your posts. edit: And I mean...you would think that if the argument held water there would have been a successful equal protection clause challenge to the death penalty at some point. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
stone cold posted:lol guess we're pretending that even though furman v georgia was overturned it didn't happen it's not like gregg v georgia put strict limits or anything you moron Right...executions in the US are being carried out following guidelines consistent with the 8th. You moron.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
stone cold posted:.....did I stutter, or did you just repeat what I said? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States quote:In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the impositions of the death penalty in each of the consolidated cases as unconstitutional in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has never ruled the death penalty to be per se unconstitutional. The five justices in the majority did not produce a common opinion or rationale for their decision, however, and agreed only on a short statement announcing the result. Hmm. edit: I guess to be clear... the death penalty is being applied consistent with the 8th ammendment. Therefore, what the gently caress is your point in bringing up the 8th ammendment?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Thanks for the Wikipedia link my dog, now do yourself a favor and look up Furman v. Georgia, which I've brought up three times now. I've looked up Furman v. George but again, what is your point other than being outraged and tedious?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:There's one line of thought that says life imprisonment is disproportionately cruel for murder. The murderer didnt imprison the victim for decades, he just killed him, so it would be unjust to imprison him for such a long period instead of imposing the death penalty. Eh... I kind of think that if you ask most people if they'd rather live, they'd rather live. At least if you're serving life there's the possibility your sentence can be commuted, or that the law might change, or etc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It's still basically slavery, particularly if it is for life. Kant was probably never faced with the choice between life in prison and execution, though. Pure reason can lead you to some strange destinations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I'm not sure she said it was "good," just better than permanent dehumanizing slavery in prison. Lots of things can happen during a life sentence. Your sentence could be commuted. You could get pardoned. The law could change. You could find meaning participating in the prison community and come to value your time whether you're released or not. You could find the love of your prison life. Prison conditions could improve. If you're dead, though, that's it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:What I'm saying is anyone who has ever served on a US jury and known even the slightest bit about what US prison is actually like but returned a guilty verdict anyway is immoral. I don't care what the crime was or how guilty the defendant was. Well that's sure an opinion, I guess. In Chilean prison you have to hope your family buys toilet paper for you. No, I'm not making that up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:No, because no one ever deserves anything. But then no one deserves not to be executed, either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I'd say he does deserve to be punished because he did something wrong. I don't think it would be wrong to give him the death penalty for it. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:The obvious answer is that the death penalty needs to be eliminated immediately as step one of a complete overhaul of our prison systems and enhancement of our justice system. But that doesn't seem obvious at all. It's the very thing we're all arguing about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I'm not content that the state will execute innocents, in the pursuit of justice. FWIW I agree with you. I don't favor the death penalty, but not because it's morally wrong to execute people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:......really? I mean... The state also imprisons innocent people sometimes, because the system is flawed and makes errors. I don't think anyone thinks it's OK that innocent people get imprisoned, but neither would anyone think we shouldn't imprison anyone because of it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:well the most humane is full communism now but baby steps means that maybe the person we kill have one brief moment of solace before their death TBH I don't think full communism has ever lead to fewer people being executed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right? Why are we paying for it at all? If you leave someone in a cell without food or water long enough they execute themselves and you don't have to pay anyone to do it. #
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
PT6A posted: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. They do a similar thing here in Chile. They won't go after you for minor fines but you have to pay them before you can register or sell the vehicle (tickets follow the vehicle rather than the person). They suspend your license for a period for almost any traffic infraction, though, in addition to fining you. 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. Man this might sound horrible but that seems like an expensive proposition for the taxpayers for little gain. How much should the state spend to separate those who can't pay from those who merely don't want to?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 12:55
|
|