Death Penalty and Stanley Tookie Williams

When plugged into the argument that innocent people WILL be convicted, then your statement above is worthless. It will be drawn out for both. I have no conceptual problem with corporal punishment for certain crimes. My guess is that would be a greater deterrent for some crimes, and on top of that would make it harder to engage in such activities. It is also much more merciful than taking TIME away from people. That can lead to destruction of one's entire life, which one cannot get back... ever.A missing limb can be made up for though it will present a few limitations.

---

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

You are an idealist and that's great. Unfortunately reality is that some people can't and even if they technically could, will not because they do not want to.I'm not going to say there is "evil" in the world. I don't believe in that. But there really are violent people who will resort to that just for the fun of cruelty. They don't even want to change.Instead of trying to change them to fit our concept of what the world should be, why don't we validate them and the reality of the world by dealing with them on their terms. I agree we shouldn't just give up on all who kill. There are very real reasons some will kill and it has nothing to do with a violent and dangerous internal drive. And some with an internal drive for that can indeed be seen as "fixable" and desire such a change.But when you have someone that has the drive and no interest in trying to change, remove them.You are not wrong for thinking it heartless if that is how you feel. Intriguingly I then seem to have less of a heart than those that seek to kill.

---

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

I already answered this. His case was from what I understand wholly circumstantial, he claims he did not commit the crime, and even if true was part of a purely criminal act. He does not seem to fit a category that I would consider appropriate for execution. Dahmer was murdered and Hitler killed himself. Both events I might note happen to innocent people unjustly imprisoned (not that Hitler even reached that point).If there are innocent people being executed, when that is the most carefully scutinized process of all types of legal cases there are, how many innocents are languishing in jail under the more oppressive conditions that you yourself outlined?How many end up dying in prison? You just named two where we could make a call. There are others. I was not arguing that all currently on death row should be executed. I argued that executions can be properly applied.

---

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

Wrong. The criticism is that you arbitrarily apply moral rules not values. Arbitrary is not simple name calling, it is a definition. When you invoke a rule in one instance and then refuse to use it in a similar instance, that is being arbitrary.There is a difference between theoretical and practical realms. You seem not to have grasped the point. In fact the above statement is itself indicative of the problem you are having. The term absolute does not have to refer to absolute in all other realms. You can have absolute practical certainty, and not absolute theoretical certainty.The difference between the two is that the latter covers issues which have no practical value due to their implausibility. As long as you absolutely cover all issues that have practical value that is all that is necessary for worthwhile decision making.It is not that practical certainty is less certain, it simply doesn't cover the issues that would not matter except in hypothetical worlds. Complicity to murder makes one culpable of murder which makes one a murderer. I'm not sure how much more clear I can get on this.You are right that there is no compelling state interest in helping a man commit suicide and letting a murderer go free. The existence of the death penalty will only help a suicidal person who becomes a murderer through complicity get what he both wants and deserves.Can I ask how not having the death penalty will change this, except to have the suicidal person charge police in a more overt fashion, rather than carefully crafting the evidence to let a murderer get away so as to go through an extensive legal process before dying?If a person really wants to die at the hands of the state, the state can be compelled to oblige those wishes in other forms. I already did. And no your position is not self evident. You want to go back and find the old thread waiting for a reply, you go right ahead. Or open a new one. Detailing such a process has (as I have noted previously in this thread) been done already and is getting further and further off topic. Uh... I asked you a question. You can't dodge it by simply saying why couldn't it? As for your second sentence I didn't understand what you meant. And by the way no more "arbitrary" labels until you can use it correctly. Your use of it here didn't make sense and seems to be fitting a pattern of I use a term and you use it back with no real weight or meaning. Whoa, that's note true at all. Philosophers discuss what they are covering. If you can't tell whether they are discussing theory versus practical decision making then it is likely you haven't read them.Here's a really short example. You brought up brains in vats (BIVs). Theoretically we could all be BIVs, but that has no practical value if in our epistemic world we have a consistent experience that does not involve being BIVs at all. We would work within the rule systems of whatever world the mad scientist has devised for us as BIVs.Thus you can practically decide to tie your shoe, and you can practically know that your neighbor is waving at you, and may even deduce that you are being waved at to get out of the road quickly, and so stop tying your shoe to avoid getting hit by a car.In the real world of BIVs, there is no shoe, or car, and maybe not even a neighbor, but as far as practical reality goes for you they all exist and can be treated as existing. In fact most if not all would argue SHOULD be treated as if existing.Solipsism if actually followed, is a pretty lonely and absurd place to be living.So I hope this has helped you understand the very NONarbitrary line between theoretical and practical realms. I guess I don't really know you but I believe you are BSing me. If you actually held true to that form of tentativity there would be no reason to indict anyone for anything.Let me ask you, if "appeared" to come up to you and stab you, would you honestly draw a "tentative" but not "practically certain" conclusion that someone actually stabbed you... and so not call the paramedics or police, and when the police caught a person, no matter how much he looked like the guy and happened to have a knife with blood which DNA sampling said "appeared" to match your blood, andthe guy even said that he was the one, you would not press charges because you couldn't be sure?Its easy to play the game of claiming epistemological nihilism, but I really don't believe you live that way at all.If you hold that you only engage in such epistemic nihilism when it comes to capital punishment, then you are playing a game with a double edge sword. As I already pointed out, in such theoretical worlds (as you wish to suppose) not killing is as good as going on a mass murder spree. All absurdities must be entertained and accepted. Indeed your moral "outrage" is meaningless.Yeah, actually I'd like you to explain how you can create a scale of outrage or even appropriate punishment, if all is up in the air as you claim? BIVs are the annihilation of knowledge, not the way to cement a moral position.

---

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

Where are they holding you?We suffered the worst attack on US soil in our history. That was followed by an intelligence failure of historic proportion. That failure involved us in a conflict which is unpopular and has wasted resources and is still not over and we know now will not accomplish the ends it was supposed to achieve. We went from a budget surplus back into major debt. During all of this we went through a major natural disaster which resulted in many more deaths because of poor planning and execution... which has been traced in no small part to mismanagement. The population is heavily divided and not working to repair that divide.That would be "for starters" and accepting the Bush administration's position on what has occured.With the exception of the Civil War, I guess I'd ask what period of time in US history was worse?This message has been edited by holmes, 12-14-2005 02:27 PM

---

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

That would be the same for capital punishment within the US. In fact, not all states have it or have it active at this time.Execution is not a US issue, it is a state by state issue. That is incorrect or they would not need incarceration, and protection of other prisoners and guards during incarceration.Once you catch a wild, rabid animal does not mean the threat is over, it is merely contained and that only tentatively.

---

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

I agree that for the extremists there are some issues of hypocrisy, though they might still be able to wriggle through if one does not assume there is always a chance an innocent person is going to be executed.I have been forcefully arguing that execution can be operated so that error is not just minimized, but eliminated.I do agree however, that any prolifer who is not for a stay of executions until rules have been tightened and cases rereviewed are being hypocritical. There is no question that at this point in time we do not have systems capable of removing the possibility of executing an innocent.

---

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

It is not reversable and it is not compensatable. How does one compute compensation for years of life lost, family and reputation devastated, and possibly you being dead?By chance it may turn out that for some their innocence is discovered and so their suffering brought to an end. That is all. You just described what a torture it is, and now you compare it to a sabbatical?You are vacillating. Human flaws do not have to remain as a factor in a properly revised system. I don't trust allowing people to live who have without all practical doubt killed already and are interested in continuing that pattern.I would not want to have to force another human being to stand guard over that person so that I would not have to face them myself.

---

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

How could you say I'm right and then end with kill them all? I didn't say kill them all.Unless by them you are referring to a small and specified group which are a subset of those that have killed others?Black and White thinking isn't very useful.

---

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

That isn't even close to murder. You don't just get over being dead, or having someone very close to you killed, or someone getting killed in a hideous fashion right in front of you knowing that you may very well be next.Violence and violent death is much harder to deal with and move past. Uh... animals do try and kill those that are attempting to or have killed something close to them. They do attack and try to kill animals that they are aware are hunting them.Its fight or flight, and they don't all try to run and hide.What I don't get is with the above statement, why do you linger on whether some human animals kill some other human animals who have killed?

---

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

How on earth would you know whether or not I would know? I've already asked you if you've even been close to a murder and it seems from your lack of answers you have not. I am on record here as having gone through a sexual assault/rape.On top of personal experience, research backs time and time again that violence is the major causative factor of trauma in adults and children. Even trauma from sexual abuse is linked more (if not solely) to violence and implied violence than actual sexual acts (other than those which cause actual physical trauma).I'm sorry were you approaching this from the "I'm a girl and your a boy so you must know absolutely nothing about sexual violence from a victim's standpoint"?Murder IS worse than molestation. If they can't do anything then yes. And I guess they don't go way out of their way to track down a murderer. Then again they don't exactly have the brain power and resources to do that either.Most animals tend to "move on" if they can't get access to food through simple attempts. Does that indicate what we should do?I might add that life imprisonment is more not "moving on" than the death penalty is. Isn't it? Yeah but a killer kills and you just said people should get over it and move on. Why can you do this when a killer kills an innocent person, and not when the state kills a killer.

---

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

I'm going to tweak RAZD's nose a bit, by reversing his connection between the abortion and death penalty causes.Often prochoice elements criticize prolifers for wanting all conceptions to be brought to term successfully, by challenging them to take care of all the unwanted offspring PERSONALLY.Something missing in the death penalty debate, where antiDPers want killers to remain alive, why is it not fair to ask such people to put their money where their mouth is and say okay as long as antiDPers PERSONALLY take care of all these convicted killers.In reality prison is not some magic place we send people. What it mandates is that we also have to send some wholly innocent person to watch over the convicts. You force someone else into danger so that you do not have to face it yourself. That makes it pretty easy to argue killers should be left alive, when you yourself are not faced with the imminent risk of getting killed by same on a daily basis.Since we have overcrowding in prisons, maybe that would be the best bet. All antiDPers can agree to take over for all those on death row. They can sit and guard all of these wholly innocent people (or odds apparently are they are innocent) and make sure they will not harm the rest of the community.Since most of these antiDPers also argue escape isn't really likely because prisons just need to be designed better (ironically arguing at the same time that all human efforts are flawed), they can put their designs for perfect prisons to the test!Heheheh...

---

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

So is the role of parent and foster parent. Or whoever is taking care of the unwanted kids.The analogy is correct.But there is a difference in that the kids may not be trying to kill you, and there is no real economic position which might lead you to take a position as a caretaker. So when they say they would prefer to have killers put to death because it is a risk they don't want to be faced with, what is your answer?They may be willing to take some risks, but not all.Your argument would justify Bush's sending troops to Iraq, because soldiers knew the risk when they signed up. The question one should ask is would YOU be willing to face that risk? Otherwise one is being a hypocrite and coward and pretending one's decision to put another at risk isn't bad because one does not have to face it.AbE: BTW, didn't the killer know the risk they were taking by killing someone in a place where there is a death penalty for murder?This message has been edited by holmes, 12-17-2005 12:07 PM

---

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

That's an indictment of the effects of society being intolerant, not the effects of molestation. You are describing something that is going on and on.An ongoing torture is worse than one that has ended. That just makes sense. If some killer was busy killing people you love every day, or the there was a threat that someone would be killed (maybe you) if you revealed the killer to the police, that would be quite similar in nature... and I would argue worse.Molestation is NOT worse than murder. The event itself pales in comparison to having someone killed, especially if that someone is YOU.Death by other means is not the same. Until you witness it, I guess you will not know. I didn't understand this statement. ??? But they do, just not in protracted search, judge, and destroy ways. You note they also don't have prisons.The genocides and infanticides you mention are all usually short term affairs, and not long plotted out events. Imprisonment is not a form of vengeance? Since when? You yourself described it as a form of torture that could be enacted on those that did bad things.In any case that did not answer my point. I said it involved less moving on than the death penalty. Doesn't it? We have to actively keep people in there, then debate whether to let them out, then what to do with them if we do let them out. They are almost always followed by being put in context of the crime... forced to be considered in that context. Well from my perspective vengeance is human and natural reaction to violence against onesself. It is cold death for personal pleasure which is vile and unhealthy to my mind. That is the kind of killing society should be able to protect itself from. That is an argument which is completely valid and I have no objection to whatsoever. Fantastic.You don't like it. The govt is supposed to represent your will and so you don't want the govt doing it in your name. Absolutely perfect. Nothing more needs to be said.And that's the problem, people keep moving on from that to try and justify their personal feeling as if there was some objective dimension to it. Something that others should or must agree with. But there isn't.I totally stand behind your position to try and remove capital punishment on the grounds that you simply do not like it. But I will fight your moves because I don't dislike it.And I won't call you vile and uncivil just because you feel opposite from me.

---

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

Many people say this. I'm not one to argue it should be done because it saves money, but I am interested in the facts on this.Could you show a breakdown of costs of death penalty vs life imprisonment?

---

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