3 of 3
3
Death Penalty
Posted: 08 May 2013 03:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Cuthbert-How about this:
Assuming a lie detector can be created that’s 99.9% accurate (which yes might be a big assumption. but maybe not)
If a person is accused of murder (of a certain kind, like the worst kind whatever that is by law), they’re simply brought into a chamber, given a lie detector test on say 3 different occasions, say over the course of a week. During that week they are NOT incarcerated. If they pass any one of the three tests (i.e. found to be telling the truth that they didn’t murder) then and only then will a jury be brought in. If they fail all three, THEN the family members get to decide A) life imprisonment B) death penalty.  And they have # days to decide, perhaps counseled by a psychologist.

In THIS scenario, would choice B be ok?

No. No State instituted killing.  I believe a state(nation) should be able to rise above killing people for punishment. Think about it-seriously.
In otherwords, when I was a kid-and you too perhaps-sometimes my parents would catch me about to smack my little brother for breaking a toy of mine.
They wouldn’t let me smack my brother.  They might scold my brother, but they assumed the high road to prevent further violence.  That’s simplified I know.
That’s how a country should run…A State shouldn’t be in the business of killing people in cold blood.(by the way cold blood means killing someone who is defenseless or unaware)
One other thing.. my mom and dad kicked the crap out of me and my brothers. Belts, wooden spoons, boards and fists. So I don’t want you to think that I was raised with soft, touchy, “let’s talk it over” “quite time” moments.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 May 2013 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
CuthbertJ - 07 May 2013 10:06 AM

Good points Lois.  Couple things (playing devils advocate now, personally I’m not sure where I fall in this debate):
- Cold blood: Not sure the techniques used today could be considered cold blooded. If anything they’re too nice.
- Costs more: That’s seems wrong that it costs more for DP than life in prison, unless you mean under the current utterly flawed system whereby inmates might spend a decade waiting.
- General population not endangered: True IF DP inmates are not allowed to communicate with the outside world.
- Doesn’t lessen capital crime: I think it definitely would IF the system were 99.9% accurate and swift. It doesn’t phase would be killers now because of the flaws we’ve mentioned.
- Lessen comfort: That’s a good one actually.  When I say eye for an eye I mean they took a life, they lose theirs. BUT…my wife on the other hand thinks like you do, why let them off easy by killing them. The other thing I think against that notion is that it depends on the criminal. How many are truly remorseful? How many are just as happy getting 3 square meals a day, exercise, etc. i.e. prison being a good thing for them. NOW, I’ve always heard that child killers do not fare well in prison because so many inmates themselves have kids. So if that’s the case, life in prison, and the torment from other inmates that comes with it, might be a better punishment.

CuthbertJ - 07 May 2013 10:06 AM

Good points Lois.  Couple things (playing devils advocate now, personally I’m not sure where I fall in this debate):
- Cold blood: Not sure the techniques used today could be considered cold blooded. If anything they’re too nice.
- Costs more: That’s seems wrong that it costs more for DP than life in prison, unless you mean under the current utterly flawed system whereby inmates might spend a decade waiting.
- General population not endangered: True IF DP inmates are not allowed to communicate with the outside world.
- Doesn’t lessen capital crime: I think it definitely would IF the system were 99.9% accurate and swift. It doesn’t phase would be killers now because of the flaws we’ve mentioned.
- Lessen comfort: That’s a good one actually.  When I say eye for an eye I mean they took a life, they lose theirs. BUT…my wife on the other hand thinks like you do, why let them off easy by killing them. The other thing I think against that notion is that it depends on the criminal. How many are truly remorseful? How many are just as happy getting 3 square meals a day, exercise, etc. i.e. prison being a good thing for them. NOW, I’ve always heard that child killers do not fare well in prison because so many inmates themselves have kids. So if that’s the case, life in prison, and the torment from other inmates that comes with it, might be a better punishment.

—Cold-blood does not mean cruelty.  It means dispassionate. In other words there is no heat of battle or self defense involved.  Execution meets that standard even when  and especially when the techniques are “nice.” 

—It does cost more to execute people than to keep them in prison for life. 
Statistics here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

—99.9% accuracy is impossible as long as flawed humans are involved. (I’ve addressed this in another post.)

—Remorse or lack of it should have  nothing to do with the validity of punishment.  The punishment, if it’s fair, should stand on its own merits without considering something as volatile and impossible to define as remorse. 

Lois

[ Edited: 08 May 2013 03:47 PM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2013 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  816
Joined  2012-04-25
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 03:16 PM

Cuthbert-How about this:
Assuming a lie detector can be created that’s 99.9% accurate (which yes might be a big assumption. but maybe not)
If a person is accused of murder (of a certain kind, like the worst kind whatever that is by law), they’re simply brought into a chamber, given a lie detector test on say 3 different occasions, say over the course of a week. During that week they are NOT incarcerated. If they pass any one of the three tests (i.e. found to be telling the truth that they didn’t murder) then and only then will a jury be brought in. If they fail all three, THEN the family members get to decide A) life imprisonment B) death penalty.  And they have # days to decide, perhaps counseled by a psychologist.

In THIS scenario, would choice B be ok?

No. No State instituted killing.  I believe a state(nation) should be able to rise above killing people for punishment. Think about it-seriously.
In otherwords, when I was a kid-and you too perhaps-sometimes my parents would catch me about to smack my little brother for breaking a toy of mine.
They wouldn’t let me smack my brother.  They might scold my brother, but they assumed the high road to prevent further violence.  That’s simplified I know.
That’s how a country should run…A State shouldn’t be in the business of killing people in cold blood.(by the way cold blood means killing someone who is defenseless or unaware)
One other thing.. my mom and dad kicked the crap out of me and my brothers. Belts, wooden spoons, boards and fists. So I don’t want you to think that I was raised with soft, touchy, “let’s talk it over” “quite time” moments.

Ok, no state killing. Why? Why is a state allowed to punish at all? Life imprisonment is a severe punishment and evidently it’s ok for the state to do that.  I assuming too now that you don’t believe war is ever justified, WW2 for example, or rather the US’s involvement in it?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2013 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
CuthbertJ - 09 May 2013 10:24 AM
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 03:16 PM

Cuthbert-How about this:
Assuming a lie detector can be created that’s 99.9% accurate (which yes might be a big assumption. but maybe not)
If a person is accused of murder (of a certain kind, like the worst kind whatever that is by law), they’re simply brought into a chamber, given a lie detector test on say 3 different occasions, say over the course of a week. During that week they are NOT incarcerated. If they pass any one of the three tests (i.e. found to be telling the truth that they didn’t murder) then and only then will a jury be brought in. If they fail all three, THEN the family members get to decide A) life imprisonment B) death penalty.  And they have # days to decide, perhaps counseled by a psychologist.

In THIS scenario, would choice B be ok?

No. No State instituted killing.  I believe a state(nation) should be able to rise above killing people for punishment. Think about it-seriously.
In otherwords, when I was a kid-and you too perhaps-sometimes my parents would catch me about to smack my little brother for breaking a toy of mine.
They wouldn’t let me smack my brother.  They might scold my brother, but they assumed the high road to prevent further violence.  That’s simplified I know.
That’s how a country should run…A State shouldn’t be in the business of killing people in cold blood.(by the way cold blood means killing someone who is defenseless or unaware)
One other thing.. my mom and dad kicked the crap out of me and my brothers. Belts, wooden spoons, boards and fists. So I don’t want you to think that I was raised with soft, touchy, “let’s talk it over” “quite time” moments.

Ok, no state killing. Why? Why is a state allowed to punish at all? Life imprisonment is a severe punishment and evidently it’s ok for the state to do that.  I assuming too now that you don’t believe war is ever justified, WW2 for example, or rather the US’s involvement in it?

I get it Cuthbert, you’re a tough guy… A real hardliner.  Whooo! What part of my replies don’t you get?  You have re-asked the same question over and over now at least 3 times.
You like the death penalty-I don’t.  End of discussion. 
You’re also an ignorant racist. You brought race up in the other thread…that makes you a racist by default.
Despite what your 10th grade level disclaimer stated.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2013 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6195
Joined  2006-12-20
CuthbertJ - 06 May 2013 07:43 PM

I know it’s popular among liberals to be against the death penalty. I imagine a lot of folks here are against it. BUT I’d like to know WHY you are against it.

I’m against it because it’s impossible to deserve the death penalty.

It’s impossible to deserve the death penalty because we don’t have libertarian free will.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 May 2013 08:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

I’m against it because it’s impossible to deserve the death penalty.

Do not concur. But then, you can take it up with the victims of some of the more outrageous crimes.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  816
Joined  2012-04-25
VYAZMA - 09 May 2013 11:34 AM
CuthbertJ - 09 May 2013 10:24 AM
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 03:16 PM

Cuthbert-How about this:
Assuming a lie detector can be created that’s 99.9% accurate (which yes might be a big assumption. but maybe not)
If a person is accused of murder (of a certain kind, like the worst kind whatever that is by law), they’re simply brought into a chamber, given a lie detector test on say 3 different occasions, say over the course of a week. During that week they are NOT incarcerated. If they pass any one of the three tests (i.e. found to be telling the truth that they didn’t murder) then and only then will a jury be brought in. If they fail all three, THEN the family members get to decide A) life imprisonment B) death penalty.  And they have # days to decide, perhaps counseled by a psychologist.

In THIS scenario, would choice B be ok?

No. No State instituted killing.  I believe a state(nation) should be able to rise above killing people for punishment. Think about it-seriously.
In otherwords, when I was a kid-and you too perhaps-sometimes my parents would catch me about to smack my little brother for breaking a toy of mine.
They wouldn’t let me smack my brother.  They might scold my brother, but they assumed the high road to prevent further violence.  That’s simplified I know.
That’s how a country should run…A State shouldn’t be in the business of killing people in cold blood.(by the way cold blood means killing someone who is defenseless or unaware)
One other thing.. my mom and dad kicked the crap out of me and my brothers. Belts, wooden spoons, boards and fists. So I don’t want you to think that I was raised with soft, touchy, “let’s talk it over” “quite time” moments.

Ok, no state killing. Why? Why is a state allowed to punish at all? Life imprisonment is a severe punishment and evidently it’s ok for the state to do that.  I assuming too now that you don’t believe war is ever justified, WW2 for example, or rather the US’s involvement in it?

I get it Cuthbert, you’re a tough guy… A real hardliner.  Whooo! What part of my replies don’t you get?  You have re-asked the same question over and over now at least 3 times.
You like the death penalty-I don’t.  End of discussion. 
You’re also an ignorant racist. You brought race up in the other thread…that makes you a racist by default.
Despite what your 10th grade level disclaimer stated.

I’ll ignore your vile remarks about me being a racist.  As for this thread, evidently you’ve never participated in a debate before. If you make a statement, your “opponent” in the debate often asks additional questions to draw out some other logical conclusions that follow from believing the statement.  So when you basically say “the state should not be allowed to kill”, I can logically ask, then does that mean all war (i.e. state sanctioned killing of an enemy, the criminal as it were) is ok.  If you respond that No, there are cases where war is justified, then you’re being inconsistent (barring other points you might make).

You also evidently don’t get the fact that I’m posing a hypothetical…99.9% accurate lie detector, etc.  (similarly in the Unfair justice system thread).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 May 2013 01:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Cuthbert- If you make a statement, your “opponent” in the debate often asks additional questions to draw out some other logical conclusions that follow from believing the statement.  So when you basically say “the state should not be allowed to kill”, I can logically ask, then does that mean all war (i.e. state sanctioned killing of an enemy, the criminal as it were) is ok.  If you respond that No, there are cases where war is justified, then you’re being inconsistent (barring other points you might make).

What a childish train of thought.  Why do I need to debate? You’re filling in all my answers for me.  Tell me what I should say next.
This above paragraph shows that you need to debate with other types of folks. Simpler minded folk.

Cuthbert-You also evidently don’t get the fact that I’m posing a hypothetical…99.9% accurate lie detector, etc.  (similarly in the Unfair justice system thread).

Oh, shit…how did I miss that part?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3