Views on death penalty

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Oblivion437: And Donut, I'd count Irish immigrants as 'real' Irishmen. Maybe you won't, but I will.

American Irish are more Irish than the real Irish.

I do have several advantages over you on this. Firstly I've been to New York and mixed with the Irish community there. Secondly I've met countless Irish in London. Thirdly I've visited Ireland on dozens of occasions. Fourthly my Mother was Irish. Fifthly my paternal great Grandfather was Irish. Sixthly my sister is Irish. Seventhly I have two nephews and two nieces who are Irish. Eighthly I have had in the past over ninety Irish first cousins.

I base my opinions on my experiences, not on vague ideas. [/QUOTE]Well that settles that then.

However it's also opened a rather nice can of worms......

Did you hear the one about the Irish drummer?

He's doing it for the money!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Now I'm intrigued. What is it that 400 million of us do; that you don't approve of?

Well, you abolished the Death Penalty, for one! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh, sorry, that was OnTopic. I apologize. [/QUOTE]This post had me laughing out loud for at least five minutes. Thanks Timber.
[img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, happy to bring some mirth into the life of a wondering bard. "Wondering about what?," you say. Well, one wonders.

Melusine and Skunk, as I've said before at length, I disagree with skunk's earlier and "second" point that prison is worse than death. I base this mostly on the fact that I know I'd chose some life over no life, however bad the some life was.

Moreover, some say that if you put people in solitary confinement and make the sentence harsh it can be truly horrible. Fair enough. While I stilll think that I personally would chose it over death, I will admit it'd be a rough existence. However, this misses the point. Lifer criminals do not have it so rough, and I'd be willing to bet that if you investigated you'd find they get time to go outside everyday, talk to each other, watch TV, surf the internet, read books, make license plates, do laundry, etc., etc. I know I'd chose those options over the death option. I just disagree with you guys, full stop.

Now, as to Skunk's "first" point, that the lack of 100% certainty in convictions makes him not support the D.P. Well, I agree that in practice the percentage of wrongful convictions is too high, and this makes me not support the DP as it is currently implemented. I don't know that I would demand the 100% Skunk demans, but I'd certainly demand a much higher percentage than we now have. 95%? 99%? 99.999%? I don't know exactly where I'd draw the line, but right now the percentages are not good enough.

But, this really misrepresents Skunk's ultimate point. As you have stated before Skunk, even with 100% certainty, you would still be against the DP in theory because you think it is not an appropriate way to punish. You usually present a logical argument that revenge/sheer punishment is not a reason to punish. I respect that view, but I disagree. You also often point to the argument, mentioned already, that if it is wrong for a person to kill, it is wrong for the government to kill. As I've stated, I see this argument as logically flawed, because all forms of punishment violate this cunningly and deceptively simplified "rule."

Now, I'm sorry if I have attributed points-of-view to you that are misrepresentations of what you've said before, and if I have smack me around for doing so. I'm just trying to get to your ultimate arguments, because those are the ones I'd like to see you hash out....

being as we do agree that in practice the application of the DP is still not accurate enough.

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, happy to bring some mirth into the life of a wondering bard. "Wondering about what?," you say. Well, one wonders. Melusine and Skunk, as I've said before at length, I disagree with skunk's earlier and "second" point that prison is worse than death. I base this mostly on the fact that I know I'd chose some life over no life, however bad the some life was.

Yes, but that's you. I don't know what I'd choose. It depends on the crime. I cannot imagine ever committing DP-worthy crimes, but if I had, I'd probably want to die rather than spend the rest of my life thinking about it in jail.
As for the point that those imprisoned for life have it too good, well, then you have a problem with the implementation of the punishment, not with the punishment itself. Just like you have a problem with the inaccuracy of DP sentences now, and support the idealised version that makes sure there is only a very small percentage of innocents getting executed. In the same way I support the idealised version of life imprisonment that leaves them living in a small isolated cell and dispenses no colour televisions, three-star meals or visits by prostitutes. [img]tongue.gif[/img] It may be so that in most prisons, the life is not as strict and sober as it is in my idealised version. But then neither is the punishment you advocate applied in a way that would be ideal to you: too many innocents, as you say, are still being convicted.
Lastly, as people who work in prison and allowed themselves to be locked up for as little as a few minutes assure me, most people severely underestimate the feeling of being locked up for a long period of time. We may not agree on what is THE worst punishment because that's a matter of well, "taste". But the suggestion that life imprisonment is a piece of cake compared to death is definitely wrong, and for one, as a punishment it lasts a hell of a lot longer.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Melusine: Yes, but that's you. I don't know what I'd choose. It depends on the crime. I cannot imagine ever committing DP-worthy crimes, but if I had, I'd probably want to die rather than spend the rest of my life thinking about it in jail.

Yes, but that's you And like you said, you're probably not the type of person that would commit these sorts of 'crimes' anyway, so you've got nothing to worry about [img]smile.gif[/img] Would you concede that, on the whole, to commit a DP crime you would have to be a somewhat selfish person? And that selfish survival at all costs warrents choosing life imprisonment over death?

The real punishment isn't death, it's the fear instilled by telling people exactly when, where and how they are going to die. Death is just absence of thought and sensation, so it's not so bad. However, the pure, unfettered, state-administered horror in watching your days slowly trickle down to their end whilst confined up in a sterile, unloving cell is very unpleasant indeed. Meeting your death surrounded by people that hate you and think you are vile filth and will be glad when you are gone, is very unpleasant indeed.

Yes it's revenge. Of course it's revenge. But revenge, hatred and vendetta are perfectly viable methods of maintaining social order and control. That said, I hate most methods of social order and control, but I can at least appreciate how they work.

[Melusine]

Of course "that's me" - that was my whole point. That you or me or Timber cannot determine whether most people would choose death or choose life imprisonment, not even with your argument about selfishness.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Melusine: Of course "that's me" - that was my whole point. That you or me or Timber cannot determine whether most people would choose death or choose life imprisonment, not even with your argument about selfishness.

True enough, you're absolutely right.

[Oblivion437]

This whole statement of what *is* or *isn't* about European culture is just a red herring anyways. IF my argument doesn't hold up about this thing, naturally one would assume I'm wrong about everything, however my argument about Bryant or the death penalty isn't a cultural one, but one based on facts.

I too, am against the death penalty for two basic reasons:

1. That's a lot of power in the hands of some very irresponsible people. In the 1980's, when the CRASH units were formed in LA, corruption and widespread abuse and vice tactics among them was happening almost before they got to work. They became bigger pushers and crooks than the hoods on the street! I don't feel the government is at this time responsible enough to handle human lives in such a fashion, where bureacracy HAS killed innocent individuals before.

2. Revenge or not, it puts the life of an individual in the hands of the government, it subordinates the will of the citizenry to the will of the state in many ways. For me, the only acceptable example for a death penalty would be murder comitted in the course of another crime (ie, shooting someone during a bank robbery, or while getting away) with two unshakable layers of evidence right on top of eachother. Were the forensic evidence inconsistent with the witness testimonies, and I were on the jury, I couldn't vote guilty, knowing they'd die on inherently circumstancial evidence.

The side debate I'd inadvertantly launched, well I feel the facts stack too high against the notion of Bryant's guilt. We're talking about an unprecedented and humanly impossible feat, or a conspiracy of at least two individuals, whos motives and methods can't exactly be gleaned. Given that one requires we allow for the impossible to be done, or the improbable, I'll take the improbable route, as it's at least possible materially.

Returning to the death penalty:

Barring divine intervention at a trial, where God himself (supposing of course God does exist, I don't believe in God to begin with, but bear with me) gives testimony as to who did what, or a set of security cameras and vital monitors that watch everyone at all times (never mind the moral and legal implications of either) one must be forced to admit (as most great men do) that they don't know everything, that one's perception of the facts is skewed by the Parallax induced by human perception, emotions, and past experience. We can't just put the information into a computer and get the guilt or innocence of an individual, that can't be done now or for some time, nor would it be a fair way to judge our peers.

Finally, Gab, I created the ultimate scenario where imprisonment is not an option. We have past examples of similar cases. The men who escaped from Alcatraz were career criminals, and that was supposedly inescapable. You have to admit, given the inevitability that this person's imprisonment will at best be a delay in their activities, that their execution is the only sure-fire method to prevent their further acts of criminality. I've isolated the subjectives, it's now a question of can your morality stand up ALL THE TIME? No, it can't. No human moral system can. Mine, yours, John Paul II's... Every moral code we embrace has a flaw(s), and in the flaw is room for bad things to happen, for rules to be bent, for things to not add up, for abuse to occur. In those extremes we have to draw exceptions, because they represent mathematical and logical absolutes which can't possibly be equivocated by further extending the principles of the moral code into the given situation. All that will do is widen the gap we started with.