Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Death Penalty and Stanley Tookie Williams
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 16 of 166 (268808)
12-13-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
12-13-2005 11:26 AM


Re: My changed mind
quite.
besides the point that reformation is always a possibility. now, i'm not suggesting that we just randomly let every rapist and murderer who seems to be a better person now go, but those who have significantly proven their value to society should, at the very least be allowed to live and thus serve society even if it is under close supervision. stanley williams had the chance to make a difference in this world and our laws ruined that chance. we have wounded ourselves and we will continue to do so until we realize the inherent flaws in the system.
execution as punishment cannot stand because we are so flawed that we cannot ensure the guilt of those we kill.
execution has long been defeated as a deterrent. it doesn't work.
therefore, there is no standing for capital punishment.
it doesn't resolve the anguish of victims and families and it doesn't prevent more crime. it is pure, mindless, agressive rage and civilized governments should not participate in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2005 11:26 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 12-13-2005 1:57 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 17 of 166 (268819)
12-13-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Silent H
12-13-2005 12:25 PM


Re: My changed mind
[qss]Did you mean to say that imprisonment is at least a punishment for a criminal, but if found false would be a lesser outrage than a false execution?[/qs]
I meant to say exactly what I did say. Some crimes deserve the death penalty, in my mind. It's a moral outrage to withhold that penalty when it is deserved, just as it's a moral outrage anytime justice is not done.
But the outrage of a lesser sentence than is deserved is much less than the outrage of execution when it is not deserved, not least of which because no one ever stands trial for the murder of a falsely executed man.
"Does not compute?" Seems perfectly obvious to me. Can you help me understand where you're having the difficulty? I'm perfectly willing to accept that you perform the moral calculus with different values than I do; but that shouldn't lead you to criticise my position as "extreme" when, in fact, it's a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic compromise between two moral outrages.
Shouldn't we then be arguing that there should be nothing but fines?
No, because the moral outrage of false imprisonment is less than the moral outrage of never imprisoning anyone who deserves it.
It's a simple comparison, Holmes.
It ended with me defining a process after everyone challenged me to present one, and someone saying it was actually pretty good yet all my critics nowhere to be found.
You ended up with a process with evidentiary standards that, by definition, could never be met; and thus, you wound up with a situation in which the death penalty could never be given.
In other words, you came over to my side. What was I supposed to argue with? You surrendered.
Absolute practical certainty is all that is necessary for executions to be operated and fulfill their practical role.
"Absolute practical certainty"? It's not self-evident that such a thing is possible. By definition, in fact, it would appear that if your certainty was "practical", then it could not be "absolute".
If there was solid direct evidence (not merely circumstantial) of a murder being commited by a specific person, and that person readily admits to the murder, and consents to the death penalty... what is the problem with execution in that instance?
The problem is that they may not be guilty, merely suicidal and extremely unlucky, and it's not the purpose of the state to employ the apparatus of justice and allow a murderer to go free in order to help someone commit suicide.
It's pretty simple, to my mind.
The fact that we do not have something now in no way at all provides evidence that no such standard exists. That falls directly under the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" umbrella.
It is, nontheless, suggestive that an entire community of persons - several communities, in fact - with a vested interest and explicit mandate to develop systems for the gathering of reliable evidence, and working for centuries, have not been able to develop such a system - in fact, have succeeded only in developing explanations for why such a system cannot exist.
But I suppose that's not enough for you. For Holmes, the absence of evidence plus the evidence of absence are still not enough to actually conclude absence. Still holding out for a perpetual motion machine, as well?
It is my guess that you do not deny the holocaust happened. And indeed it is my guess that during the 1940s (if you were in the US) you would not be questioning whether Nazi germany should be fought and its agents killed when found.
While the crimes of the Nazis certainly deserved death, I don't see how I could advance the argument I did above and believe that Nazi war criminals should have been executed. And I do not have "absolute practical certainty" (whatever that could possibly be) that the Holocaust happened, merely a tentative conclusion that it did.
War will almost inherently mean the loss of innocent lives.
War is a crime so bad there's no law against it, as Terry Pratchet once said; but at least, war is symmetrical. (Or it should be.) Two armies clash with nothing but their skill at arms and the genius of their tactics, and a fair bit of luck, to determine the victor.
But what hope does one man have when the full force of government apparatus is arrayed against him? War gives you a chance, at least.
But it's a good question. In general, I don't support wars. I can't imagine a single thing worth going to war over. But sometimes force must be used to repel force, violence is sometimes the appropriate answer to violence. Defense, in my mind, is the only appropriate use of violence. But self-defense by the state generally isn't the rationale for the death penalty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 12-13-2005 12:25 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 12-13-2005 3:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 166 (268824)
12-13-2005 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by macaroniandcheese
12-13-2005 1:14 PM


Re: My changed mind
stanley williams had the chance to make a difference in this world and our laws ruined that chance. we have wounded ourselves and we will continue to do so until we realize the inherent flaws in the system.
Uh... Williams ruined not only his own chance, but the chance of those he murdered. The laws did not make him murder.
execution as punishment cannot stand because we are so flawed that we cannot ensure the guilt of those we kill.
That is a bare assertion which is not true. For instance you have some reason to doubt that Dahmer did not murder? Gacy?
Let's move this up more dramatically, how about the Nazis, specifically Hitler. It is your position that we are so flawed as a species we cannot determine with any certainty that the holocaust occured and that it was directed at least in part by Hitler?
execution has long been defeated as a deterrent. it doesn't work.
That is absolutely correct. Execution does not work as a deterrent. It will certainly keep some people in line, but it won't keep everyone in line, particularly the people that are likely to murder.
therefore, there is no standing for capital punishment.
I'm sorry, where did that therefore come from? Deterence is not the only reason for executions. There is punishment (essentially revenge) and there is removal of a threat to the community.
Personally I am not into punishment for punishment's sake but clearly those that are could view that as a valid reason to keep it. One could punish a killer for taking another's life by forcing them to forfeit their own.
I do believe there is reason to remove threats to the community. Some people do nothing but pose a risk to other lives. It pisses me off that that is true about the world but it happens. Not everyone wants to play nice.
it doesn't resolve the anguish of victims and families and it doesn't prevent more crime.
Uh... says who? Well resolve might not be the right word but many families/friends of victims do get some relief when the murderer has been killed. And many are anguished when they see murderers gaining and enjoying lasting notoriety and fame behind bars.
And while it does not prevent crime in a deterent fashion, it certainly does end the killing from that specific murderer.
it is pure, mindless, agressive rage and civilized governments should not participate in it.
Who are you to be arbiter of what is civilized?
Allowing those that have killed and enjoy killing to continue living and indeed giving them a venue for fame and perhaps a better life, does not seem "civil" to me. That seems to be rewarding the very people who engage in pure, mindless, aggressive rage.
To my mind a quick and painless death to those that pose a proven and continued risk the community is merciful and civilized to both the murderer and the community.
This has raised a question in my mind. For all the people who are decrying capital punishment, have anyone of you actually seen someone get murdered, or almost murdered by another person? Has anyone actually been around such an event and seen a murderer (or attempted murderer) in action? Indeed have any of you had someone you know murdered, or almost murdered?
Before anyone asks... the answer is yes, on more than one occassion. I have very little concept of why many of you claim some murderers cannot be known, and that some people can be "saved" to perform wonderful miracles for society. It is pure fantasy as far as I can tell.
Civilization is not a padded and delusional utopia. Civilization to me is having the intelligence and guts to live with the gritty truths of life and make it liveable for those that are willing to join in with it.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-13-2005 1:14 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-13-2005 2:57 PM Silent H has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 19 of 166 (268840)
12-13-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Silent H
12-13-2005 1:57 PM


Re: My changed mind
To my mind a quick and painless death to those that pose a proven and continued risk the community is merciful and civilized to both the murderer and the community.
the proof is in the pudding. and in this case, our judicial system seem to be pudding heads. until no one is ever released from a wrongful sentence, i cannot stand behind execution. in my opinion, life in prison is a substantial punishment. i am one of those people not opposed to labor prisons. make them serve the society they betrayed. make them sort our garbage or something. but don't decide who lives and dies. that reduces you to their level.
This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-13-2005 02:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 12-13-2005 1:57 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 12-13-2005 3:13 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 166 (268846)
12-13-2005 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
12-13-2005 1:37 PM


Re: My changed mind
But the outrage of a lesser sentence than is deserved is much less than the outrage of execution when it is not deserved, not least of which because no one ever stands trial for the murder of a falsely executed man.
Now I understand what you were saying. Your original wording did not make your point clear to me.
That last part is a very interesting point. No one serves time for the imprisonment of and innocent man either. You are correct that there is some measure of injustice within our justice system, which rewards convictions and not necessarily justice.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that you perform the moral calculus with different values than I do; but that shouldn't lead you to criticise my position as "extreme" when, in fact, it's a perfectly reasonable and pragmatic compromise between two moral outrages.
I explained very carefully why it was extreme. It involves two errors. I see you did not deal with those points at all.
If you said to me "I don't like executions and so I do not think the state should be employing them" then that would be beyond criticism. In that case we'd simply be using different moral rules. The specific arguments you used and under discussion involved factual statements combined with logic. There are errors within the facts and the logic.
No, because the moral outrage of false imprisonment is less than the moral outrage of never imprisoning anyone who deserves it.
I think you may be equivocating between imprisoning and punishing. Being fined is still a punishment... or how about simple house arrest?
It doesn't seem to me that "the outrage of a lesser sentence than is deserved is much less then the outrage of imprisonment when it is not deserved" is inconsistent with the logic you are using... unless you are going to be arbitrary.
You ended up with a process with evidentiary standards that, by definition, could never be met; and thus, you wound up with a situation in which the death penalty could never be given.
In other words, you came over to my side. What was I supposed to argue with? You surrendered.
I'm not sure what world you are living on. The evidentiary standards could very well be met and indeed had been met in real cases. Yeah, even killers asking to be killed exists.
I certainly did not outline a case where executions never could happen, even if they would be much rarer than they occur today.
And as far as surrendering is concerned, it ended where it did because I said what I did and every critic packed up their marbles and went home. I had people agreeing with my position, and I was prepared to start moving the line forward. I don't think absolute confession is necessary. That was simply a plank I threw in to make things more clear.
"Absolute practical certainty"? It's not self-evident that such a thing is possible. By definition, in fact, it would appear that if your certainty was "practical", then it could not be "absolute".
That isn't true at all. Absolute theoretical certainty would involve clear knowledge on all possible explanations. Absolute practical certainty involves clear knowledge on all plausible explanations. We can set a boundary on implausibility of explanation such that it is only possible in an absurdly theoretical world that a person is innocent.
The problem is that they may not be guilty, merely suicidal and extremely unlucky, and it's not the purpose of the state to employ the apparatus of justice and allow a murderer to go free in order to help someone commit suicide.
Again, the possibility of this happening is absurd on its face. If the evidentiary rules exclude mere circumstantial evidence, you cannot simply have an unlucky person who happens to be suicidal falling into a guilty verdict. It would require a suicidal person actually setting themselves up to be killed by the system.
That in itself would require aiding and abetting a real murder which makes them complicit in a murder anyway. And in any case, why would it be a greater moral outrage to kill a person who is so intent on killing himself he frames himself for murder (and lets a real murderer get away), than not killing a known murderer?
in fact, have succeeded only in developing explanations for why such a system cannot exist.
To explain theoretical issues, not to determine if they tied their shoe this morning or not. You are discussing a community you are not a part of and appear to not want to be a part of, so your discussion of their findings sort of falls like a lead balloon to me.
Still holding out for a perpetual motion machine, as well?
You did not show evidence of absence. In any case I am holding out for the time you are more adamant on sticking to logic, than sticking to a position. That may be just as futile.
...I do not have "absolute practical certainty" (whatever that could possibly be) that the Holocaust happened, merely a tentative conclusion that it did.
A tentative conclusion that millions were killed in concentration camps, despite photographic and eye witness accounts of its occurence, as well as remnants you can see and touch and test?
The jews aren't fossils buried in time or chemical/physical entities we cannot observe, some are still alive to tell the story. You have truly lost the line between practical and theoretical reality. That is not good.
Here is the difference between theoretical and practical certainty. If you believe there is no difference then you have no reason to criticize holocaust deniers. And our lack of evidence will only grow with time.
Honestly, as a prosecutor in post war germany you'd tell hundreds of survivors of a concentration camp, that they might possibly be wrong about whether the guard soldiers caught at the camp and on records as being a guard at the camp, killed or was responsible for killings at the camp, evidenced by bodies found at that camp?
but at least, war is symmetrical. (Or it should be.) Two armies clash with nothing but their skill at arms and the genius of their tactics, and a fair bit of luck, to determine the victor.
War is never guaranteed symmetrical, and my point was that even when one tries to keep it army against army, some innocent people get caught up and killed.
But sometimes force must be used to repel force, violence is sometimes the appropriate answer to violence. Defense, in my mind, is the only appropriate use of violence. But self-defense by the state generally isn't the rationale for the death penalty.
Ahhhhhh... now that was sweet. This is better, straightforward. I agree that defense is the only justifiable use of force by the state.
The question is then raised whether a single person can pose a threat to the state. Certainly not in the same way as another nation, as in wholesale destruction (well that is changing with tech), but certainly as a persistent threat to lives within that state. Given that in a democratic republic the state is of by and for the people, a killer is a threat to that state.
A state will kill wild animals, particularly rabid animals. Do animals pose a threat to the state? Not as much as a person, and the battle is even more uneven. Is that wrong? Are serial killers that much different than a rabid animal, such that they should not be treated in the same way?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2005 1:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2005 4:11 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 21 of 166 (268851)
12-13-2005 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by macaroniandcheese
12-13-2005 2:57 PM


Re: My changed mind
our judicial system seem to be pudding heads. until no one is ever released from a wrongful sentence, i cannot stand behind execution.
I agree our judicial system is flawed. I am also for delaying capital sentences until clear and consistent rules are put in place and cases rereviewed.
That is wholly different than arguing executions cannot be part of a civilized society and carried out in a reasonable manner.
life in prison is a substantial punishment. i am one of those people not opposed to labor prisons. make them serve the society they betrayed. make them sort our garbage or something.
Even innocent people? I am just as concerned about the innocent man in a labor camp as the one in the electric chair.
but don't decide who lives and dies. that reduces you to their level.
But it doesn't reduce me to their level. A killer randomly decides who lives and dies. A state takes a person who has done such a thing and prevents them from doing so again. Everyone will die at some point. It does not make sense to allow those that do kill at will, to continue having such a chance.
How does imprisoning a person who has kidnapped someone or stolen from someone not reduce us to their level? Can you not see the difference?
I will ask my question again... have you ever witnessed a murder or a murderer in the act of murdering? If so, could you not see the difference between you stopping that person by killing them, and them having decided to kill that other person in the first place?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-13-2005 2:57 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-13-2005 3:21 PM Silent H has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 22 of 166 (268855)
12-13-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Silent H
12-13-2005 3:13 PM


Re: My changed mind
i don't think it is necessary to kill someone to prevent them from committing a crime.
capital punishment is an act of revenge. nothing more, nothing less. eye for an eye and all that bullshit. i don't ascribe to it and i think it should be ended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 12-13-2005 3:13 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2005 3:54 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 12-14-2005 9:16 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 166 (268868)
12-13-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by macaroniandcheese
12-13-2005 3:21 PM


Re: My changed mind
capital punishment is an act of revenge
wrong bottom line.
capital punishment is an act of frugality. the real reason it's around is because it's cheaper.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-13-2005 3:21 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-13-2005 4:19 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 29 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-13-2005 4:49 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 48 by coffee_addict, posted 12-13-2005 10:50 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 120 by Nuggin, posted 12-17-2005 12:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 166 (268873)
12-13-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H
12-13-2005 3:02 PM


Re: My changed mind
No one serves time for the imprisonment of and innocent man either. You are correct that there is some measure of injustice within our justice system, which rewards convictions and not necessarily justice.
I agree. Naturally, though, I'd be nervous about punishing prosecutors for overzealous prosecution, for fear of sending a chilling effect. Moreover the role of the prosecutor is not to make official findings of facts, but to bring indictments where they feel they are justified. Fact-finding is a role of the courts. If an innocent man goes to jail, it was the fault of the jury, not the prosecutor.
What would you think about the idea of expert juries?
There are errors within the facts and the logic.
There are not. I dismissed your "arguments" because they're prima fascie ridiculous, and contradicted by fact. I've given you the framework I use to determine which outcome is the greatest moral outrage; you may value outrages differently than I do, which is your perogative. But the idea that there could be a "flaw" in what is essentially a simple comparison of outrages is risible on the face of it.
One outcome is a greater outrage to me than another. To suggest then that there's a "flaw" in reasoning that we should adopt the outcome that leads to the smaller of the two outrages is simply nonsense.
I think you may be equivocating between imprisoning and punishing. Being fined is still a punishment... or how about simple house arrest?
I'm not equivocating. The outrage is not that the criminal was not punished at all, it's that he was punished to a lesser degree than his crime justly deserves.
I'm fully aware that alternatives to imprisonment exist. Like a reasonable person I see these alternatives on a continuum of severity, like so:
1) execution by torture
2) painless execution
3) maiming
4) imprisonment
5) house arrest
6) seizure of property
Obviously, there are other things that could go on this list; it's not an exhaustive example.
It doesn't seem to me that "the outrage of a lesser sentence than is deserved is much less then the outrage of imprisonment when it is not deserved" is inconsistent with the logic you are using... unless you are going to be arbitrary.
It doesn't seem to me that it's inconsistent, either. I'm glad we agree.
Yeah, even killers asking to be killed exists.
Sure. But even innocent people who wish to commit suicide exist. And people who confess to crimes they did not commit, and never recanted, exist. And people who are willing, even eager, to die in the place of another exist.
What's your point? You responded to a claim that "we can never have the elimination of all doubt" with a situation of "but what if we had a situation of no doubt, plus a confession?" It's kind of a strawman, but we'll go with it. Yes, in such a situation, the death penalty could be justly administered. But such a situation, by definition, will never be present, so you've come over to my side - a practical ban on the administration of the death penalty.
People stopped arguing with you because you, obliquely, came over to their side.
We can set a boundary on implausibility of explanation such that it is only possible in an absurdly theoretical world that a person is innocent.
How do we test our boundary? How do we know that the universe we live in doesn't occasionally allow for things to occur that we consider "absurd"? The boundary is arbitrary, of course; thus, absolute certainty of any kind cannot be achieved.
If the evidentiary rules exclude mere circumstantial evidence, you cannot simply have an unlucky person who happens to be suicidal falling into a guilty verdict. It would require a suicidal person actually setting themselves up to be killed by the system.
This is only true if you define "circumstantial" as "forgable", in which case it's circularly true. What makes you think a ban on circumstantial evidence is going to prevent forged or tampered evidence?
You did not show evidence of absence.
The evidence is a tradition of scientific philosophy that directly asserts that no technique of empiricism can eliminate the doubt you hope to eliminate. As a self-avowed philosopher, you should be aware of this evidence already.
Honestly, as a prosecutor in post war germany you'd tell hundreds of survivors of a concentration camp, that they might possibly be wrong about whether the guard soldiers caught at the camp and on records as being a guard at the camp, killed or was responsible for killings at the camp, evidenced by bodies found at that camp?
Yeah, they might possibly be wrong. Why would I have a problem telling someone that? The likelyhood is, of course, that they're not wrong about significant details of the Holocaust, but I can absolutely guarantee you that any single survivor or account is going to be in error about some aspect.
I mean, we could all be brains in jars, with false memories, in which case everybody is wrong about the Holocaust. Solipcism itself provides a level of doubt that you cannot eliminate.
Are serial killers that much different than a rabid animal, such that they should not be treated in the same way?
I don't know. It depends on what you consider a "serial killler." Consistent M.O.? If a cop shoots a perp in a convinience store holdup one year, and then, ten years later, shoots another perp in the same situation, did he just become a serial killer? Sure, serial killers deserve execution. Murderous psychopaths deserve execution. How do we tell, beyond doubt, who those people are? One psychologist proposes that one in six people are psychopaths, they just haven't killed anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 12-13-2005 3:02 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-13-2005 4:41 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 59 by Silent H, posted 12-14-2005 10:08 AM crashfrog has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 25 of 166 (268879)
12-13-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by arachnophilia
12-13-2005 3:54 PM


Re: My changed mind
heh. even better. i was going for "vengence is mine". nice. so we kill people to keep out unbalanced budget.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2005 3:54 PM arachnophilia has not replied

wiseman45
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 166 (268881)
12-13-2005 4:22 PM


Death Penalty
Let me ask you all a question:
Throughout the history of criminal execution, thousands, maybe millions, have died when it was not necessary. I don't know much about the Stanley Tookie Williams case: my point on it is if there is hard evidence to show that Williams did kill the 4 people that he was convicted of killing, then he deserved to die, because even though he repented for starting the Crips, an organization that I think just emulates one of the cancers of this country, he never did admit to the murders. So, he can say he didn't do it, but if hard evidence showed otherwise, its irrelevant. Think: if you were the loved one of those dead people, and you knew that Williams did it, what would you want to happen to him?
However, if there is no hard evidence pinning the murders on him, then he died unjustly. That's my opinion. Convicted killers who mercilessly murdered for greed, passion, or whatever, and where it is clear that they did it with malice, then they deserve to die. The death penalty can most certainly be applied there. But only when it is absolutely clear that the man did it. Did Williams do it? Heck, I don't know. Can someone find out exactly what evidence he was convicted on here?
However, it sounds like that this guy may have been innocent or at least sorry about his crimes, in that case he should at least still be alive. Maybe. I don't know. I need to research this more.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2005 4:29 PM wiseman45 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 166 (268886)
12-13-2005 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by wiseman45
12-13-2005 4:22 PM


Re: Death Penalty
Is there room for redemption in your model? That is, does someone who has committed one of these horrible crimes and, since, devoted his life to doing good things still deserve to die?
Isn't there an argument to be made that this person's new usefulness to society merits a stay of execution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by wiseman45, posted 12-13-2005 4:22 PM wiseman45 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-13-2005 7:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 28 of 166 (268891)
12-13-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
12-13-2005 4:11 PM


Re: My changed mind
i know. we just find all the people that might kill someone and, to prevent them from doing it, we just kill/abort them. i'm sure it's feasable.
i mean. if preventing crime is the purpose of our executions...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 12-13-2005 4:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 29 of 166 (268899)
12-13-2005 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by arachnophilia
12-13-2005 3:54 PM


Give the convicted the choice?
Capital punishment is an act of frugality. The real reason it's around is because it's cheaper.
It is my understanding that the add expenses involved in going though the pre-execution appeals is greater than the costs of a life sentence.
I would tend to think that spending the rest of your life in prison is more severe than being executed. Either way, you are destined to die in prison.
My inclination is against the death penalty:
1) Seemingly, a life sentence may well be less expensive for the government to pay for.
2) A non-execution is at least somewhat reversable.
I have the idea that the decision of an execution should be left to the convicted. The convicted is facing dieing in prison either way. Why not offer the choice of how soon?
Moose
Edited to change subtitle.
This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-13-2005 04:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2005 3:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 12-13-2005 5:09 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 30 of 166 (268909)
12-13-2005 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Minnemooseus
12-13-2005 4:49 PM


Re: Give the convicted the choice?
Why not offer the choice of how soon?
because the whole idea of prison is that you don't have freedom of choice.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-13-2005 4:49 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024