Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Mister Adequate posted:

And innocent people are still executed. If you can't rely on a legal system as rigorous as the one prevailing in Europe and North America, you can't have faith in the death penalty. All that work, all those appeals, and innocent people have still gone to the chair. Even if they have no other issues with it at all, anyone who is willing to countenance the possibility of innocents being executed is a maniac who should have no say in matters of justice.

I think that is a rather facile argument. If your overriding concern is that no innocent party is ever harmed, the only logical conclusion is that the state should never use deadly force, even to pursue legitimate ends. I don't think this is compatible with the concept of a sovereign state. When you start talking about policy at the macro level, you have to accept some possibility of unintentional harm.

Zedsdeadbaby posted:

What I don't understand about the death penalty is the sheer number of pro-life proponents of it, they are against abortion because all life is sacred, yet their blood-curdling screams in favor of the death penalty is mystifying and of the worst order hypocritical.

It isn't hypocritical at all. For example, a person might object to a parent locking their child in a room and only letting them out briefly a few times per day to eat, exercise, and use the restroom, while at the same time accepting the right of the state to impose such a penalty on someone duly convicted of murder. Life being sacred isn't an absolute, just a default presumption unless forfeited.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2017 22:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:49

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

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.

IIRC, that idea was floated, and European suppliers threatened to cut off supplies of certain narcotic painkillers to the U.S. if we started using them for executions, in order to prevent diversion by states. The collective freak out medical profession had over that prospect was enough to put the kibosh on the idea.

The current cocktail of drugs is the result of death penalty prohibitionists attempting to strangle supplies of execution drugs while simultaneously working to get each individual execution method a state adopts ruled inhumane.

Orange Devil posted:

How the gently caress is getting paid to kill people morally acceptable anyhow?

Yeah, how are insurance adjusters allowed to exist anyway?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2017 19:43

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

DeusExMachinima posted:

That doesn't fully explain it though when nitrogen gas chambers are possible. Is it a desire to punish the executee harder or do gas chambers conjure Nazi images or both?

Don't know. I'd guess the bad optics of gas chambers are part of it, but I'd also guess that states prefer to stick with methods that have previously survived court challenges rather than get fancy and introduce new methods that are likely to be litigated for years.

Jerry Cotton posted:

Has anyone suggested this yet:

Have everyone register as either pro- or anti-death penalty. If someone who is pro-death penalty commits a crime, execute them (you'd have to hire some other ProD to do this). Anti-death penalty people can get a jail sentence at most. This way pro-death penalty people get their way more than anti-death penalty people which is obviously not fair but a lot more fair than the current situation.

But what if a pro-D rapes and murders and anti-D, or vice versa?

# ¿ Apr 18, 2017 16:39

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

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

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

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: Sep 13, 2011

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: Sep 13, 2011

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

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

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

:lol:

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: Sep 13, 2011

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.

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.

What happens to the money after it leaves a person's bank account really isn't relevant to the question of the disparate impact of fines on poor people IMO, so your quip about police budgets is bizarre and irrelevant, except for the fact that it's one of your many axes to grind.

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

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

stone cold posted:

buddy here's a thought, nobody should be executed and we shouldn't send people to debtors prison

So what should be done with those who break the law but lack the means to pay the fine?

stone cold posted:

according to above posters you also love minority death so

Have you stopped beating your wife yet, stone cold?

# ¿ Apr 25, 2017 04:59

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

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

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.

stone cold posted:

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

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.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2017 05:59

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

stone cold posted:

i know you're not super great at reading dear but if you scroll up you'll see

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?

stone cold posted:

aren't you the one who threatened an unarmed person with a lit flare

If I am, it's news to me.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2017 06:17

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

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: Sep 13, 2011

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.

So the idea would be that people without means could simply not pay fines until they accumulated enough points to have their license suspended? I guess I don't have a huge problem with that, but given the prevalence of fines as an enforcement mechanism for things like court appearances, it seems likely the courts will simply skip to imposing jail sentences on defendants they know are likely to be unable to pay without offering the option first.

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.

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.

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.

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.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2017 22:13

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

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.

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".

When is this ever a thing? in what situation does someone commit a crime that putting them in prison for life is not adequate?

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.

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?

I don't think that effectiveness is the be-all and end-all of determining appropriate punishments, but one of several criteria.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2017 23:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:49

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

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?

A major difference between the death penalty and a prison sentence is that only one can be corrected.

Revenge is about the victim, seeking to satisfy their need to see the perpetrator suffer. Retribution is about the perpetrator suffering just consequences for a wrong act; the concept that people should be punished for doing wrong as a matter of justice stands independent of a victim or their desires.

I think retribution is primarily a moral principle. The benefit it has for society is demonstrating rejection of bad behavior, (this is different from deterrence,) but that's kind of ancillary, because I think that those who do wrong being punished is, like free speech, an inherent good irrespective of its benefit to society.

I think the "pedophile island" thought experiment someone posted earlier does a good job of illustrating the concept.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 27, 2017

# ¿ Apr 27, 2017 17:06

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Lets talk about how fucked up and shitty the Death Penalty is

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.04)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS