|
Orange Devil posted:What is the value of talking about any of this stuff in these kinds of completely abstracted and unreal scenarios? 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. All this back and forth about perfect lie detectors and absolute morality belongs in a philosophy classroom or pot-haze filled dorm room, not a serious discussion about policy and its impact on human lives.
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:See above, I'm not convinced we should have the death penalty on the books, but I strongly diasagree with the idea that it is morally wrong to punish murder with execution. Well the question isn't 'is it morally correct to execute a murderer' but 'is the death penalty as practiced currently morally wrong' and if you addressed the question that would be great. Instead of coming up with insane hypotheticals about infallible lie detectors and such.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Shooting an unrepentant serial rapist with no means to make a meaningful contribution to society ever in the back of the head the morning after he's convicted on multiple samples of his DNA left in victims who all independently ID'd him is none of those things. This is, again, another highly contrived circumstance that doesn't mesh with reality. Shooting a man that claims innocence even as the tainted, overworked crime lab (which would never ever misrepresent evidence) presents DNA evidence against him, and several victims 'positively' ID him (because eyewitness accounts are always correct) who would never contribute to society (we have a magic mirror that tells us the future) gets shot in the head with no ability to appeal or present representation because he's a poor minority (obviously a rapist then, right?) and the system is perfect. Right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I'm not content that the state will execute innocents, in the pursuit of justice. ......really? The real-world, actual factual application of "its moral to give murderers the death penalty" leads directly to "the state will execute innocent people" precisely because our system is flawed and makes errors. That is the connection between those two points.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I mean... I don't think its okay to imprison innocent people either but once exonerated the falsely imprisoned can be released and compensated in some form. The consequences of a false execution are not so easily mitigated.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:
When you swap 'kill' with 'execute' the meaning of the statement changes fundamentally, so naw, your argument is invalid here. You're trying to equate the accidental, negligent, or maybe even reckless motor vehicle accident with agents of the state strapping a person down and injecting them with chemicals with the intent to kill them. These are not the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why not? There is no specific intent to kill when a government driver gets behind the wheel of a vehicle. There is a VERY specific intent to kill when a government employee executes someone.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sorry, I meant: what practical reason should anyone have for ever caring about this distinction? You're the one trying to conflate the two. Explain why they are the same?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
twodot posted:Because there exists no practical reason to care about that distinction for the purposes of being opposed to any innocents being killed as a result of government actions? Like if you say "Fuji apples and honeycrisp apples are different, and we should treat them differently" and I say "While I agree those are distinguishable types of apples, I see no reason to distinguish them for this purpose", I don't know what more you want from me. Uh, there is? If we stopped all government action that could potentially, by accident, end a life then the government could not carry out all its duties like infrastructure maintenance. We could easily stop the government from executing people and it wouldn't interfere with that. So there is a practical difference.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:So government activities that will foreseeably result in ending lives is acceptable so long as those activities accomplish some goal you approve of? I don't approve of the goal of the government being to kill its own citizens, weirdly. Also, there is a difference between 'statistically infrastructure repair/upkeep will cause the accidental deaths of 3.2 citizens' and 'today Jesse Smith will be executed by a deliberate action of the state' and that difference is specific intent. Also one has a goal that is demonstrably beneficial to society as a whole, too. twodot posted:If that's the case we're back to it not being the case that you are fundamentally opposed to the government occasionally killing innocents, just that you don't think the value of the death penalty justifies it. I recognize that the universe is full of chaos and that any action, or inaction, may lead eventually to death. I don't believe the government should active try to murder its own citizens and, when possible, minimize the risk to them when going about its goals.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:If this is your actual position why are we bothering to talk about innocents? Murder is the killing of an innocent. Now I know you're trolling.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sorry, I thought That is a first. Contrawise, just because agents of the state execute a person does not make it de facto lawful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:I thought for the purpose of this conversation we were talking about agents of the state that lawfully execute people. Do you think there's a productive conversation to be had about whether it's good for agents of the state to unlawfully kill people? Yes, I do, because they have done so in the past and continue to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Can we admit that 99% of people on death row loving DID IT? I was laughing at an earlier post that suggested we have some kind of higher standard than "beyond all reasonable doubt", like "holy poo poo, he is TOTALLY SUPER-DUPER guilty", and I don't actually see why we can't add a separate standard of guilt into our court system, where the Jury can choose the GUILTY AS gently caress option. We're trusting juries to decide guilt or innocence. Can't we trust them to decide if someone's case is "whishy-washy but we're pretty sure it's true" or "he's so obviously a creepy murderer that we are literally scared to sit here". No.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:Is there some statistic from an independent organization that can give us a fairly realistic view of the innocence/guilt of all people on death row? I would be happy to absorb it into my worldview. No.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
DoggPickle posted:SO what does that mean? There is no such independent agency? Or you think that the death penalty is inherently wrong and therefore wouldn't even share any relevant report? That there is no realistic way to measure with a great degree of accuracy due to a confluence of resources, time, and the opposition of judges, prosecutors, and police to the exoneration of a falsely convicted person. You can stop trolling now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:The last couple paragraphs also lead into another question I've had about the death penalty: Is the current cocktail of drugs really the most effective method of killing people? Why not just load them with enough Fentanyl to stop a rhino? Obviously the current cocktail (or cocktails, I guess, since there are different ones in different places) is not perfect since it can and does cause pain during the process, which is what the midazolam is supposedly used to stop. The point of the current process is to put a veneer of civility over the entire affair. Its completely for the onlooker's benefit, an attempt to make it seem sterile and modern and clinical. Its not the fastest, cheapest, or easiest method of execution. It certainly isn't merciful. It exists only to cripple empathy for the condemned and distance the experience of viewing a cold blooded homicide from an emotional impact.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 11:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:So it looks like Arkansas botched the procedure; the guy being executed was writhing and groaning during his final moments. We have tons of guns. The problem is that using a gun, or a guillotine, and so on, is that is strips away the fig leaf of a 'medical procedure' that lethal injection offers. It allows for a life to be taken with a minimum amount of introspection or direct culpability placed on a single person. The only way that the continued barbaric practice of the state executing its own citizens can be excused is by plastering over its core nature with a veneer of advanced and civilized medicine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 15:06
|
|