Do you oppose the death penalty? If so, why?

[TheLemur]

You really are an idiot if you think that only one of those was important as opposed to all three being a required criterion.

I'm asking, if you think that all three are necessary, why was number three included? Moral theories don't usually use a criterion under just one relatively unimportant circumstance and then ignore them the rest of the time. I assumed that your moral theory used that criterion in many other "should we shoot this guy?" situations, hence my response. If I was wrong about that, so be it, but you still haven't answered my question about why number three was included.

Someone who's dangerous or anti-social has not necessarily murdered in cold-blood yet. Murder drastically reduces their value and contribution to society. Why is this difficult to grasp precisely?

You're the one who hadn't even bothered mentioning murder up until now. Blowing up a factory with nobody inside also obviously reduces their contribution to society, perhaps more so than murder.

[Flagg]

Okay- so if the important thing is that they're anti-social and dangerous, and NOT that they can't be "productive members of society", why was that criterion even included?

Because not only are they dangerous people, but they're of the unproductive, net drain, useless and dangerous type of people. In other words, society has no benefit from keeping them around at all.

That's why we put them in prison forever doing menial manufacturing jobs.

[TheLemur]

Because not only are they dangerous people, but they're of the unproductive, net drain, useless and dangerous type of people. In other words, society has no benefit from keeping them around at all.

So we should shoot them because they have a net negative benefit on society, instead of being neutral.

[Arrow]

Well, if that is distasteful, isn't it also distasteful to pay more to possibly give him a shot at getting a reduced sentance or aquittal? You're paying more one way or the other; at least for the solitary confinement option you're not paying as much more.

Besides, having them living half a century in a ten by ten foot cell knowing their life is already over is hardly giving them a suite at the Hilton. It's all in the implementation.

The problem with solitary is that guards still have to watch over some one that really doesn't have anything lose, and you're wasting space that could be used to house criminals that can be reformed.

I didn't say you claimed that, the second article is something I included out of a sense of completeness.

As for your second point: on the (small) chance that the convict is found to be innocent later, you can set him free. That's one less innocent life accidentally taken in the name of justice. Those who are guilty are in for life and are thus off the street anyway.

I'll have to think on this.

[Teleros]

You're the one who hadn't even bothered mentioning murder up until now. Blowing up a factory with nobody inside also obviously reduces their contribution to society, perhaps more so than murder.

Then call it terrorism and bump them off too .

Because not only are they dangerous people, but they're of the unproductive, net drain, useless and dangerous type of people. In other words, society has no benefit from keeping them around at all.

So we should shoot them because they have a net negative benefit on society, instead of being neutral.

Well, they've gone and committed some heinous crime, are still considered dangerous people, and will always be unproductive citizens. So we keep them around and pay for their living because...? That's what (I think) Zod is trying to say here.

[General Zod]

You really are an idiot if you think that only one of those was important as opposed to all three being a required criterion.

I'm asking, if you think that all three are necessary, why was number three included? Moral theories don't usually use a criterion under just one relatively unimportant circumstance and then ignore them the rest of the time. I assumed that your moral theory used that criterion in many other "should we shoot this guy?" situations, hence my response. If I was wrong about that, so be it, but you still haven't answered my question about why number three was included.

I did you illiterate dipshit. In the very next paragraph you quoted.

You're the one who hadn't even bothered mentioning murder up until now. Blowing up a factory with nobody inside also obviously reduces their contribution to society, perhaps more so than murder.

Jesus H fucking Christ on a dildo you really are retarded. Go back and read the entire fucking thread.

Hence "completely rock solid". I also don't see why someone's race should affect the punishment they receive for a capitol offense. So yes, they should receive the same as everyone else regardless.

CAPITOL OFFENSE

Or do you not believe murder is a capitol offense?

[Lord Zentei]

Well, if that is distasteful, isn't it also distasteful to pay more to possibly give him a shot at getting a reduced sentance or aquittal? You're paying more one way or the other; at least for the solitary confinement option you're not paying as much more.

Besides, having them living half a century in a ten by ten foot cell knowing their life is already over is hardly giving them a suite at the Hilton. It's all in the implementation.

The problem with solitary is that guards still have to watch over some one that really doesn't have anything lose, and you're wasting space that could be used to house criminals that can be reformed.

That falls under the "increased cost of death penalty" bit. 3/4 million dollars pays for a lot of shit.

And you're still assuming that these guys are 100% unreformable -- that's not a given if only because there will be false posetives when sencances are handed out.

[Haminal10]

I voted to support it on practical grounds. Death is the ultimate punishment, and it is needed in some situations. Here is an example:

Say a criminal is convicted and sentenced to life in prison. While in jail, he stabs and kills a guard. What do you do to him? Sentence him to life twice?

This situation is occurring in Maryland right now. Several prison guards have been murdered recently by lifers, and there is talk of banning the death penalty.

All that being said, there needs to be reforms to the system. Others have already touched on the racial disparity of the DP's application, and the arbitrary manner in which it is handed out. We also need to make sure that we do not execute innocent people. Life in prison is "reversible" (kinda), death is not.

[Teleros]

Others have already touched on the racial disparity of the DP's application

That doesn't necessarily imply a racist approach to administering it though.

the arbitrary manner in which it is handed out

Depends on what you mean. I far prefer the idea of an automatic death sentence for some crimes than allowing some wishy-washy judge to avoid handing it out.

[Lord Zentei]

Depends on what you mean. I far prefer the idea of an automatic death sentence for some crimes than allowing some wishy-washy judge to avoid handing it out.

"Wishy-washy" judge?

Automatic sentences for anything are fucking retarded, as are those who support them. There are always varying circumstances.

I voted to support it on practical grounds. Death is the ultimate punishment, and it is needed in some situations. Here is an example:

Say a criminal is convicted and sentenced to life in prison. While in jail, he stabs and kills a guard. What do you do to him? Sentence him to life twice?

You put them in a more secure jail, and/or solitary.

[Teleros]

Automatic sentences for anything are fucking retarded, as are those who support them. There are always varying circumstances.

That's why we have the courts to determine if someone is guilty in the first place . But premeditated murder, or rape, or terrorism, for example? Sure I can see the security services wanting to get their hands on a terrorist before he's executed, but other than that I don't see why a judge should be able to say "Unlike our elected leaders or the majority of the public I think the death penalty is too severe, so I'll let you avoid it, mr wife-killing-psycho."

[Lord Zentei]

Automatic sentences for anything are fucking retarded, as are those who support them. There are always varying circumstances.

That's why we have the courts to determine if someone is guilty in the first place . But premeditated murder, or rape, or terrorism, for example? Sure I can see the security services wanting to get their hands on a terrorist before he's executed, but other than that I don't see why a judge should be able to say "Unlike our elected leaders or the majority of the public I think the death penalty is too severe, so I'll let you avoid it, mr wife-killing-psycho."

That is what the judge is for. He interprets the law and hands out sentances. If you don't like it, you can appeal.

Mandatory sentances are fucking stupid: they remove the power of the judiciary and place it in the hands of the legislature where it does not belong. For instance: there was a case that was talked about on this very forum awhile ago with a 18-year old being sentanced to a mandatory minimum of umpteen years because he got a blowjob from a 15-year old girl who had lied about her age.

Understand? One size does not fit all. Therefore, mandatory sentancing is moronic.

Anyway, all of this presupposes that the death penalty is defensible in the first place, and given the fallibility of the justice system it is not.

[Teleros]

For instance: there was a case that was talked about on this very forum awhile ago with a 18-year old being sentanced to a mandatory minimum of umpteen years because he got a blowjob from a 15-year old girl who had lied about her age.

Which is just a little different from the sort of crimes I'm talking about, no? Most of the time I'd agree that "one size fits all" isn't the best way to go about things, but for something like murder, I don't care if you desperately needed that money for your drug fix and the homeowner got in your way, or if your gang thinks drive-by shootings are fine - good riddance to you*.

*I wouldn't apply this to things like crimes of passion mind you - in such cases things are a lot less clear-cut.

[Lord Zentei]

For instance: there was a case that was talked about on this very forum awhile ago with a 18-year old being sentanced to a mandatory minimum of umpteen years because he got a blowjob from a 15-year old girl who had lied about her age.

Which is just a little different from the sort of crimes I'm talking about, no? Most of the time I'd agree that "one size fits all" isn't the best way to go about things, but for something like murder, I don't care if you desperately needed that money for your drug fix and the homeowner got in your way, or if your gang thinks drive-by shootings are fine - good riddance to you*.

*I wouldn't apply this to things like crimes of passion mind you - in such cases things are a lot less clear-cut.

No, it is not different. The crime being talked about here is pedophilia. Child rape. Pretty severe, that.

One size does indeed not fit all for murder as well: for instance: with the possibility of it being a person that killed in what he thought was self-defence, and the judge/jury finding that his action was not warranted.

The notion that some crimes are so severe as to never having qualifying conditions is ridiculous. The severity of the stereotypical crime has nothing to do with the possiblity of such conditions, and you cannot foresee all possible permutations of conditions in advance when you lay down the law. That is why you give the fucking judiciary the power to interpret the law instead of acting as a rubber stamp for the legislature.

And for a case that cuts closer to home, take a gander at that thread in the HoS: I'm sure you'll figure out which one I'm talking about upon a moment's sober reflection. Just in case you had trouble figuring out what I meant when I was pointing out that the justice system is imperfect, and you need to take false posetives into consideration when you suggest automatic sentancing, let alone with a fucking death penalty.

[General Zod]

No, it is not different. The crime being talked about here is pedophilia. Child rape. Pretty severe, that.

One size does indeed not fit all for murder as well: for instance: with the possibility of it being a person that killed in what he thought was self-defence, and the judge/jury finding that his action was not warranted.

It helps to get your definitions clear first. You just described manslaughter, which is treated differently in there's no malicious aforethought. Which is a requirement for it to be considered murder. There's also varying degrees of murder already, so it's not as if this hasn't been thought of before. Though just for the record I do agree that sentences shouldn't be mandatory for crimes committed under different circumstances, but they should be consistent for specific types of crimes in the same circumstances.

(IE - Two people who commit crimes of passion over someone sleeping with their spouse should get the same sentence regardless if there's sufficient evidence for a guilty conviction, while one committing premeditated murder and another committing manslaughter should get two very different sentences, if there's enough of a difference between the crimes motivations).

[Lord Zentei]

No, it is not different. The crime being talked about here is pedophilia. Child rape. Pretty severe, that.

One size does indeed not fit all for murder as well: for instance: with the possibility of it being a person that killed in what he thought was self-defence, and the judge/jury finding that his action was not warranted.

It helps to get your definitions clear first. You just described manslaughter, which is treated differently in there's no malicious aforethought. Which is a requirement for it to be considered murder. There's also varying degrees of murder already, so it's not as if this hasn't been thought of before. Though just for the record I do agree that sentences shouldn't be mandatory for crimes committed under different circumstances, but they should be consistent for specific types of crimes in the same circumstances.

True, that I could have picked a better example, and yes, of course it is manslaughter. Your example was better.

[Teleros]

No, it is not different. The crime being talked about here is pedophilia. Child rape. Pretty severe, that.

If the girl lies about her age and she gives an 18 year old a blowjob, in what way is he raping her? Now if it involved him forcing her to do it on the other hand then give him a lead injection.

The notion that some crimes are so severe as to never having qualifying conditions is ridiculous.

That's why I believe in having the courts to look at mitigating circumstances.

a person that killed in what he thought was self-defence

So throw out the murder charge but charge for manslaughter. Certainly in my book self-defence (even if, with hindsight, it turned out to be unnecessary) falls under the category of "mitigating circumstances".

[Lord Zentei]

No, it is not different. The crime being talked about here is pedophilia. Child rape. Pretty severe, that.

If the girl lies about her age and she gives an 18 year old a blowjob, in what way is he raping her? Now if it involved him forcing her to do it on the other hand then give him a lead injection.

Except pedophilia is defined as an adult (18+ years) having sexual relations with a minor. Stupid in this case, indeed -- and that was my goddamned point. The mandatory sentancing law made him out to be a child rapist when he was nothing of the kind.

The notion that some crimes are so severe as to never having qualifying conditions is ridiculous.

That's why I believe in having the courts to look at mitigating circumstances.

And how, praytell, are you going to acheive that with mandatory sentancing? That's a fucking contradiction in terms.

a person that killed in what he thought was self-defence

So throw out the murder charge but charge for manslaughter. Certainly in my book self-defence (even if, with hindsight, it turned out to be unnecessary) falls under the category of "mitigating circumstances".

See my exchange with General Zod above.

I see you ignored my point on the inaccuracy of the judicial system again.

[Teleros]

Except pedophilia is defined as an adult (18+ years) having sexual relations with a minor. Stupid in this case, indeed -- and that was my goddamned point. The mandatory sentancing law made him out to be a child rapist when he was nothing of the kind.

So really, we need a better definition of paedophilia .

And how, praytell, are you going to acheive that with mandatory sentancing? That's a fucking contradiction in terms.

Going over what Zod was saying I think he summed up my position pretty well already:

Though just for the record I do agree that sentences shouldn't be mandatory for crimes committed under different circumstances, but they should be consistent for specific types of crimes in the same circumstances.

I see you ignored my point on the inaccuracy of the judicial system again.

Mainly because I don't think there's much to say. No judicial system is perfect, and yes there will probably always be some innocents wrongly convincted, however much we might wish otherwise. I suppose the question is whether the cost of executing some innocent people outweighs the benefits to society of executing (usually many more) guilty people.

[General Zod]

No, it is not different. The crime being talked about here is pedophilia. Child rape. Pretty severe, that.

If the girl lies about her age and she gives an 18 year old a blowjob, in what way is he raping her? Now if it involved him forcing her to do it on the other hand then give him a lead injection.

I suggest looking up "statutory rape". It's different from full blown rape, but still pretty bad. It doesn't make much sense if it's between an 18 year old and a 16 year old, but it does when you consider that there's 40 year old chomos out there who would gladly take advantage of young kids and say that they gave consent if they thought it would let them get away with it.

a person that killed in what he thought was self-defence

So throw out the murder charge but charge for manslaughter. Certainly in my book self-defence (even if, with hindsight, it turned out to be unnecessary) falls under the category of "mitigating circumstances".

Then it isn't so much a mitigating circumstance, as it is a completely separate charge. Killing in self-defense as well is usually not punished in many states if it can clearly be shown as such.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except pedophilia is defined as an adult (18+ years) having sexual relations with a minor. Stupid in this case, indeed -- and that was my goddamned point. The mandatory sentancing law made him out to be a child rapist when he was nothing of the kind.

Pedophilia is defined as a desire to have sexual relations with a child. In most US states a child is defined as someone 13 and younger. A minor is someone who is under the legal age of full responsibility.

[Lord Zentei]

Except pedophilia is defined as an adult (18+ years) having sexual relations with a minor. Stupid in this case, indeed -- and that was my goddamned point. The mandatory sentancing law made him out to be a child rapist when he was nothing of the kind.

So really, we need a better definition of paedophilia .

I see the point sails over your head. The point is this: legislators cannot predict all migitating conditions in advance to incorporate them into their legislation.

And how, praytell, are you going to acheive that with mandatory sentancing? That's a fucking contradiction in terms.

Going over what Zod was saying I think he summed up my position pretty well already:

Though just for the record I do agree that sentences shouldn't be mandatory for crimes committed under different circumstances, but they should be consistent for specific types of crimes in the same circumstances.

That is what the judicial concept of "prescedent" is for. Given this, there is no justification for tying the judiciary's hands with mandatory sentancing laws.

I see you ignored my point on the inaccuracy of the judicial system again.

Mainly because I don't think there's much to say. No judicial system is perfect, and yes there will probably always be some innocents wrongly convincted, however much we might wish otherwise. I suppose the question is whether the cost of executing some innocent people outweighs the benefits to society of executing (usually many more) guilty people.

And that undermines the justification of death sentances. As to whether it is acceptable to risk executing innocents in order to execute the guilty, WTF, need you ask? When the option of solitary confinement exists along with the possibility of flaws being found in the trial process at a later date?

[Teleros]

The point is this: legislators cannot predict all migitating conditions in advance to incorporate them into their legislation.

No, but we can make a good stab at it. For those situations not covered, ever heard of "spirit of the law"?

That is what the judicial concept of "prescedent" is for. Given this, there is no justification for tying the judiciary's hands with mandatory sentancing laws.

Except when the judiciary ignores precedents .

As to whether it is acceptable to risk executing innocents in order to execute the guilty, WTF, need you ask?

Yes actually, it is worth asking. Most polls about support for the death penalty shows a majority of people in favour of it - are you saying that its supporters never consider this ? Or maybe, just maybe, they've concluded that it is an acceptable risk.

[Lord Zentei]

The point is this: legislators cannot predict all migitating conditions in advance to incorporate them into their legislation.

No, but we can make a good stab at it. For those situations not covered, ever heard of "spirit of the law"?

Yes. That is what the judiciary is there to interpret. As opposed to applying the letter of the law, which would be the case with mandatory sentancing.

"A good stab at it"? That doesn't cut it.

That is what the judicial concept of "prescedent" is for. Given this, there is no justification for tying the judiciary's hands with mandatory sentancing laws.

Except when the judiciary ignores precedents .

And I have already mentioned that amazing thing called APPEALS.

As to whether it is acceptable to risk executing innocents in order to execute the guilty, WTF, need you ask?

Yes actually, it is worth asking. Most polls about support for the death penalty shows a majority of people in favour of it - are you saying that its supporters never consider this ?

Yes, correct. I am suggesting that they have not thought this through.

Or maybe, just maybe, they've concluded that it is an acceptable risk.

Or maybe they are morons who don't consider cost-benefit in a rational manner. Oh, Appeal Ad Populem fallacy, incidentally.

[Teleros]

applying the letter of the law, which would be the case with mandatory sentancing in cases covered by the mandatory sentencing guidelines.

Fixed.

"A good stab at it"? That doesn't cut it.

So perfection or nothing?

And I have already mentioned that amazing thing called APPEALS.

Which cost money, time, distress for the victim's family or friends, even if successful.

Or maybe they are morons who don't consider cost-benefit in a rational manner.

Or maybe they're up against morons who attach far too high a value to human life and who fail to see how such a view can be detrimental to society .
Actually the interesting thing is, people regularly attach monetary values to human life whenever they award compensation for the death of someone.