|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 07 2017 05:42 MyTHicaL wrote:
I can't think of any viable argument as to why the death penalty should exist...
I see ZERO reasons for long term confinements.
Do you plan to reform the criminal? Then you should only have short jail sentences, 2-6 years tops, that's all it takes to get someone educated.
What if the criminal can't be reformed? Then either fine them, or kill them, there's no need to create a slave force designed to live in a system that does nothing but dehumanize people.
|
On January 07 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 05:42 MyTHicaL wrote:
I can't think of any viable argument as to why the death penalty should exist... I'm a little jaded and cynical right now, but haven't you heard and thought about a half dozen and rejected them because of your perceptions/analysis on viability? It's fine if you originally perceived people would offer arguments you would consider strong but not overwhelming others. Then you evaluate them to be weak. We had the same thing when somebody here hadn't heard the arguments against abortion on demand. Yeah, different minds different upbringings different experiences different worldviews yield different conclusions.
I think his point is that there aren't cost:benefit analyses which yield death penalty as favorable.
|
Its dumb. Both that some people complained about it or the fact the school caved when it seemed like only a tiny amount of people cared.
|
Not really. I think that for these people you deem unworthy of rehabilitation, life in prison sounds worse than a quick death. Plus, depending on the circumstances, it just enables martyrdom.
There are some texts by Voltaire you should read..
If you look at the countries who still embrace capital punishment, it is kind of appalling to see the USA on that list.
|
On January 07 2017 06:07 MyTHicaL wrote:
Not really. I think that for these people you deem unworthy of rehabilitation, life in prison sounds worse than a quick death. Plus, depending on the circumstances, it just enables martyrdom.
There are some texts by Voltaire you should read..
If you look at the countries who still embrace capital punishment, it is kind of appalling to see the USA on that list.
I would rather look at it as a cost benefit on society as a whole. How much does it cost to room and board these uninhabitable individuals vs just killing them. The threat of a death penalty is a consideration as well as to stop crime.
Once you give up on making someone an acceptable part of society you have to give up on what matters for them.
Voltaire supported the french revolution. if thats not enough to disqualify him then I can't really argue with you.
|
since we're on death penalty; I'm against it in practice, though not in principle.
if it's gonna be done, it has to be done right and without mistakes. and there's just been far too many screwups.
on cost/benefit: iirc in US it costs more to execute than life in prison. I don't know what the ratios are like in other countries cost-wise, which would give some indication on whether those values could be changed in america.
unsure on the net deterrent effect either; while death penalty can deter some people sometimes, there's other times where someone facing the death penalty will do more crimes/fight police rather than surrendering because they're gonna die anyways. whereas with no death penalty there's more reason to surrender to police rather than shootout with them.
not sure about the net effect of not having a death penalty and pushing the importance of life on people's willingness to commit murder in general.
|
|
|
Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia?
Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
|
On January 07 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote:
since we're on death penalty; I'm against it in practice, though not in principle.
if it's gonna be done, it has to be done right and without mistakes. and there's just been far too many screwups.
on cost/benefit: iirc in US it costs more to execute than life in prison. I don't know what the ratios are like in other countries cost-wise, which would give some indication on whether those values could be changed in america.
unsure on the net deterrent effect either; while death penalty can deter some people sometimes, there's other times where someone facing the death penalty will do more crimes/fight police rather than surrendering because they're gonna die anyways. whereas with no death penalty there's more reason to surrender to police rather than shootout with them.
not sure about the net effect of not having a death penalty and pushing the importance of life on people's willingness to commit murder in general.
It only costs more to kill than to imprison because of the appeals process.
The problem with the US is not that it supports the death penalty; its that it doesn't commit to either not having the death penalty or fully embracing the death penalty. This leads to the US depending on lengthy prison sentences as justice is now being seen as punishment to a crime.
Lets abstract this initially.
Person A performs a crime that commits to improving society instead of punishing offenders.
If he can be rehabilitated--then having a long prison sentence is bad since the longer he's out of society the harder it is to reintegrate him into society. So its a short prison sentence, no different than being resent to high school.
If the person can't be rehabilitated--then why bother holding him in a room when he could just be dead?
Now lets see what actually happens in America.
Person A commits a crime.
Is he guilty? Then his life should be made shit, exile him from society for as long as we can afford. Wait, what's a felon doing trying to get work? Force them to admit their felons so they can't get jobs. Wait--this guy we pulled out of the world for 10 years who has to brand himself as evil is now forced into crime in order to eat? People like him must naturally be criminals.
Do you see the problem with not committing?
|
On January 07 2017 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote:
since we're on death penalty; I'm against it in practice, though not in principle.
if it's gonna be done, it has to be done right and without mistakes. and there's just been far too many screwups.
on cost/benefit: iirc in US it costs more to execute than life in prison. I don't know what the ratios are like in other countries cost-wise, which would give some indication on whether those values could be changed in america.
unsure on the net deterrent effect either; while death penalty can deter some people sometimes, there's other times where someone facing the death penalty will do more crimes/fight police rather than surrendering because they're gonna die anyways. whereas with no death penalty there's more reason to surrender to police rather than shootout with them.
not sure about the net effect of not having a death penalty and pushing the importance of life on people's willingness to commit murder in general. If the person can't be rehabilitated--then why bother holding him in a room when he could just be dead?
We don't really want the state executing a bunch prisoners that haven't themselves been convicted of murder, not least because the wider range of people you execute, the more you will inevitably get wrong.
|
The first scenario hinges on an accurate determination of whether someone can be rehabilitated, and also whether they have been rehabilitated after a short period. That's a highly non-trivial decision to make at all stages of the process, especially the start.
You would regularly release dangerous offenders back into the community because your maximum term is 6 years but they looked ok at the time, and you would also regularly execute people who might have been recoverable.
|
On January 07 2017 07:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 07 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote:
since we're on death penalty; I'm against it in practice, though not in principle.
if it's gonna be done, it has to be done right and without mistakes. and there's just been far too many screwups.
on cost/benefit: iirc in US it costs more to execute than life in prison. I don't know what the ratios are like in other countries cost-wise, which would give some indication on whether those values could be changed in america.
unsure on the net deterrent effect either; while death penalty can deter some people sometimes, there's other times where someone facing the death penalty will do more crimes/fight police rather than surrendering because they're gonna die anyways. whereas with no death penalty there's more reason to surrender to police rather than shootout with them.
not sure about the net effect of not having a death penalty and pushing the importance of life on people's willingness to commit murder in general. If the person can't be rehabilitated--then why bother holding him in a room when he could just be dead? We don't really want the state executing a bunch prisoners that haven't themselves been convicted of murder, not least because the wider range of people you execute, the more you will inevitably get wrong.
Not saying we should do mass executions--I'm showing how we don't spend enough time defining what rehabilitate means and what justice means. Spending most of our energies seeing justice as being about punishment instead of seeing as the attempt to improve society.
|
In principle there isn't much wrong with the death penalty for people that are dangerous and who can not be reformed. But between us having executed innocent people and some botched executions due to incompetence it is hard to say that the state is capable of doing it in a decent manner.
|
On January 07 2017 07:32 Belisarius wrote:
The first scenario hinges on an accurate determination of whether someone can be rehabilitated, and also whether they have been rehabilitated after a short period. That's a highly non-trivial decision to make at all stages of the process, especially the start.
You would regularly release dangerous offenders back into the community because your maximum term is 6 years but they looked ok at the time, and you would also regularly execute people who might have been recoverable.
The crux of the argument is that people are scared to commit to either cause.
Believing in rehabilitation means putting people back into the wild and seeing if they've gotten better. If you don't believe that is safe then you don't really believe in rehabilitating.
The same goes for the opposite--if you believe someone cannot be rehabilitated, then what is the point of developing an expensive slave system?
What people prefer is the worst of both worlds. Where we put people in jail for decades at a time and get upset that those people end up committing crimes. Instead of rehabilitation we simply reinforce and create a slave nation.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Conclusions but no proof. Also a few assertions I checked (about specific forms of coverage of news within Russia, specific political figures and their tendencies on certain issues, reactions to certain events) that proved to be simplistic or patently false.
I certainly hope this isn't the "bombshell report" that proves Russia did it.
|
there is no point fighting against rehabilitation. other countries do it (finland would be a prime example).
the problem is, rehabilitation isnt "tough on crime"
|
On January 07 2017 07:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 07:31 oBlade wrote:On January 07 2017 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 07 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote:
since we're on death penalty; I'm against it in practice, though not in principle.
if it's gonna be done, it has to be done right and without mistakes. and there's just been far too many screwups.
on cost/benefit: iirc in US it costs more to execute than life in prison. I don't know what the ratios are like in other countries cost-wise, which would give some indication on whether those values could be changed in america.
unsure on the net deterrent effect either; while death penalty can deter some people sometimes, there's other times where someone facing the death penalty will do more crimes/fight police rather than surrendering because they're gonna die anyways. whereas with no death penalty there's more reason to surrender to police rather than shootout with them.
not sure about the net effect of not having a death penalty and pushing the importance of life on people's willingness to commit murder in general. If the person can't be rehabilitated--then why bother holding him in a room when he could just be dead? We don't really want the state executing a bunch prisoners that haven't themselves been convicted of murder, not least because the wider range of people you execute, the more you will inevitably get wrong. Not saying we should do mass executions--I'm showing how we don't spend enough time defining what rehabilitate means and what justice means. Spending most of our energies seeing justice as being about punishment instead of seeing as the attempt to improve society.
I mean, your dichotomy was between a ridiculous option of just kill them, and a rose-tinted obviously let's rehabilitate them, basically presupposing the class of people who are beyond rehabilitating and don't deserve to be shot doesn't exist. That's not realistic. If you erase capital punishment entirely, those people don't suddenly become amenable to rehabilitation, you still have to do something with them (long-term and indefinite incarceration). If you go all-in on capital punishment, killing those people won't serve to rehabilitate someone else. I don't think your point about rehabilitation is actually tied to capital punishment.
|
On January 07 2017 07:51 dankobanana wrote:
there is no point fighting against rehabilitation. other countries do it (finland would be a prime example).
the problem is, rehabilitation isnt "tough on crime"
I don't need to look at other countries to be pro-rehabilitation. I would say I am ant-jail. I don't like the idea of putting people in purgatory. Either permanently remove them from society or rehabilitate them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 07 2017 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Did they really turn being against fracking into being pro-Russia? Everyone excited for Clinton/Cuomo 2020?
I have heard accusations before that Russia is behind environmental groups opposing fracking because they are worried about losing gas income. This "blame Russia for any people holding positions you don't like" game runs deep.
For that matter, I find it rather amusing how everything within that report is almost verbatim Clinton talking points. "pootin just h8s me cuz 2011 protests" found its way into an intelligence report, somehow. My god.
As an aside, seems like CNN is killing it on Facebook and Twitter. Dayum.
|
On January 07 2017 07:55 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2017 07:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 07 2017 07:31 oBlade wrote:On January 07 2017 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 07 2017 06:45 zlefin wrote:
since we're on death penalty; I'm against it in practice, though not in principle.
if it's gonna be done, it has to be done right and without mistakes. and there's just been far too many screwups.
on cost/benefit: iirc in US it costs more to execute than life in prison. I don't know what the ratios are like in other countries cost-wise, which would give some indication on whether those values could be changed in america.
unsure on the net deterrent effect either; while death penalty can deter some people sometimes, there's other times where someone facing the death penalty will do more crimes/fight police rather than surrendering because they're gonna die anyways. whereas with no death penalty there's more reason to surrender to police rather than shootout with them.
not sure about the net effect of not having a death penalty and pushing the importance of life on people's willingness to commit murder in general. If the person can't be rehabilitated--then why bother holding him in a room when he could just be dead? We don't really want the state executing a bunch prisoners that haven't themselves been convicted of murder, not least because the wider range of people you execute, the more you will inevitably get wrong. Not saying we should do mass executions--I'm showing how we don't spend enough time defining what rehabilitate means and what justice means. Spending most of our energies seeing justice as being about punishment instead of seeing as the attempt to improve society. I mean, your dichotomy was between a ridiculous option of just kill them, and a rose-tinted obviously let's rehabilitate them, basically presupposing the class of people who are beyond rehabilitating and don't deserve to be shot doesn't exist. That's not realistic. If you erase capital punishment entirely, those people don't suddenly become amenable to rehabilitation, you still have to do something with them (long-term and indefinite incarceration). If you go all-in on capital punishment, killing those people won't serve to rehabilitate someone else. I don't think your point about rehabilitation is actually tied to capital punishment.
What do you call someone who you don't want back in society and can't be rehabilitated? How is society improved by keeping them alive? How are bettered as a people?
It takes 4 years to complete high school and about 10ish years to complete a PhD (usually much less)
What are we doing in a prison that needs more than 6-8 years to complete when it only takes 10 years to make a person an elite expert on a knowledge or skill-set?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
