EPTI do agree I haven't heard any compelling arguments for the death penalty being a thing.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3029
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
I do agree I haven't heard any compelling arguments for the death penalty being a thing. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27406 Posts
On January 16 2021 17:59 Salazarz wrote: You're pulling the numbers out of context; read the rest of the article, it's a pretty clear and well-explained issue. Generally speaking, as a university grows in size / number of students, the admin:instructor ratio should shift towards instructors, especially in research universities -- not the other way around. The reason it isn't, is because universities in the US are focusing more and more on superficial bullshit to present themselves as the more attractive option since the superficial bullshit is easy to quantify and put on a shiny prospectus. I think one of the big but rarely talked about issues here is that universities are essentially seen as this little world in itself, where you can basically disconnect from the rest of the world and only interact with your campus; and thus the more 'stuff' your campus has, the more interesting and eventful your life will be. In reality, there's no reason whatsoever for universities to have a budget for something like sports teams and facilities -- it would be far better if that money was instead allocated to the local government structures and made truly public instead. Like, if students wanted to have a football team, the university could easily work out the scheduling with the said local government to let the students use it as necessary, and then the rest of the people in the area could actually benefit from it as well instead of having this walled off garden only for the chosen. Same goes for basically every on-campus facility except for actual classrooms / laboratories and dormitories; hell, even classrooms could actually be public lecture halls where education facilities have priority booking but are available for use by the local people in the 'off' hours without having to bargain with the university bosses. Yeah this really isn’t spoken of too much, there’s a huge duplication of services that really doesn’t have to be that way. Don’t get me wrong colleges should have a duty of care, especially for young people who are shelling out quite a bit of money and should be looked after. On the other hand both of my local colleges have their own internal mental health and various support services, at a period even preceding the pandemic when accessing general public support in these domains can be quite difficult. | ||
|
Slydie
2007 Posts
On January 17 2021 01:39 Silvanel wrote: I am not generally a fan of death penalty, but yestarday i watched on Netflix a documentary called Night Stalker (about a serial killer labeled as such by media) and i guess i would not object to executing someone like that. The guy commited multiple murders and rapes, showed absolutely zero remorse was proud of what he did, there was zero doubt about this guilt. Zero chance of resocialization, He was also dengerous while being in prison because he had psycho fans. Yes, but even in cases like that one, stuff like this happens: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder Thomas Quick admitted a long chain of murders, but it turned out he was a poor soul who got the attention he craved by finding murders and admitting them, fitting his story as he was fed info. I don't think there is any rational argument for death penalty. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On January 17 2021 01:39 Silvanel wrote: I am not generally a fan of death penalty, but yestarday i watched on Netflix a documentary called Night Stalker (about a serial killer labeled as such by media) and i guess i would not object to executing someone like that. The guy commited multiple murders and rapes, showed absolutely zero remorse was proud of what he did, there was zero doubt about this guilt. Zero chance of resocialization, He was also dengerous while being in prison because he had psycho fans. The most simple and, in my eyes, completely impossible to argue against reason why death penalty is problematic is because you can't have a law that says, death penalty is okay but only for really, really bad people. The lines between 'this guy is hopelessly vile and a danger to everyone around him' and 'this guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time and police needed a scapegoat' will be blurred if the option is on the table at all. It's obviously difficult to measure something such as this, but if you're okay with death penalty, you're basically also okay with the idea that at least some completely innocent people will be executed as well. University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross led a team of experts in the law and in statistics that estimated the likely number of unjust convictions. The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences determined that at least 4% of people on death row were and are likely innocent. Gross has no doubt that some innocent people have been executed.[18][19] Statistics likely understate the actual problem of wrongful convictions because once an execution has occurred there is often insufficient motivation and finance to keep a case open, and it becomes unlikely at that point that the miscarriage of justice will ever be exposed. For example, in the case of Joseph Roger O'Dell III, executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, a prosecuting attorney argued in court in 1998 that if posthumous DNA results exonerated O'Dell, "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man." The state prevailed, and the evidence was destroyed. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On January 17 2021 01:49 WombaT wrote: Yeah this really isn’t spoken of too much, there’s a huge duplication of services that really doesn’t have to be that way. Don’t get me wrong colleges should have a duty of care, especially for young people who are shelling out quite a bit of money and should be looked after. On the other hand both of my local colleges have their own internal mental health and various support services, at a period even preceding the pandemic when accessing general public support in these domains can be quite difficult. I agree that colleges should have a duty of care for young people -- but just as much and likely more can be accomplished by referring people to the right places and pooling resources together to benefit the entire community around them instead of trying to build their own little island utopia. It's ridiculously inefficient and wasteful, and does nothing other than promote class segregation. The idea that 'good' colleges should be these super special and exclusive communities of their own belongs in the dumpster bin of history, together with every other dumb attempt to separate the 'specials' from the plebs. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On January 17 2021 02:04 Salazarz wrote: I agree that colleges should have a duty of care for young people -- but just as much and likely more can be accomplished by referring people to the right places and pooling resources together to benefit the entire community around them instead of trying to build their own little island utopia. It's ridiculously inefficient and wasteful, and does nothing other than promote class segregation. The idea that 'good' colleges should be these super special and exclusive communities of their own belongs in the dumpster bin of history, together with every other dumb attempt to separate the 'specials' from the plebs. I'm hoping the widespread revilement of Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, two of Yale Law's best and brightest, plays some role in that much needed change, but the US's elitism problem is so deeply entrenched that's it's tough to be optimistic. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
That's pretty damning - Manchin was the last senator I thought we'd see calling for this. I was pretty sure we'd see him be quiet on the issue until a bunch of republicans had come out either for or against. It's not enough to get them expelled in and of itself, but it is enough to have the senate launch investigations into doing so after the 20th (with a dem majority). I've not watched the new Firing Line, but the previous one was considered the intellectual highlight of the conservative movement in America for 30 years and was hosted by William F Buckley until 1999. (His debate with Chomsky on whether any use of foreign policy is benign from 1969 is a fun watch and up on youtube). Of course, he was a homophobe. “They should look, absolutely. That should be a consideration,” Manchin responded when asked if the 14th Amendment should be triggered. “He understands that, Ted’s a very bright individual, and I get along fine with Ted. But what he did was totally outside of the realm of our responsibilities or our privileges.” [...] "I looked at Josh, and I said, 'Josh, you have a right to do what you’re doing, but think of what’s happening, what you’re seeing on the monitors. Think about, basically, our country,'" he said. "There wasn’t much conversation back and forth on that. He listened to me, and I could tell it was weighing on him, and I was hoping that we were able to maybe change his mind to go up there and stop his objections." From the Hill writeup https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/534565-manchin-removing-hawley-cruz-with-14th-amendment-should-be-a-consideration Full episode. It's actually a decent set of interviews with Manchin - one before the impeachment vote and one after (he clarifies that he wanted the impeachment vote to be delayed so more information could be gathered, which isn't unreasonable. I disagree, of course). | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8194 Posts
On January 17 2021 01:39 Silvanel wrote: I am not generally a fan of death penalty, but yestarday i watched on Netflix a documentary called Night Stalker (about a serial killer labeled as such by media) and i guess i would not object to executing someone like that. The guy commited multiple murders and rapes, showed absolutely zero remorse was proud of what he did, there was zero doubt about this guilt. Zero chance of resocialization, He was also dengerous while being in prison because he had psycho fans. A lot of people deserve to die. It's not about them. It's about us. I don't want my country to pay people to butcher other human beings. I don't want prosecutors to be paid to fight for someone to be attached to a chair and filled with poison. I don't want prisons to have an execution room. It's disgusting in my opinion, and I would genuinely feel I am a accomplice of a barbaric murderous practice if even a cent of my tax money financed that. Even if it's for killing Hitler. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9066 Posts
Edit: To expand a bit. Either people deserve to die and should be executed, or they don't. There's no moral high ground to be gained by trying to have it both ways. You can't seriously say Hitler should just be imprisoned for life under harsh circumstances because eventually, he will find a way. Life always does. If the those "deserving of death" are left alive, then they have the potential to become martyrs and develop a cult following. Richard Ramirez was one of those people (Nightstalker). Manson is another. Those that deserve it should have it carried out immediately after all evidence has been found and there's no room for error. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8194 Posts
On January 17 2021 02:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'll do it for you Biff. You can stay pure. Thanks bro. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 17 2021 02:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'll do it for you Biff. You can stay pure. Edit: To expand a bit. Either people deserve to die and should be executed, or they don't. There's no moral high ground to be gained by trying to have it both ways. You can't seriously say Hitler should just be imprisoned for life under harsh circumstances because eventually, he will find a way. Life always does. If the those "deserving of death" are left alive, then they have the potential to become martyrs and develop a cult following. Richard Ramirez was one of those people (Nightstalker). Manson is another. Those that deserve it should have it carried out immediately after all evidence has been found and there's no room for error. I don't agree at all. I think it's perfectly consistent to argue that people may deserve to die based on an abstract concept of overarching morality while also acknowledging that we should never give the state the ability to kill someone outside of imminent conflict/threats (e.g. active combat in a war). | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8194 Posts
On January 17 2021 02:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'll do it for you Biff. You can stay pure. Edit: To expand a bit. Either people deserve to die and should be executed, or they don't. There's no moral high ground to be gained by trying to have it both ways. You can't seriously say Hitler should just be imprisoned for life under harsh circumstances because eventually, he will find a way. Life always does. If the those "deserving of death" are left alive, then they have the potential to become martyrs and develop a cult following. Richard Ramirez was one of those people (Nightstalker). Manson is another. Those that deserve it should have it carried out immediately after all evidence has been found and there's no room for error. I don't agree at all. First most of those mass murderers, including the ones you mentioned are raving mad, and have been victims of horrendous stuff that have left them the way they are. But that's not even the point. If you ask me what, say, top nazi criminals deserved, I would say they deserve to be tortured every day of their life for as long as possible. Well. They didn't get what they deserved because we are not fucking barbarians. It wouldn't have brought anyone back, wouldn't have made anyone who is not a sick psycho himself happy and would not have made the world one bit a better place. Lots of top executives, of, say, tobacco companies would deserve to die. Well. I'm happy no mob will take them from their bed and hang them at a tree. Justice is not about everyone getting what they deserve. That's retribution. I don't believe in retribution. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8194 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9066 Posts
My point is that saying "Hitler deserves to die but I don't want him dead." is an oxymoron. Either you want him dead or you don't. You can't split hairs. I also don't think saying "sdalksjd deserves death, but let's spend taxpayer money keeping him alive for decades because we're not barbarians." is also something that doesn't jive. If they are truly monsters and the evidence says so, execution not only brings a certain level of justice, it also saves money in the long term. Now, I will agree these cases are the minority and most people have nonviolent crimes keeping them in jail for ridiculous amounts of time. But if they are deserving, then give it to them. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8194 Posts
On January 17 2021 03:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: You call it retribution. I call it justice. Who is right comes down to your own moral guidance. And if it wasn't the state that did it (as humanely as possible in most regards), then it would be the mobs. My point is that saying "Hitler deserves to die but I don't want him dead." is an oxymoron. Either you want him dead or you don't. You can't split hairs. I also don't think saying "sdalksjd deserves death, but let's spend taxpayer money keeping him alive for decades because we're not barbarians." is also something that doesn't jive. If they are truly monsters and the evidence says so, execution not only brings a certain level of justice, it also saves money in the long term. Now, I will agree these cases are the minority and most people have nonviolent crimes keeping them in jail for ridiculous amounts of time. But if they are deserving, then give it to them. I don't see why you see a contradiction in me saying that I am happy people don't get what they deserve. I see no paradox there at all. And there really is a distinction between justice and retribution. That's why the concept of justice exists at all. To take us beyond an eye for an eye. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9066 Posts
On January 17 2021 03:25 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't see why you see a contradiction in me saying that I am happy people don't get what they deserve. I see no paradox there at all. And there really is a distinction between justice and retribution. That's why the concept of justice exists at all. To take us beyond an eye for an eye. I agree there is a distinction. And what you call retribution, some may call it justice. Retribution is Tyrion vs Tywin (Or Castle vs Russo). I am blanking on a good analogy for justice so I'll come back to it later. But you see the point I hope. Anyway, just wanted to give my thoughts on it. I'm gonna ghost until the Rams play the Packers. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 17 2021 03:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: You call it retribution. I call it justice. Who is right comes down to your own moral guidance. And if it wasn't the state that did it (as humanely as possible in most regards), then it would be the mobs. My point is that saying "Hitler deserves to die but I don't want him dead." is an oxymoron. Either you want him dead or you don't. You can't split hairs. I also don't think saying "sdalksjd deserves death, but let's spend taxpayer money keeping him alive for decades because we're not barbarians." is also something that doesn't jive. If they are truly monsters and the evidence says so, execution not only brings a certain level of justice, it also saves money in the long term. Now, I will agree these cases are the minority and most people have nonviolent crimes keeping them in jail for ridiculous amounts of time. But if they are deserving, then give it to them. It's not an oxymoron. The sticking point isn't if someone deserves to die or not. The sticking point is who (or what) does the deed. The state shouldn't be deciding if you deserve to live and then carrying out executions. Period. Not only do I think it's morally reprehensible for them to have that power, but it is abundantly clear that the state does make mistakes and the system will be tilted against certain groups of people, condemning them to death more often than other groups. You are making multiple false dichotomies here. If the state doesn't do it, they stop the mobs from doing it. That is how a civilized society works. Furthermore, it has been shown over and over again that it costs more money to successfully execute someone that it does to just keep them in prison for life. There is no good justification for the death penalty. Retribution isn't justice. It's revenge. The state should have absolutely no business in revenge. | ||
| ||
