| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 18 2008 23:51 Liquid`NonY wrote: HeadBangaa, I think the main problem is that there isn't 100% certainty. If the court could determine someone's guilt with 100% certainty, then your discussion could be on the table. That's a good point. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On November 19 2008 00:14 IntoTheWow wrote: lol baal always against the current the day i "flow" i know i became a failure. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On November 19 2008 00:18 HamerD wrote: Well that's very vague, what do you mean by 'worth'?! We have a thread about the death of a child, we dont have a thread for every violent murder do we? | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On November 17 2008 13:55 HumbleZealot wrote: Yes, because there is a cheaper, more humane and just as effective a method of punishment or "reciprocation": Life in prison. Agreed. I'd also like to mention that life in prison with no parole is just as effective a "rejection" -- from the point of view of society -- as the death penalty is. I'd also like to mention that proponents of the death penalty shouldn't be able to argue for it just because they don't see any big issues wrong with it. The burden of proof always has to be on the person seeking to kill in the name of society. The point of our justice system has always been to maximize public safety, act as a deterrent, and/or rehabilitation criminals. From the point of view of these criteria, there's no good argument for the death penalty. Doing it because it makes someone feel better is a stupid reason, which is why the families of victims don't have these kinds of rights in these cases. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 19 2008 00:37 Clutch3 wrote: The point of our justice system has always been to maximize public safety, act as a deterrent, and/or rehabilitation criminals. From the point of view of these criteria, there's no good argument for the death penalty. "The point of our justice system is not deliverance of justice, but social welfare." Merit. Talk about merit. You don't think someone can deserve death? And it's been shown that punishment severity is not linked with deterrent, so no. | ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
what u got against women | ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
On November 17 2008 03:30 Frits wrote: The severity of a crime shouldn't make the death penalty justifiable, getting emotional in these cases is only going to lead to stupid decisions. Yes, beating up a baby is not cool, we all know this but what really pisses me off is when a bunch of vigilantes go out on a witch hunt to persecute a criminal. I wish people wouldn't be such sheep. No they don't deserve the death penalty get a grip. This gets Frits into some arguments; he's right there and he's right here too. Let me just say, not only is beating up a baby not cool, it's beyond disgusting. It's enraging. We should all feel the urge to tear these people who did this up. But then what? Does obedience to such feelings make a good society? Can we really split hairs between vengeful feelings in some situations being great for society, bad for others, etc.? Or are we better off with a cool, rational, process to sort out criminals etc.? I mean come on guys, whenever your emotions get involved you want to throw out the whole idea of rule of law. If that's the case then you never understood it enough to agree or disagree w it in the first place. On November 17 2008 07:25 micronesia wrote: In my opinion this shouldn't be about punishing people for being evil. People who do terrible things like this (the beating etc) are very sick. Very very sick. They aren't 'evil' per say... and what we need to do isn't 'make them pay' for what they did but rather deal with the fact that they are capable of and have done it (meaning make sure this never happens again). Whether they are alive, or kept in holding is a separate matter, and can be discussed independently of what actually occurred here. Exactly. What is evil? Who knows? Who cares? Do we need to talk about evil, or sick, to decide what to do with criminals? Absolutely not. We need two pieces of information: how will what we do effect other people, and what is the best thing we can do with them? They are easy questions under which all claims--revenge, prevention, reform, reparation, etc. all fall under. All practical issues are as clear as these two questions and so there's no need to get so emo (as some people are being) if you are actually concerned about what the government needs to do with criminals like this. On November 17 2008 05:07 Maenander wrote: Nothing, revenge should not be part of any legal system. Prevention of further crimes is an issue, but killing should only only necessary, if no other methods are available, like for example in an act of self-defense. Exactly. Revenge is stupid, and we all should be a lot more tired (in the U.S.) of people using (abusing; pissing on) words like "justice" (which is supposed to mean something much more important!) as a euphemism (deludedly so; they don't know they're being euphemistic, they honestly have blurred the line in their mind to the point where they can lust after revenge in their speech and feel themselves blessed with the goddess of justice at their back). It's not about "what they deserve", it's about, what should the law do? Who cares what you feel they deserve? That's just talking about your feelings--you want to do that, you write a poem, not laws. On November 17 2008 04:58 Rygasm wrote: When you think about it death penalty is more humane than life in prison. Death penalty costs more than life in prison. Don't care. Death is better than life in prison. Maybe/maybe not, don't care. Why should the law kill people? You are saying, the law shouldn't, because we can do worse stuff than kill them. So you're saying, kill them or worse--w/o even getting to the point where you justified killing them or anywhere near it. On November 17 2008 10:09 rushz0rz wrote: Yeah, well, you're wrong and you are exactly whats wrong with this world, letting criminals get away with murder. Ridiculous. In situations like this it is justified. See my comments above. It's not a question of "justified" or "ridiculous." Your demand for killing these criminals, however, is both of these things. The world does not revolve around you every time your emotions get the better of you, and you obviously wouldn't want the government to obey everyone else's angry demands all the time. If the government refused to kill people like this would you do it yourself? | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On November 19 2008 00:47 HeadBangaa wrote: "The point of our justice system is not deliverance of justice, but social welfare." Merit. Talk about merit. You don't think someone can deserve death? And it's been shown that punishment severity is not linked with deterrent, so no. Thanks for conceding the point about the death penalty not being a deterrent. That's most people's number one argument for it. The point of my entire post was to lay out the criteria for merit in the justice system. If you disagree with the criteria, that's your right. But if you go and ask 100 people randomly what the purpose of the justice system is, you'd be surprised how many would agree with my criteria. Sure, someone can deserve death. But it's not the government's job to enforce morality, religious or otherwise. Government is not the "Hand of God". Your argument has been used in various forms throughout history to perpetrate all kinds of heinous acts, from mass genocide on down to the House Unamerican Activities Committee. This is the same reason I don't think the government should be anywhere near marriage, gay or otherwise. And all of this completely ignores the staggering rates of inequality and long track record of getting it wrong in death penalty cases, which has led to increasing pressure from many sources for a moratorium on capital punishment. So, to end with a question, what's an acceptable rate of "false positives" for you: for every 1000 murderers killed by the state, how many of those would have to be wrongful killings before it was no longer worth it? 1? 10? 100? How many innocent lives would you permit to be taken in the name of vengeance? | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 19 2008 01:23 Clutch3 wrote: Thanks for conceding the point about the death penalty not being a deterrent. That's most people's number one argument for it. The point of my entire post was to lay out the criteria for merit in the justice system. If you disagree with the criteria, that's your right. But if you go and ask 100 people randomly what the purpose of the justice system is, you'd be surprised how many would agree with my criteria. Desert and justice are distinct from "public safety and rehab". And I seem to recall reducing several of our past discussions to a disagreement about "ends vs means" so I won't revisit that. I do strongly disagree with you. Sure, someone can deserve death. But it's not the government's job to enforce morality. Laws are just codified mores. There is nothing to enforce without a system of morality. The golden rule is our morality, and it is quite practical. Government is not the "Hand of God". Your argument has been used in various forms throughout history to perpetrate all kinds of heinous acts, from mass genocide on down to the House Unamerican Activities Committee. And your argument could be used to excuse all forms of punishment, not just capital punishment, on the premise that no utility is gained for imprisoning a person. You don't believe in punishment, and accuse those who do of emotional digression. And all of this completely ignores the staggering rates of inequality and long track record of getting it wrong in death penalty cases, which has led to increasing pressure from many sources for a moratorium on capital punishment. So, to end with a question, what's an acceptable rate of "false positives" for you: for every 1000 murderers killed by the state, how many of those would have to be wrongful killings before it was no longer worth it? 1? 10? 100? How many innocent lives would you permit to be taken in the name of vengeance? Here is where I agree with you. The acceptable rate for false positive is 0%. Absolutely. There is no justice system worthy of implementing the death penalty, but that is unrelated to my point. If we had an "oracle" that could determine fault (zero false positives) then I would be all for it. But you wouldn't because you don't believe in punishment, I see. The concept seems to completely evade you; you see only emotion and vengeance. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
 | ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
(1) You say laws are just codified mores; you say that the laws reflect moral beliefs or they're worthless. While this may ideally be the case it seldom is. There's no moral belief that crime A is 10-15 years whereas crime B is 12-15 years in prison, etc. Laws contain a lot of stuff that there is no moral agenda about. Furthermore there is significant moral diversity these days, and there are significant obstacles to having any political influence whatsoever. It seems that at best the laws are some rules we hope won't fuck us over too much of the time. No one would feel like their morals are adequately represented in the law books. The laws seem to record, more, what society has found it necessary to explain and fear--to have a reaction to, so we can feel better about it. A kind of laundry list of insecurities, parts of society we haven't handled very well yet, plus a spell book of recipes such as "make the black man do pull ups and have a gay lover for 10 years then let him out and see how long he'll work at wal-mart for $5/hour before he goes back to crime." They bring us comfort, but are they really solutions? (2) You seem to think that when someone "deserves" "punishment", then that's what's best to do. I don't doubt that people sometimes evoke the response "hey he deserves punishment", but what exactly is that response? Perhaps it's not always of questionable emotional origin, but still, what is it exactly, even when it is 100% in the right? I believe it's some practical desire, at best, and if so, we should look at what the practical aim really is and maximize our advance towards that; punishment is not always the best way to achieve the goals that it wishes for, I'm afraid. So what is punishment supposed to do--deter, reform, or what? Without a practical aim it just seems to be a form of revenge, so I think I'm still not convinced by you about punishment being a legitimate thing per se. | ||
|
Leath
Canada1724 Posts
Those people are sick and need rehab and education, imo =( | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
Let me try to address what you've written. (1) While true that morality is vast and diverse, most paradigms intersect at the golden rule, ie, the ethic of reciprocity. Even cultures which developed completely in parallel, and similarly parallel religions, have evolved adherence to the golden rule and a bias towards altruism. We are so ingrained to think that way as the right way, that it is often taken for granted. It is a part of common sense, but still a moral paradigm. If crime A is considered more heinous than crime B, it is because an authority/arbiter considered the impact on the victim greater, which is an act of empathy, which extrapolates from the golden rule. There are also fringe moralities that provoke controversy, which aren't universally held like reciprocity is. When moralities/opinions conflict, people compete for representation of their ideals in the law books. This is the fodder of politics. I have only appealed to the morality which is universally common, but even so, it is a bias. Its ubiquity lends credence, not its absolute ethical value (for the sake of argument, I assume there is no absolute ethic). I'm fairly certain that any law you list, can be traced back to a philosophical bias. (2) So you are saying that, even if punishment is deserved, how do we determine the severity of punishment? That seems like a question to ask someone studying law, I really don't know. I asked my ethics professor this question when we studied Kant's categorical imperative; it seems like right and wrong are binary, rather than how much right or wrong something is. It seems to me that merit is plainly acknowledged in the positive case, that is, I work hard thus I deserve a good wage. The consequence of good hard work is reward, and is considered merited. The concept of "earning" or "meriting reward" in this case clearly has nothing to do with "encouragement". It seems logical then that if one's actions were objectively negative, that "deserving" or "meriting punishment" would have nothing to do with "deterrence" (just as the positive has nothing to do with "encouragement"). I'm arguing for merit as an independent metaphysical concept. Unless you can show that positive merit is centered on "encouragement", therefore, I can't understand why you would appeal to "deterrence/reform" when speaking on negative merit. I hope that makes sense, I put whiskey in my coffee this morning. | ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 19 2008 03:06 Suggestion Box wrote: I'm sorry I don't think you've studied Kant's anything. I will rewrite my post later to try to get a different response. Haha. You went from polite to rude instantly! Yes, I've studied Kant, he's one of my favorite philosophers. This is also the second time you've dodged my extensive reply to your inquiries (gay marriage thread, I gave you an excellent summary of my position, and you never replied). See if I ever give you an ounce of effort again. | ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
Honestly though, give me some time. You know how sometimes when you are playing a video game, and you die, and realize your save point was really really long ago, you kind of don't feel like playing for the rest of the night? That's how I feel about re-reading my post, figuring out how I ended up getting a (very nice) response that didn't seem to answer what I thought I asked (even though you seem like a smart, educated, guy who is putting forth the effort too), then clarifying/re-asking or w/e. I obviously fucked up somewhere so... just give me some time. I'm not going to be rude and say stuff like, how I hate people who always bring up Kant but only in the context of Ethics 101 or Business ethics or w/e, categorical imperative this and that, or rant on and on about how no one ever understands my posts and they need to read it again. God I am such a douche. But I want to be your friend. I really like the friendly tone, and the honest sense of inquiry here, between you and Clutch and perhaps others. So just give me some time and I'll regroup. You've defeated me and my impression right now is that I've been beaten up by a parked car, but obviously that's a hasty reaction. Just give me some time man, I'm sure it's me. edit: I see what you did there. Where's this Gay Marriage thing I dodged? I'm pretty sure I defeated all comers on that issue. | ||
|
NastyMarine
United States1252 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
You and oneofthem should hang out at coffee houses together, and discuss your contempt for laymen together, and share berets. | ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
| ||
|
Wolverine
138 Posts
* Kicked in the face, causing her nose to bleed; * Hit, slapped, punched and jumped on; * Objects such as shoes thrown at her; * Verbal insults, for example continually being told she was ugly; * Forced into a television cabinet drawer; * Dragged through the sandpit half-naked; * Shoved into piles of rubbish; * Made to bathe in cold water in mid-winter; * Folded into a sofa and sat on; * Flung against the wall; * Held high in the air and dropped to the floor; * Used for adult wrestling moves copied from a Playstation game; * Whirled rapidly on a rotary clothesline until flung off; * Put into a tumble dryer and spun on high temperature; * Had her head and feet dangled into the fireplace when the fire was lit; * Kicked repeatedly in the head because she was crying; * Left lying in a coma for 36 hours without medical attention. http://www.stuff.co.nz/4765081a23955.html | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 PiGStarcraft1060 StarCraft: Brood WarmouzHeroMarine  506RotterdaM  403IndyStarCraft  143Rex  97RushiSC 34ProTech30 MindelVK 8Britney Dota 2  29910actioN  438Soma 366Rush  270Mong 69Pusan 46soO 35Sexy 32ZZZero.O 31Terrorterran 28[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
CranKy Ducklings
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Krystianer
Solar vs Cure
IPSL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
Maru vs Shameless
Reynor vs TriGGeR
IPSL
OSC
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Hm
Bisu vs Shuttle
WardiTV Weekly
The Patches Monday
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
