FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Capital Punishment (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Capital Punishment
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:


Why it's bad:
quote:
...in terms of general morality as well as achievability and feasibility...
That's it.
quote:
You are talking about a plan that literally would not even find usage in the most despotic, evil regimes on earth. When your plan, sufficiently detailed, would make the DPRK or the Myanmar Republic or even Zimbabwe go "Wow, that's one screwed up place" it is time to step back and rethink one's conceptualization of appropriate systems of justice.
If you want to take my observations and strawman them into me just 'sitting at the side line and poking fun' and 'being an intellectual bully,' I think the answer to my previous question (to quote: "to you, is stating straightforwardly that your idea can not work and that you don't seem to recognize for what reasons this is so necessarily 'mean?'") is apparently yes. I'm intellectually bullying you as much as I was saying you were a closed-minded bloody-handed lunk.

I respect that you are sincerely attempting to discuss your idea. One of the ways I'm going to do that is by not handling it gingerly with kid gloves. It's a horrible idea, you need to understand that, and this needs to be stated outright. There are many, many compelling and details already present in this thread. If you have questions about why I personally agree with most everything that has already been stated, you can ask rather than simply ascribing the motivation of meanness to myself, Rakeesh, and others.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
*sigh* The quote you have supplied is from after the discussion took place, and again, doesn't really supply much of, if any of the "why" you are claiming to have injected into the disscusion.

Your quote says, Wow, even monsters would think you're a monster, try again.

If you are comfortable with how you handled yourself at the end of the day, then fine, go with god. I think you acted poorly. I don't really care. I made my points, in this particualar issue (Samp is a meany) and am utterly willing to let it die.

If you want to "help" someone in the future, perhaps you might try to use less mockery, less "you are wrong, horribly horribly wrong" arugument, and more explanation. At least that was what actually helped me to understand the issues here, when the others did it that way.

As to me calling everyone mean in this thread, it's simply not true, read the topic over. I called you mean. And I still think it's true.

quote:
I respect that you are sincerely attempting to discuss your idea.
Thanks.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
To be fair, I believe you that your intention was not to be mean to me. And further I don't know you well enough by a long shot to think that you are mean. I do think your comments were mean.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, well-bear that in mind next time someone says a given idea sounds sexist or sounds vengeful, hmmm?

Look, Stone Wolf, what it comes down to, partly, is this: a bunch of the ideas you expressed were pretty bad, even *really* bad. You may or may not agree, but, well, hey, we're not going to get anywhere with that discussion.

But one of the first things you did was to reject the possibility of including actual evidence as to impacts of capital punishment. Even though the use of statistics to see how laws impact people is a pretty standard way of discussing politics...and even though most of the evidence seems to point against the ideas you were suggesting.

Then you started dropping other points ofthe discussion too, more than once after some pretty important issues were brought up-and that's the second controversial topic you've had this sort of pattern in recently, where gut feelings ought to be credited, and evidence is initially rejected or dismissed.

In fairness, you did pretty quickly realize, "OK, that doesn't fly," but it took in both cases like a half dozen people pointing out some of the same objections. People are going to get frustrated if you approach a discussion from the angle of, "This just makes sense, it's a given." Well, the people who don't already agree at least

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Your quote says, Wow, even monsters would think you're a monster, try again.

quote:
As to me calling everyone mean in this thread, it's simply not true, read the topic over.
Why do I have to defend myself from statements I never made?

quote:
And further I don't know you well enough by a long shot to think that you are mean.
Do you understand me well enough, in comparison to Rakeesh, to know that I'm mean?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Seriously, I don't care. You are Rakeesh are peaches, chock full of love and kittens and rainbows. Or not, whatever you want.

Moving on, shall we?

[ April 15, 2011, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Just an FYI: it's "chock-full," not "chalked full."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks Tom, I will edit it right now.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Moving on, shall we?
Alright. How much courtesy and niceness do you think someone is entitled to in a given conversation, if they approach it in good faith but don't participate in, well, a way where ideas can be compared to each other and challenged and rebutted?

In other words, how much does good faith alone in a conversation get someone, after the initial exchange when challenges to an idea are made?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
...how much does good faith alone in a conversation get someone, after the initial exchange when challenges to an idea are made?
Part of what is so frustrating to me is that I produced statistics in support of deterrence, discussed why I felt your specific stats were inconclusive, and further went on to explain why I felt existing stats were not reliant (should read "relevant") to a completely different set up, siting a legitimate mathematical concept to help explain why.

And what I get is..." one of the first things you did was to reject the possibility of including actual evidence"

You dismissed my statistics offhandedly, and went on to complain about how I "started dropping other points ofthe discussion too, more than once after some pretty important issues were brought up" which first off, I'd like to see them, but second, I invited you to ask me to address anything you thought I missed and should. Which you didn't.

So, to your question...

"...if they approach it in good faith but don't participate in, well, a way where ideas can be compared to each other and challenged and rebutted?"

I don't think it relates to me.

[ April 15, 2011, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Part of what is so frustrating to me is that I produced statistics in support of deterrence, discussed why I felt your specific stats were inconclusive, and further went on to explain why I felt existing stats were not reliant (should read "relevant") to a completely different set up, siting a legitimate mathematical concept to help explain why.
Well, that's sort of what happened. What I feel like happened was, we'd just gotten started on looking at what studies have shown us about the deterrent effect of the death penalty in the real world. To the tune of perhaps a few things looked at at most. But you shut that down for the purposes of the discussion by saying, "It doesn't really matter what statistics here say-that's got nothing to do with this completely new system I've got in mind that would just work, I know it."

quote:


You dismissed my statistics offhandedly, and went on to complain about how I "started dropping other points ofthe discussion too, more than once after some pretty important issues were brought up" which first off, I'd like to see them, but second, I invited you to ask me to address anything you thought I missed and should. Which you didn't.

No. You dismissed any statistics at all offhandedly-you just explained how you did yourself, without the qualifier 'offhandedly'. And yeah-I did ask you to address things that were missed, and your response was to say, "This isn't a point-for-point thing, and anyway you're being kind of mean." Or rather, "There are no points or judges and if I choose to not specifically address something you said, you are just going to have to ask again nicely." Direct quote-hell, you even said you chose not to, man.

For example, one point you didn't address was this notion of yours that it's a fate worse than death to be imprisoned for life amongst the scum of the Earth. Another was your constant insistence that absolute certainty must only go one way-we ought to support a massive increase in death penalty because it's the only way to be absolutely certain of no repeat offenders. But we shouldn't seek that kind of absolute certainty in the case of innocent convictions. I don't recall you addressing points that the actual cost of violent offender incarceration is, when actually put up to our budget, tiny. And that if we're looking at this problem from economic points of view, there are many, many other places to look first.

I'm early on page two so far. I didn't 'address your request' because you were basically asking, "Could you re-request something you (and other people) have mentioned several times already for me-and stop being mean?"

[ April 15, 2011, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vadon
Member
Member # 4561

 - posted      Profile for Vadon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Moving on, shall we?
Alright. How much courtesy and niceness do you think someone is entitled to in a given conversation, if they approach it in good faith but don't participate in, well, a way where ideas can be compared to each other and challenged and rebutted?

In other words, how much does good faith alone in a conversation get someone, after the initial exchange when challenges to an idea are made?

There's never anything wrong with being kind or nice to someone. Ever.

As for who you decide to be nice to, that's up to you. Trying to figure out a code of conduct on who gets the benefit of your good graces and who doesn't seems like a cold and cynical task. I'd much rather just treat everyone that I can with respect.

I disagree strongly with Stone Wolf and I made that clear, but I also tried to treat his views with respect when expressing mine. I agree with the majority of posters here that Wolf's position is outside mainstream discourse on punishment. But I think how we make our arguments is almost as, if not more, important than what we actually say.

And yes, I'm an idealistic pansy who revels in taking the moral highground and I wear that badge proudly. [Razz]

Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

I disagree strongly with Stone Wolf and I made that clear, but I also tried to treat his views with respect when expressing mine. I agree with the majority of posters here that Wolf's position is outside mainstream discourse on punishment. But I think how we make our arguments is almost as, if not more, important than what we actually say.

Yes, well, so did I-initially. But then it became clear over time that those views weren't very well thought out and attempts to challenge them directly - the purported reason for the thread in the first place - just wouldn't be engaged with. Attempts to point that out didn't get much success either.

I think the means of communication is important-but I also think that sort of thing can be taken too far. For instance, "I agree with the majority of posters here that Wolf's position is outside mainstream discourse on punishment," this while technically accurate (according to Futurama the most important kind of accuracy) is misleading-or at least I'll bet it is. I'd be very surprised if you thought the views expressed were just 'outside mainstream'.

I think it's important to actually communicate that message, too.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vadon
Member
Member # 4561

 - posted      Profile for Vadon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I think the means of communication is important-but I also think that sort of thing can be taken too far. For instance, "I agree with the majority of posters here that Wolf's position is outside mainstream discourse on punishment," this while technically accurate (according to Futurama the most important kind of accuracy) is misleading-or at least I'll bet it is. I'd be very surprised if you thought the views expressed were just 'outside mainstream'.

I think it's important to actually communicate that message, too.

Of course I think they're more than just outside mainstream discourse. I also think that his views are wrong. I expressed that earlier when I explained my fundamental moral opposition to the death penalty, but I felt no need to reference that in a post where I was talking more about the tone we take when expressing ourselves. Why keep harping on a point that I already agreed to disagree upon?
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jebus202
Member
Member # 2524

 - posted      Profile for jebus202   Email jebus202         Edit/Delete Post 
Because the Munroe school of thought on dealing with people on the internet who are wrong is strongly followed here.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swampjedi
Member
Member # 7374

 - posted      Profile for Swampjedi   Email Swampjedi         Edit/Delete Post 
Man, I love XKCD. He's right though, at least in my case. It takes a real effort to not say something when someone's so obviously wrong.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
Stone_Wolf_,

This is the second discussion in the last week or so where you've taken offense when people have criticized you for failing to support the claims you make. I'm not sure what you expect from a discussion between people who strongly disagree. But on this forum, when people disagree with you they are going to point out logical fallacies in your arguments, ask you to provide supporting data and demand clarification of your position. When you keep repeating your claim without responding to such requests, people are going to criticize you.

If people become too hostile, you can report them to the moderator by pushing the whistle and he will decide whether people have actually violated the generally accepted rules of civility and what to do about it. But as a general rule, If you are going to participate in discussing controversial topics on this forum, you need to get comfortable with the concept that your position will be criticized and that you are likely to be criticized if you don't support your position.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Look, I am happy to try answer all points in a discussion as best I can. If I miss something that someone said, it isn't deliberate, and invite anyone to simply say "Please address X" and I will.

I feel pretty strongly that I haven't been ignoring points that are bad for me as Rakeesh and others have said I have. I will demonstrate.

quote:
...one point you didn't address was this notion of yours that it's a fate worse than death to be imprisoned for life amongst the scum of the Earth.
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
It's usually a safe assumption that people prefer being alive to being dead, and that assumption remains true even when things get really bad.
quote:
This is a judgment no one can make until they are in the situation.
You may be right, I certainly hope I never have to test the theory. [Smile]

quote:
Another was your constant insistence that absolute certainty must only go one way-we ought to support a massive increase in death penalty because it's the only way to be absolutely certain of no repeat offenders. But we shouldn't seek that kind of absolute certainty in the case of innocent convictions.
We did discuss this...we talked about crimes in prison, and the humanitarian value of prison/isolation/death. We also discussed what lengths should be gone through to prove a case, how absolutely proving it is impossible without a Pastwatch machine.
quote:
I don't recall you addressing points that the actual cost of violent offender incarceration is, when actually put up to our budget, tiny.
quote:
As to non-violent drug crime, let them go...and while you are at it, legalize all drugs, and suicide and all "victimless crime". As to should there be some reform to the capital punishment system, I understand you are saying that the huge amounts of money are going to ensure that the innocent are not unjustly killed, but seriously, at some point all the multiple appeals seem to be just a delaying tacit and have nothing to do with innocence.
quote:
If they were made to work to help pay for the cost of feeding/housing, it would be even better.
There was a lot discussed in a very little amount of time. Sometimes the people who shout loudest get more attention, so if I missed anyone's point, I do apologize, but it was unintentional, and I think this reputation I seem to be getting for ignoring people's posts is unfair.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Alright, I think I see the source of disagreement. When I think of 'address a point', I don't generally mean something along the lines of, "You may be right." In fact to me that's almost entirely neutral-it doesn't actually respond to any of the reasons the contradiction was made, for example. It's pretty empty as far as what's being discussed. And...really, that's pretty much it. Quite different definitions for when something has actually been addressed.

I don't think many or perhaps even any of those quotes you linked are much of a demonstration of points being addressed, but clearly you do. *shrug* It just seems very fluffy to me. "Here's why we should have a huge upswing what crimes we punish with death."

"Damning indictment."

"Oh, well you may be right. That's not too difficult to deal with anyway." That's...well, just doesn't seem like much of a discussion to me.

----------

Jebus, your habitual lust for a good zinger notwithstanding, it's not quite accurate-as usual. In this case the missing element being that I am actually interested in discussing it with this particular person and believe he's got good motivations-so not just a general 'someone'. Nice try though! Listen, there will be plenty of chances for you to assert superiority in a similar fashion again though, so don't worry about it. [Wink]

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Honestly though, Rakeesh, I'm getting tired of arguing about this. If you think the way I discuss things is so intolerable, don't engage in discussion with me.

Simple, easy, cost effective and best of all, zero headaches!

Regardless of if you feel my answers were sufficient, I think you can not longer claim that I simply ignored these topics.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Seriously, I don't care.

Heh, well, if you say so.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Well Samp, while I do appreciate the attempt to troll me and all, I have to say, you are a kind and genuine person and I can't help it, I've fallen in love with you. Marry me! We'll fly to Antigua on my private jet and leave the worries of this life behind and I'll show the paradise in my arms, and my heart, forever.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post 
Just stop it, stone wolf. You obviously weren't ready for an actual discussion about your idea, or the criticism it deserved.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Can I get an official word here Papa Janitor? Am I really the bad guy? Cause if so I can simply delete the thread and try and do better.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
So if we were to identify genes that predisposed people to committing violent crime, would you think society had a right to imprison or execute people who have those genes.
Absolutely not. Genes may increase the chance of someone doing something, but I strongly believe in freewill and people should only be held accountable for their choices, and not things beyond their control.
Stone_Wolf_, People who've committed violent crimes also have freewill. Having committed a violent crime in the past, may increase the chance that they will do it again in the future, but it doesn't make it certain. People can and do change. Just like the "gene" example, having committed a violent crime increases the risk that you will commit a violent crime in the future, but it does not make it certain. Why do you see the two cases as fundamentally different?

Males in their late teens and early twenties are the most likely group to commit violent crimes. At this age, the judgement centers in their brains aren't fully mature. There is every reason to believe that with added maturity and proper help, these people can lead meaningful productive lives.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
*facepalm* Stone_Wolf, let it go. There is a high ground to be had here, but it will not be possible to occupy that high ground and get the last word. In fact, it is so obvious that you want to have the last word on this that I strongly suspect some people here are stringing you along for fun, because you clearly can't bring yourself to let something go unanswered. Don't make yourself that vulnerable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Can I get an official word here Papa Janitor? Am I really the bad guy? Cause if so I can simply delete the thread and try and do better.

Please don't delete the thread. Many people have made thoughtful contributions to the discussion and it is very disrespectful to them to delete the thread. Instead, let the personal fight go, drop the discussion of who is at fault and go back to discussing the issues rather than the people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Can I get an official word here Papa Janitor? Am I really the bad guy? Cause if so I can simply delete the thread and try and do better.

This isn't about being the bad guy. You just don't get it and you need to learn what is wrong with your approach.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks guys.

I can see what you mean Rabbit, and the point that people can change is not lost one me. But there is a huge difference between genes which might lead someone to taking a wrong action and people who have done so already.

I truly wish that our prison systems generated truly reformed people instead of just older, more muscular and tattooed people.

I'm sure there are some who do truly reform. Without looking at stats, I bet ya that the number of repeat offenders is pretty high. (I will look, just not this sec, busy ya know).

What do you think about exile? We are closer then we have ever been to colonizing other worlds (which still is not even close), and if we find enough of them habitable, would a prison planet make sense? It worked for Australia after all.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post 
Now I'm starting to think this is a joke. We're moving from "kill everybody" to "okay, exile them to prison planets"?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I just want to be polite here Parkour, it seems as if you haven't read the whole thread.

I have accepted that it is not a good idea to, kill everyone, as you put it.

So, yes, are moving on, and no, it is not a joke.

What do you think of a prison planet? It could be run with a lot of security, or none what so ever, that is, internal security. I imagine either way there would be external (in the form of prevention from leaving the planet) security.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
I liked that episode.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
To be honest, were there a place to exile repeat offenders to, I would actually consider exile to be an intriguing option.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I can see what you mean Rabbit, and the point that people can change is not lost one me. But there is a huge difference between genes which might lead someone to taking a wrong action and people who have done so already.
I don't see this huge difference. Can you please try to explain it to me?

Your primary rational (as I understand it) for executing violent criminals isn't that its fair, a proportional punishment to the crime they committed. It's that it will keep them from committing future. But we don't know that they will commit future crimes. We know only that they are more likely to commit future crimes.

If its morally acceptable to execute people because they are likely to commit crimes and we had some reliable way of predicting who would commit crimes, why should we wait until after they've committed the first crime?

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
To be honest, were there a place to exile repeat offenders to, I would actually consider exile to be an intriguing option.

Only repeat offenders? Or any violent criminals?

If the planet was a prison, as in, guards and rules and such, I'd say any offenders. But if it's dog eat dog, we drop you off and you fend for yourself mob rule, then defiantly only violent offenders.

Rabbit: First off, I am no longer calling for heads. Maybe if we are talking about a Utopian society such as the one I based my original (and now better understood as wishful thinking and no longer supported) arguments on such as was the case in Starship Troopers, then maybe.

But not here and now in our time, no, I don't want the government to execute all violent criminals. Just want to make that very clear.

So...the difference. We base our judgment on experience, and our trust of others on their past deeds. So if someone actually committed a violent crime, it seems to me to be a safe call to put them in the "dangerous" category simply on direct evidence.

Using the same criteria, someone who has a higher potential because of factors which are beyond control and still have chosen not to commit any violent crime, shouldn't be in the "dangerous" category.

I do take your point about the morality of condemning people for unmade choices.

(edited for clarity)

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If the planet was a prison, as in, guards and rules and such, I'd say any offenders. But if it's dog eat dog, we drop you off and you fend for yourself mob rule, then defiantly only violent offenders.
I think it is naive to expect that the former would not become the latter within a matter of months.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

What do you think of a prison planet? It could be run with a lot of security, or none what so ever, that is, internal security. I imagine either way there would be external (in the form of prevention from leaving the planet) security.

Heinlein suggested, not an prison planet, but exile. "Coventry" I believe he called it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So...the difference. We base our judgment on experience, and our trust of others on their past deeds. So if someone actually committed a violent crime, it seems to me to be a safe call to put them in the "dangerous" category simply on direct evidence.
But our judgement is pretty clearly flawed. With people, past behavior isn't a very good indicator of future behavior. Many people who commit a violent crime, never will again.

My gene proposal was a hypothetical. If in the future we determine that 90% of people who carry a certain gene were likely to commit a violent crime, would it be morally acceptable to exile or imprison everyone who carried those genes? If not, what do you see as the difference? It would much safer assumption that these people would commit crimes than what you have proposed.

Recognize that the hypothetical 90% is much higher than recidivism rates. It would be a much more reliable predictor of violent behavior than what you are proposing. If such a test existed, would you consider it fair or moral

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the United States of America is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom but cross-country statistical comparisons are often questionable. The report attributed the lower recidivism rate in the UK to a focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners compared with the US focus on punishment, deterrence and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society.

The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:

* Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

* Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.

* The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.

Source.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If the planet was a prison, as in, guards and rules and such, I'd say any offenders. But if it's dog eat dog, we drop you off and you fend for yourself mob rule, then defiantly only violent offenders.
I think it is naive to expect that the former would not become the latter within a matter of months.
The former would likely become worse than the latter withing a few weeks. Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If such a test existed, would you consider it fair or moral(?)
Absolutely not. I still believe very strongly in freewill, and think it would be an atrocity to persecute someone for something they can not control.

That being said, if it really was true, and 90% with that gene really did start hacking people up with axes, then I might be swayed by an argument of "separate but equal", that is, segregation to a "secure community" to prevent axeings.

I admit those two statements are contradictory, but I don't want to be chopped up with an axe.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
The former would likely become worse than the latter withing a few weeks. Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Or Abu Ghraib, Baghram, and likely the secret detention facilities.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.
Another blow to the recidivism argument for violent crime. Although, it should be noted, that these stats are for criminals who were caught and successfully prosecuted. I imagine that gathering statistics as to unsolved crimes and recidivism might be a tad difficult.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
So, the 97.5% of released rapists who were not rearrested for rape should be killed because of the 2.5% who were?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I guess you haven't been following this thread much scholarette, I have jumped from the kill em all and let god sort them out ship. This statistic is just another reason why.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

What do you think of a prison planet? It could be run with a lot of security, or none what so ever, that is, internal security. I imagine either way there would be external (in the form of prevention from leaving the planet) security.

Heinlein suggested, not an prison planet, but exile. "Coventry" I believe he called it.
Speaking of Heinlein, the thread seems to have gone from "Starship Troopers" to "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
What do you think of a prison planet? It could be run with a lot of security, or none what so ever, that is, internal security. I imagine either way there would be external (in the form of prevention from leaving the planet) security.

Well, this is as much if not more in the realm of fantasy, but only if we desire the punishment to explicitly and purposefully be barbaric do you go with the unguarded prison planet exile.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
It's not so bad, from my studies of unguarded prison planets, usually it only takes a day or two for good characters to break-out of unguarded prison planets. On the other hand, if you're actually evil, what usually happens is you end up taking over one of the Enterprises before being defeated. Either that or a well-meaning SG team breaks you out of prison.

Worst case scenario, Jet Li comes and beats everyone up *shrug*

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, we have established that universal capital punishment for violent crime is not the best idea since sliced bread.

Some posters feel that capital punishment is never a good idea, some that it would require 100.0% certainty of guilt.

As far as I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong, there is basically only the magic/technology-we-don't-have-yet (Pastwatch machine, etc) to prove without any doubt guilt or innocence.

So without utter certainty, what are the right circumstances for death to be brought on by the state?

It wouldn't be a confession of guilt, while that might eliminate the worry of killing an innocent (beyond a false confession) it would make getting a confession nearly impossible.

How about someone caught in the act? Cops bust in on a psycho covered in blood up to his hairline wielding a machete and wearing a mask made of one of his victim's faces.

How about someone found guilty of crimes against humanity, like war crimes. A Nazi guard at Auschwitz.

How about if one of the hijackers from 911 had miraculously survived and been captured?

Is there any real legitimate time when the current government of the United States of America should execute people?

I'm asking you Hatrack.

[ April 16, 2011, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
There's still a question you haven't much focused on, Stone_Wolf. Why is it important that they be killed at al? Now although I have to admit, I do think just about any answers to that question will serve the 'pro' side of the argument badly, it still needs to be answered. Why is it important that they be killed instead of somehow removed from society for life short of executing them?

The only line I believe any government, including our own, should use when it comes to executing people is to prevent future loss of life, not redress (though I really think the appropriate word is 'revenge') past loss of life, no matter how heinous. There are an awful lot of people I would like to be killed, but that's a risky business to get into, not least because it's really easy for us to kill people.

So one circumstance might be, as outlandish and unlikely as it is, if there were someone we knew was violently, murderously dangerous to society as a whole or even particular members of society-and for some reason we started to lack confidence in our ability to incarcerate them for life in prison.

In this circumstance, acceptable reasons aren't 'they'll get out of jail too soon'. That's not a failure of the criminal justice system, that's a (possible) failure of a representative society, because we're the ones who decide what these penalties should be. Acceptable reasons would be that he has confederates outside of prison who will attempt to break him out of prison in the future, putting guards, other prisoners, and the rest of society at risk. And these confederates might actually, y'know, do it-we have reason to suspect they might succeed or come close to succeeding.

It's an unlikely scenario, but its outcome generally describes the only time I feel we ought to entertain the idea of allowing executions: to prevent future loss of life.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2