PDA

View Full Version : Can you perceive a crime for which you would support the death penalty?



Basil
23-10-2009, 07:02 PM
Thread started in response to parallel thread/ poll on capital punishment. Def not wishing to detract from existing thread.

Basil
24-10-2009, 01:49 PM
I'd be especially interested to see how the following people vote in this poll. These people voted against the death penalty in the stem thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=9277).

arosar, AzureBlue, Boris, Davidflude, eclipse, Garrett, Garvinator, Ian Murray, Jaydon, Mokum, pax, Tony Dowden, Watto

Desmond
24-10-2009, 02:43 PM
My opinion tends to vary over time, I suppose depending on which factors I am weighing more heavily.

Basil
24-10-2009, 03:49 PM
My opinion tends to vary over time, I suppose depending on which factors I am weighing more heavily.
I think that means a yes vote?

Metro
24-10-2009, 05:35 PM
I would seriously consider it in the case of a mass murderer who has zero remorse.(There is certainty of guilt.)I would also point out that many prisoners consider life imprisonment(no early release) worse than death,hence attempts at suicide.However in answer to the question,I am not committing to the death sentence.

Desmond
24-10-2009, 05:36 PM
I think that means a yes vote?Yes, I suppose it does.

Basil
24-10-2009, 06:14 PM
I would seriously consider it in the case of a mass murderer who has zero remorse.(There is certainty of guilt.)I would also point out that many prisoners consider life imprisonment(no early release) worse than death,hence attempts at suicide.However in answer to the question,I am not committing to the death sentence.
This seems to be a self-contradictory position. On one hand you say you would seriously consider the death penalty, then in conclusion you rule it out. Perhaps I am misreading and you are saying that although you have considered the penalty for a remorseless mass murderer, you would ultimately feed and clothe him and keep him safe and warm until he pops off naturally.

Basil
24-10-2009, 06:39 PM
Garv, I see you have voted no. What about genocide based on race hatred - the manner and speed of the deaths varied and chosen to include those of torture and on children? Not to mention other depravity and forcing family members to watch? Cosy cell with three square meals and telly?

Metro
24-10-2009, 06:51 PM
This seems to be a self-contradictory position. On one hand you say you would seriously consider the death penalty, then in conclusion you rule it out. Perhaps I am misreading and you are saying that although you have considered the penalty for a remorseless mass murderer, you would ultimately feed and clothe him and keep him safe and warm until he pops off naturally.
Well,I am considering or thinking on the death penalty as an appropriate penalty.In the case of a worst crime I am not convinced the death penalty is the right response.Is it the best available response? At this time I hold the view that life imprisonment is the best response.

Oepty
24-10-2009, 07:09 PM
I can certainly conceive of crimes where I would wish the offender dead, but it would be wrong for the offender to be killed. I am yet to be convinced that the death penalty is right, although Jono puts forward a strong Biblical argument.
Scott

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2009, 07:50 PM
I voted yes. While I am not sure of the crime that might deserve capital punishment, it must also have higher level of prove than what is acceptable for "guilty" verdict.

ER
24-10-2009, 08:24 PM
Voting for you know who? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

Capablanca-Fan
24-10-2009, 08:27 PM
This seems to be a self-contradictory position. On one hand you say you would seriously consider the death penalty, then in conclusion you rule it out. Perhaps I am misreading and you are saying that although you have considered the penalty for a remorseless mass murderer, you would ultimately feed and clothe him and keep him safe and warm until he pops off naturally.
Or is released on "compassionate" grounds, as the Scots did to the Lockerbie mass murderer, who was of course given a hero's welcome back in Libya.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2009, 08:51 PM
Or is released on "compassionate" grounds, as the Scots did to the Lockerbie mass murderer, who was of course given a hero's welcome back in Libya.
Releasing murderers (convicted to non-parole life sentence) is a different problem (albeit relevant).
I know it's a hypothetical question, but would you drop (or lessen) support for death penalty if life sentence was strictly enforced?

Capablanca-Fan
24-10-2009, 08:59 PM
I know it's a hypothetical question, but would you drop (or lessen) support for death penalty if life sentence was strictly enforced?
Yes, as much as I think that one who intentionally takes innocent human life should forfeit their own life.

Ian Murray
25-10-2009, 10:26 AM
What is capital punishment aiming to achieve -
- to punish?
- to deter others?
- to avenge?

For the types of horrendous crimes bandied about here, imprisonment is the harsher penalty. Such sociopaths are despised and targeted within the prison system, and do very hard time (if they survive)

Execution has been used as a deterrent throughout recorded history, employed by rulers to suppress the masses and hold on to power (in 18th century England there were some 250 capital offences, wth public executions to entertain the masses). It still doesn't work.

Extracting vengeance may make some feel better, but does it make us more civilised, or less?

Basil
25-10-2009, 10:55 AM
What is capital punishment aiming to achieve -
- to punish?
- to deter others?
- to avenge?
All good questions. My feeling ATM is that the penalty is meant to rid and to cleanse. Whether it achieves those things (or even the opposite) is certainly open to debate.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-10-2009, 11:08 AM
What is capital punishment aiming to achieve -
- to punish?
- to deter others?
- to avenge?

Probably all of above


For the types of horrendous crimes bandied about here, imprisonment is the harsher penalty. Such sociopaths are despised and targeted within the prison system, and do very hard time (if they survive)

Execution has been used as a deterrent throughout recorded history, employed by rulers to suppress the masses and hold on to power (in 18th century England there were some 250 capital offences, wth public executions to entertain the masses). It still doesn't work.

Extracting vengeance may make some feel better, but does it make us more civilised, or less?
May be the answer should be different for each country?
Australia is doing quite well without death penalty and I see no reason to introduce it.

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2009, 12:13 PM
What is capital punishment aiming to achieve -
- to punish?
- to deter others?
- to avenge?
All of the above, in that order of importance.


For the types of horrendous crimes bandied about here, imprisonment is the harsher penalty. Such sociopaths are despised and targeted within the prison system, and do very hard time (if they survive)
I think prisons have a duty to protect prisoners. A good first step is making sure that the prisoner has his own cell. But lefties who profess to care about prisoners usually oppose building more prisons that would help achieve this. Unfortunately, weaklings guilty of minor offences are also targeted for brutal rapes.


Execution has been used as a deterrent throughout recorded history, employed by rulers to suppress the masses and hold on to power (in 18th century England there were some 250 capital offences, wth public executions to entertain the masses). It still doesn't work.
It does so. There are examples of would-be murderers desisting because they knew they would face execution.


Extracting vengeance may make some feel better, but does it make us more civilised, or less?
First, that begs the question whether execution is primarily "exacting vengeance". And for the converse, does allowing murderers to live, and usually eventually releasing them, make us more civilized, or does it cheapen the lives of the innocents taken?

arosar
25-10-2009, 12:58 PM
I am not favour of the death penalty because of all the usual familiar reasons. But the one big reason for me is that killing a convict is too easy. Their lives end, kaput, just like that. It is inadequate.

AR

Basil
25-10-2009, 01:12 PM
But the one big reason for me is that killing a convict is too easy. Their lives end, kaput, just like that. It is inadequate.

AR
A ha! Torture!?

Basil
25-10-2009, 01:15 PM
For those that believe the death penalty is too good for the bastards, may I suggest that very few convicted crims would say 'bring it on' and the vast majority fight tooth and nail to have the DP taken off the table and would settle for a life in prison (telly, food, exercise, a nice library, a bit of ping pong, chess!!!).

Ian Murray
25-10-2009, 04:00 PM
...I think prisons have a duty to protect prisoners.
They do. It's called protective custody - isolation from the rest of the prison population. In other words, solitary confinement for life. Not that they are then safe from harm - their food is vulnerable to tampering (ground glass from light bulbs is popular), and the infirmary and hospital are not isolated.


It does so. There are examples of would-be murderers desisting because they knew they would face execution.
How many, vis-a-vis the number of murders committed where CP is on the statutes?

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2009, 05:42 PM
They do. It's called protective custody - isolation from the rest of the prison population. In other words, solitary confinement for life.
Not much of a protection. But your own argument was that prisoners would inflict severe punishment.


Not that they are then safe from harm - their food is vulnerable to tampering (ground glass from light bulbs is popular), and the infirmary and hospital are not isolated.
Then prisons are failing in their duty of care. It's the loss of liberty that should be punishment, and a protection of society. The punishment should not be in the hands of other scumbags.


How many, vis-a-vis the number of murders committed where CP is on the statutes?
Since you guys like Wikipedia:


A November 18, 2007 New York Times article reported the following information:

One reason that there is no general consensus on whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent is that it is used so rarely — only about one out of every 300 murders actually results in an execution. In 2005 in the Stanford Law Review, John J. Donohue III, a law professor at Yale with a doctorate in economics, and Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote that the death penalty "... is applied so rarely that the number of homicides it can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot reliably be disentangled from the large year-to-year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors... The existing evidence for deterrence... is surprisingly fragile." Wolfers stated, "If I was allowed 1,000 executions and 1,000 exonerations, and I was allowed to do it in a random, focused way, I could probably give you an answer."

Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University, authored a study that looked at all 3,054 U.S. counties over two decades, and concluded that each execution saved five lives. Mocan stated, "I personally am opposed to the death penalty... But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect."

Joanna M. Shepherd, a law professor at Emory with a doctorate in economics who was involved in several studies on the death penalty, stated, "I am definitely against the death penalty on lots of different grounds... But I do believe that people respond to incentives." Shepherd found that the death penalty had a deterrent effect only in those states that executed at least nine people between 1977 and 1996. In the Michigan Law Review in 2005, Shepherd wrote, "Deterrence cannot be achieved with a half-hearted execution program."

antichrist
25-10-2009, 06:30 PM
I would not mind stringing up a few of those fascist Israeli political leaders - I will even donate the rope. The ones who ordered those big attacks over the past few years.

Basil
28-10-2009, 06:11 PM
Any more for any more (votes)?

Especially interested in wets who are hard-wired to vote against the 'death penalty for murderers' coz ummm... you know... yup ... (and don't have to think too hard about it - especially when there's the catch-all 'but are we absolutely sure of guilt' card) but ...

can't. quite. bring. themselves. to. vote. 'NO'. in. this. one.

Also interested in (and respectful of) people who simply won't take another life. But it's different this time isn't it ... because we're talkin' principle?

Caaaaaarn!

Goughfather
28-10-2009, 06:35 PM
Well, being of the pacifist persuasion, I'm one who does not believe that it is appropriate to take a human life, so I'll hope you'll afford me the respect you're talking about. Please note that my position is not necessarily predicated on the idea that we should be merciful to those who murder, nor indeed that they have an intrinsic right to live, but merely that taking life impacts adversely upon everybody. State-sanctioned murder does not bring the victim back, does not bring a sense of closure to their families, or bring them justice. It could very well be that murderers deserve to die, but this does not necessarily mean that this is the course that we should follow.

Saragossa
28-10-2009, 06:41 PM
I'm anti-abortion to the max, but this is very different. Life imprisonment is worse but murderers etc are cowards thus they opt into it out of mis-judgement. However life imprisonment is very rarely for life, this gives them hope that they shouldn't deserve. I think there are lots of crimes that deserve the death penalty.

Basil
28-10-2009, 06:44 PM
... so I'll hope you'll afford me the respect you're talking about.
Of course. None of us have all the answers and one day I may switch my position. I can appreciate anyone who has the courage of their convictions* regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

*Convictions being the operative word - as opposed to wishy washy slop

Saragossa
28-10-2009, 06:47 PM
State-sanctioned murder does not bring the victim back, does not bring a sense of closure to the family...

I disagree. If one of my family members were murdered I would feel better if the murderer was put to death. Although I can't be definite until it actually happens.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2009, 11:20 PM
Well, being of the pacifist persuasion,
I'm of the just war persuasion myself.


I'm one who does not believe that it is appropriate to take a human life, so I'll hope you'll afford me the respect you're talking about.
Of course; I'll show you the respect you've always shown me ;)


Please note that my position is not necessarily predicated on the idea that we should be merciful to those who murder, nor indeed that they have an intrinsic right to live, but merely that taking life impacts adversely upon everybody.
Certainly. Letting murderers live impacts adversely on everyone too.


State-sanctioned murder
It's not murder by definition, since this is is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought).

Goughfather
28-10-2009, 11:28 PM
I'm of the just war persuasion myself.

Really? I never could have guessed.


Certainly. Letting murderers live impacts adversely on everyone too.

Really? I don't feel too adversely impacted. I also don't feel too adversely impacted by the fact that money that would have otherwise been spent on the death penalty can be channelled into much more productive projects.


It's not murder by definition, since this is is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought).

Well yes, I am aware of that legal fiction.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2009, 11:33 PM
Really? I never could have guessed.
Good thing I informed you then.


Really? I don't feel too adversely impacted. I also don't feel too adversely impacted by the fact that money that would have otherwise been spent on the death penalty can be channelled into much more productive projects.
Yes, like keeping murderers alive. In any case, a lot of the expense in American death penalty cases is due to lawyer types dragging out frivolous appeals.


Well yes, I am aware of that legal fiction.
It's a point of definition going back at least to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England defining murder as:


when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied

Not all killing is murder, hence other terms like manslaughter, homicide; also murder is not applied to soldiers killing in battle.

Goughfather
28-10-2009, 11:57 PM
Yes, like keeping murderers alive.

And then some. Every execution takes valuable money away from schools, hospitals and infrastructure.


In any case, a lot of the expense in American death penalty cases is due to lawyer types dragging out frivolous appeals.

Or we could hang them all without a trial - I'm sure that would save money.

Just wondering though, given that you only have a cursory understanding of legal procedure and practice, how you make an assessment as to the viability of an appeal?


It's a point of definition going back at least to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England defining murder as:


when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied

Not all killing is murder, hence other terms like manslaughter, homicide; also murder is not applied to soldiers killing in battle.

Of course that's the definition. That said, creating artificial distinctions doesn't necessarily make one form of killing less egregious than another.

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2009, 12:01 AM
I was tempted to cast a flippant "yes" vote and list stuff like:

* spamming
* high level apostrophe misuse
* hosting a braindead game show

as among the offences serious enough to consider the punishment in question. :D

Seriously though I am taking this as a question about a real world circumstance rather than Jono's poll with an idealised level of proof of offence and my vote therefore is "no".

Not because I don't believe that level of proof can ever exist, but because I do not believe any legal system is capable of always avoiding false positives when it comes to identifying that it has. If such a foolproof system could occur, I believe its cost would outweigh the cost of life-means-life as an alternative.

Additionally, I find the concept of killing a captured person who has no opportunity to escape fundamentally grotesque and disturbing, even if they did the same thing themselves to someone else. That aspect of it can sometimes make me sympathetic for those who otherwise deserve no sympathy.

I'm quite a fan of life-means-life for the worst of offences and the worst of offender attitudes towards them. Even willing to consider relaxing cruel-and-unusual in some ways for certain classes of scum.

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2009, 01:56 AM
And then some. Every execution takes valuable money away from schools, hospitals and infrastructure.
Who says the government should be funding these? But even so, every prisoner costs lots of money; more if, as I advocate, they get their own cell.


Or we could hang them all without a trial — I'm sure that would save money.
But at too high a cost; it's only those proven guilty of murder that should hang.


Just wondering though, given that you only have a cursory understanding of legal procedure and practice, how you make an assessment as to the viability of an appeal?
How about even SCOTUS Justices, who have denounced many subsequent appeals as frivolous, designed to prolong the lives of prisoners properly condemned to death, a conviction upheld on appeal, rather than to raise legitimate legal or constitutional issues. It's common sense, given that the appeals procedure in the USA are so drawn out and expensive that a quarter of death row prisoners die of natural causes. A truly innocent person would want a speedy appeal not a delaying one that keeps him on death row longer.


Of course that's the definition. That said, creating artificial distinctions doesn't necessarily make one form of killing less egregious than another.
In your opinion, not in the opinion of the Bible writers, Augustine, Aquinas, Blackstone and all the law codes that differentiate murder from manslaughter and homicide.

Basil
12-11-2009, 10:12 AM
Yeah, so this week a guy went nuts in an army base and slaughtered his fellow peepz. Putting all slippy slidey semantics away (by all means invoke them if you're genuine about them), would you object to this guy being put to death?

I'm assuming all respondents have seen sufficient footage connecting the cadavres with the wives and children who will spend eternity never touching their loved ones again. May we also assume that this guy is legally sane?

Go!

Garvinator
12-11-2009, 11:13 AM
Gunner, if you were looking for a recent example, I think the Washington Sniper would have been a better example as he was just executed.

Ian Murray
12-11-2009, 11:41 AM
... May we also assume that this guy is legally sane?

That's quite an assumption. Sane people don't normally go on shooting sprees

TheJoker
12-11-2009, 12:12 PM
Yes, as much as I think that one who intentionally takes innocent human life should forfeit their own life.

Jono, from a Christian point of view, if a Christian God supports the above-mentioned statement, then why wouldn't such a God take matters into his own hands and strike the guy down with a bolt of lightning or give him a heart attack? IIRC God used to perform such acts according to the stories in the Old Testament.

Do you believe that in executing such a person we are acting on God's behalf? If is there any direction attributed directly to God or Jesus that requests such action on their behalf.

In the poll I've answered no primarily for the reasons:


It doesn't offer any kind repatriation / justice to the victims (i.e. it doesn't right the wrong)

I don't believe it is a more effective deterrent than imprisonment.

Economically it costs more than imprisionment due the checks and balances required to administer it fairly

Imprisionment has the same net effect of protecting society

Basil
12-11-2009, 01:28 PM
That's quite an assumption. Sane people don't normally go on shooting sprees
That's quite a sweeping statement - and misleading as insane people don't normally go on shooting sprees either.

Aaaaaaaand here we go - and I was hoping not to get bogged down in this.

Essentially the guy was (pre-meditated) shooting up people for his religioius beliefs. Now, either we're going to classify all people who do this as insane*, or if not, I'm asking about execution on the proviso that he is found to be quite sane.

* Are you in fact suggesting that people who do this (let's call them suicide bombers for want of a broad term - you can give me another - do think you have fudged the central issue enough yet?) are insane? If so, should you tell them or me?

Basil
12-11-2009, 01:31 PM
[LIST]
It doesn't offer any kind repatriation / justice to the victims (i.e. it doesn't right the wrong)
Lefty claptrap. More 'we know what's good for you and what you really want' dribble. Are you speaking for all victims? Speaking for the the victims you have discussed this with?


Economically it costs more than imprisionment due the checks and balances required to administer it fairly
Source?

Goughfather
12-11-2009, 01:50 PM
Source?

"Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis: A Death Penalty Information Centre Report - October 2009" (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostRptExecSum.pdf)

Basil
12-11-2009, 02:00 PM
"Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis: A Death Penalty Information Centre Report - October 2009" (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostRptExecSum.pdf)
Thank you. It's difficult to tell how reliable that information is. It first blush it appears a biased wall of anti death penalty propaganda oscilating between issues.

It is not signed. There is no context. I'm wary of the calculations. For instance the 51 million bucks quoted may be comprised largely of one or two expenses that don't properly belong on the balance sheet, and do properly fall into the creative accounting profession. I appreciate the piece is an executive summary, but without the supporting doc, it is insufficient for me.

Anything with 'in times of economic crisis' attahed to its headline on such an important subject smacks of Rudd-like push issues to me.

Ian Murray
12-11-2009, 02:27 PM
That's quite a sweeping statement!

Aaaaaaaand here we go - and I was hoping not to get bogged down in this.

Essentially the guy was (pre-meditated) shooting up people for his religioius beliefs. Now, either we're going to classify all people who do this as insane*, or if not, I'm asking on the proviso that he is subsequently found to be quite sane.

* Are you in fact suggesting that people who do this (let's call them suicide bombers for want of a broad term - you can give me another - do think you have fudged the central issue enough yet?) are insane? If so, should you tell them or me?
The read I get on the story is that he was less than happy with life in the Green Machine, rather than being motivated by religion. The fact that he is a Muslim is clouding the issue - there's nothing to indicate he was any sort of jihadi. It's interesting that he was a psychiatrist working with psychiatrists, who thought he was a bit weird but didn't notice any sign he'd go ballistic.

Anyway, to answer the original question, on conviction he gets life in Leavenworth like any other US military murderer. I'm fine with that.

As for the cost of capital punishment vis-a-vis life imprisonment, there are some interesting California data at http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42%255

Ian Murray
12-11-2009, 02:48 PM
Lefty claptrap. More 'we know what's good for you and what you really want' dribble. Are you speaking for all victims? Speaking for the the victims you have discussed this with?
Victims speak for themselves at
http://www.mvfr.org
http://www.californiacrimevictims.org
http://www.journeyofhope.org/pages/index.htm

Basil
12-11-2009, 03:17 PM
As for the cost of capital punishment vis-a-vis life imprisonment, there are some interesting California data at http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42%255
Thank you. As I suspected ...

The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit
So the 'irreversible innocents' is an issue again - an issue I am sympathetic with BTW. I'm interested, in this thread, in the 'perceive' part of the DP question; viz the no chance of innocents being executed. I think Fred West and Hassan quite readily avoid capture by the 'hey, you got the wrong guy defence'.

Kevin Bonham
12-11-2009, 03:38 PM
Yeah, so this week a guy went nuts in an army base and slaughtered his fellow peepz. Putting all slippy slidey semantics away (by all means invoke them if you're genuine about them), would you object to this guy being put to death?

Yeah, I would, even assuming that the guy is guilty beyond any possible doubt whatsoever. I see this as most likely going one of two ways depending on the evidence:

1. The guy was an unrepentant extremist infiltrator who, with relatively little provocation, always intended doing this kind of thing sooner or later and should have been screened out by proper background checking. In this case he deserves to be executed, but at the same time it is giving him the martyrdom he was cruising for all along and executing him will only fuel more such incidents that will cause the death of others. Don't do it. Lock him up in solitary and throw away the key.

2. The guy was not naturally an extremist but became affected by the stress of his work and possibly persecution to the point where he could not cope any more and snapped. In this case he doesn't deserve execution but as an obvious danger to others must be incarcerated permanently.

Same result in either case except in (2) he should be treated more compassionately than in (1).


May we also assume that this guy is legally sane?

Jeffrey Dahmer was "legally sane" and Martin Bryant probably would have been too so that really doesn't narrow the field all that much.

In any case, you said it yourself; the guy "went nuts".

Basil
12-11-2009, 04:00 PM
1. The guy was an unrepentant extremist infiltrator who, with relatively little provocation, always intended doing this kind of thing sooner or later and should have been screened out by proper background checking. In this case he deserves to be executed, but at the same time it is giving him the martyrdom he was cruising for all along and executing him will only fuel more such incidents that will cause the death of others. Don't do it. Lock him up in solitary and throw away the key.
In this case, I'm down with this.

antichrist
12-11-2009, 06:15 PM
I disagree with all of you,at least my reasoning does (if it deserves such terminolgy).

All situations (even mods of this board) should have/'demand a bit of libertarian outlook, whether a bad marriage one should be allowed to escape, or a overseas work contract that has gone sour etc etc.

This guy tried to buy himself out of the army who had financed his studies. No he could not get out. He tried to get out of going to support a war he was extremely against - no he could not get out.

Just as I am against conscription for war I am against locking people into a situation that they no longer want to be part of.

He could not excape his racist and sectarian tormentors, and actually sort them out to shoot.

Something had to snap - him or them. This event should lead to a loosening of army rules, of who is forced to go where and for how long.

We all should have a dose of libertarianism in us.

Ian Murray
12-11-2009, 06:59 PM
...This guy tried to buy himself out of the army who had financed his studies. No he could not get out. He tried to get out of going to support a war he was extremely against - no he could not get out.
When signing up for the military scholarship program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Professions_Scholarship_Program) he knew he was locking himself into an Army job for however many years after graduation. He took the free uni course and living expenses on that basis. Maybe he was hoping the US would be out of Iraq before he was due for rotation over there, but that's life.

He could have applied for a discharge and paid out the debt, but that's a lengthy process. Not surprisingly, it's not made easy.

In any case it's not like he was faced with the prospect of going into combat against fellow Muslims. He'd be working in a hospital treating psych cases.

Ian Murray
12-11-2009, 07:18 PM
Thank you. As I suspected ...

The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit

So the 'irreversible innocents' is an issue again - an issue I am sympathetic with BTW.
The advantage of living in a democracy is that we can leave anytime we like. If a swifter justice system is preferred, we can choose somewhere to suit. Iran perhaps

TheJoker
13-11-2009, 08:49 AM
Lefty claptrap. More 'we know what's good for you and what you really want' dribble. Are you speaking for all victims? Speaking for the the victims you have discussed this with?

What are you babbling about? I was speaking from an objective point of view. For example if someone damages your car, and is ordered to pay to repair that damage, that is compensation. It rights the wrong, justice is served. Executing a murderer, for example, doesn't bring the victim back to life, it doesn't provide the victims family any compenstion for their loss from an objective point of view. It doesn't right the wrong. That should be fairly obvious. No need to ask the victims, since the consequences of executing somebody are well known, they don't involve any sort of resurection of their victims, or miraculous compensation pay-outs to the families:rolleyes:

So from the point of view of remedying the the crime commited the death penalty is ineffective.

And since i point out that i don't think its any more of an effective deterrent than imprisonment, I can't really see the point in it. I do however, object to the often ridculously short prison terms given in sentencing for murder.


Source?

"Studies have shown that the overall costs attendant to capital convictions – including trials and appeals – exceed those of incarcerating a person for life."

Economist, 3/14/2009, Vol. 390 Issue 8622, p32-32, 1/3p;

Hope that source is not to "lefty" :lol:

Basil
13-11-2009, 09:11 AM
I was speaking from an objective point of view.
No you weren't. You were, and still are, speaking from The Joker's POV (as demonstrated below).


For example if someone damages your car, and is ordered to pay to repair that damage, that is repatriation. It rights the wrong, justice is served.
Right. Restoring property.


Executing a murderer, for example, doesn't bring the victim back to life, it doesn't provide the victims family any compenstion for their loss from an objective point of view. It doesn't right the wrong.
And this is where you're caught in your own whirlpool of myopic lefty drivel. Some people would like revenge. Others would claim they're entitled. You're claiming that they're not. Some people elect for eye for an eye - as do many cultures. You're claiming that's neither appropriate nor necessary.

This is the lefty claptrap of sitting on high and advising what other people want, how they should feel, arrogantly strung by your own words as quoted below ...


That should be fairly obvious. No need to ask the victims ...
What arrogant twaddle.

TheJoker
13-11-2009, 10:16 AM
And this is where you're caught in your own whirlpool of myopic lefty drivel. Some people would like revenge. Others would claim they're entitled. You're claiming that they're not. Some people elect for eye for an eye - as do many cultures. You're claiming that's neither appropriate nor necessary.

Not my intention, my intention was to show that it didn't remedy the crime, from an objective point of view, that is in "real" terms.

If you want to argue that revenge is some sort of compensation then fair enough, I didn't really think about that I guess I am a hard numbers sort of guy and don't really think about all that emotional compensation stuff like revenge. I'll take you point that it might offer some sort of emotional compensation to some victims. But I dont consider that an objective form of compensation. I am sure you'd agree that it is highly subjective and will depend upon the individual victim. And since we don't have a system that accomodates the preferences of individual victims in defining compensation or punishments it should be excluded from any objective evaluation of the compensatory benefits of the death penalty.

I'll point out that nowhere did I say that valid reasons for supporting death penalty didn't exist. I was talking about my personal reasoning for not supporting the death penalty, one of which is that it doesn't right the wrong (i.e. bring a murder victim back to life) or offer any objective form of compensation to the victim. I wouldn't like to put someone to death based on the premise that the victim may or may not feel emotionally compensated. Something the victim is unlikley to even know unitl after the fact.

BTW any evidence that death penalty provides any sort of long-term emotional compensation to victims?


This is the lefty claptrap of sitting on high and advising what other people want, how they should feel, arrogantly strung by your own words as quoted below ...

Firstly, congratulations on the spin! Taking a portion of a sentence out of context a spinning it into something that it wasn't. You've obviously started modelling yourself after Rudd.

You seem to saying that I am telling other people how think. Not at all I was explaining my reasoning for why I didn't support the death penalty.

If I feel it is unecessary to ask the victims about what they felt was appropriate compensation, in forming my opinion. I don't see why you should have a problem with that.

If you want a justice system where the victims define what is approiate compensation/punishment then that's fine. Personally I don't think that's appropriate and I think its a collection of everyone's opinion of what is effective compensation/punishment for a crime that counts. And my vote is against the death penalty in any form for my personal reason outlined in my previous posts. None of which you been able to convince me are invalid.

Basil
14-11-2009, 10:39 PM
World Trade Centre bombers/ mastermind types on trial any moment now. Death penalty on the table. Any objectors? Anyone who presently objects to the DP prepared to make an exception?

ER
15-11-2009, 08:39 AM
(...) You've obviously started modelling yourself after Rudd (...)
http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Surprise/surprised-038.gif

TheJoker
15-11-2009, 10:42 PM
World Trade Centre bombers/ mastermind types on trial any moment now. Death penalty on the table. Any objectors? Anyone who presently objects to the DP prepared to make an exception?

I think for radical islamists the martyrdom (read the death pernalty) might be more apppealing than life imprisonment.

Basil
16-11-2009, 07:49 AM
I think for radical islamists the martyrdom (read the death pernalty) might be more apppealing than life imprisonment.
Yes. This has been put forward a gazillion times by those that object on other grounds in the stem thread. This thread is about the Australian public, not the perpetrators.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2009, 12:47 PM
World Trade Centre bombers/ mastermind types on trial any moment now.

Alleged World Trade Centre bombers/mastermind types on trial any moment now. Terrorism conspiracy charge trials have a fairly high rate of failure. Given the notoriety of the whole event, the trial being held with a jury from the city that was attacked, and given the repeat waterboarding of KSM it will be surprising if whatever the trial comes up with really deserves to be taken seriously.

Basil
16-11-2009, 02:14 PM
Alleged
Of course. Thanks.

TheJoker
17-11-2009, 07:04 AM
Yes. This has been put forward a gazillion times by those that object on other grounds in the stem thread. This thread is about the Australian public, not the perpetrators.

Well you would think those members of the Australian public would take into account whether the it was going to act as deterrent or incentive for future crimes. :rolleyes:

Basil
17-11-2009, 10:08 AM
Well you would think those members of the Australian public would take into account whether the it was going to act as deterrent or incentive for future crimes. :rolleyes:
One would. But read the the thread title carefully and I'll listen for the sound of a penny dropping.

CameronD
17-11-2009, 07:03 PM
Unrelted to this.

But personally, I think imprisoned people should have to pay the state the cost of their imprisonment out of any funds/assets they have up to that point in time.

Oepty
17-11-2009, 08:48 PM
World Trade Centre bombers/ mastermind types on trial any moment now. Death penalty on the table. Any objectors? Anyone who presently objects to the DP prepared to make an exception?

I would not make a exception. I am puzzled though as to why killing a lot of people in the one incident makes one a better candidate for the death penalty than just killing one. The death penalty is either appropriate and therefore the bombers were due the death penalty the moment the first person died irrespective of whether anybofy else died, or it is wrong and should not be applied even if they had killed everybody on the earth.
Scott

Basil
17-11-2009, 09:24 PM
I am puzzled though as to why killing a lot of people in the one incident makes one a better candidate for the death penalty than just killing one.
I've not heard anyone suggest anything if the sort. I'm canvassing the idea based on the calculation, the indiscriminate crime against humanity and that there was an absence of insanity, and absence of crime of passion and so forth. I'd be interested in people's views for the Lockerbie bomber even if the plane had only 5 on board.

Oepty
17-11-2009, 10:12 PM
I've not heard anyone suggest anything if the sort. I'm canvassing the idea based on the calculation, the indiscriminate crime against humanity and that there was an absence of insanity, and absence of crime of passion and so forth. I'd be interested in people's views for the Lockerbie bomber even if the plane had only 5 on board.

When you murder one person you are a murderer. Murdering more than one person does not make you more of a murderer. If the death penalty is appropriate for murder it is appriate whether there was 1 person on the plane or 5 or 10 or however many. When the first person died when the plane exploded the perpretators became murders. When the second person died they did not become more of a murderer, rather a murderer of more people. For each and every person who died in the Lockerbie bombing, if they were the only one who died, if the death penalty is appropriate then the bombers should be executed on the basis of that death alone. The bomber's life is not worth twice as much or five times as much as the victims that we need to require them to kill 2 people or 5 people or x number of people so they can forfeit there life.
Scott

Basil
17-11-2009, 10:38 PM
Scott, you have locked on to the fact that Lockerbie and Twin Towers have more than one victim. This is true. However the quantity of victims in the gamut of my position (and thread title) may also be one.

Incidentally I agree with your assertion as described, but it is not germane to my question of making an exception for the Twin Towers bombers (whoever they are). Let's switch from the example of them to an example of a premeditated, adult, sane suicide bomber who kills one (and survives herself). How's that? ;)

Oepty
17-11-2009, 11:19 PM
Scott, you have locked on to the fact that Lockerbie and Twin Towers have more than one victim. This is true. However the quantity of victims in the gamut of my position (and thread title) may also be one.

Incidentally I agree with your assertion as described, but it is not germane to my question of making an exception for the Twin Towers bombers (whoever they are). Let's switch from the example of them to an example of a premeditated, adult, sane suicide bomber who kills one (and survives herself). How's that? ;)

Gunner. I don't want people to die, I want people to live, and ultimately forever. Killing people does not help that, it takes that away. They need to be alive to be saved from death. I don't care what people have done if they want to change, because I believe doesn't care. He forgave King David who murdered a friend to cover up the fact he had committed adultery. He forgave King Manesseh who, reading between the lines of what is written, went around killing people for no real reason and perhaps even for fun.
So how am I going to make an exception and say I want her dead. Emotions might make the better of judgement and I have already stated in this thread that I could wish someone dead, but that does not make it right.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2009, 11:28 PM
Let's switch from the example of them to an example of a premeditated, adult, sane suicide bomber who kills one (and survives herself). How's that? ;)

The choice of gender in your example (presumably just to get away from a bias towards male genders in examples) raises an important point. Suicide bombers often come from societies where women are severely repressed. If that was the case in your example I'd be inclined to take it into account.

So let's make the wannabe suicide bomber male, intelligent, well-educated, and additionally let's say that he targeted exclusively civilian targets without knowing anything of their beliefs, killing one. I'm taking away every excuse that I can think of here.

With all the excuses taken away, and also assuming an unrealistic level of certainty of guilt (as per Jono's other thread) then probably the only thing left stopping me from supporting the DP in this case is that martyring jihadists actively encourages others.

Oepty
17-11-2009, 11:41 PM
The choice of gender in your example (presumably just to get away from a bias towards male genders in examples) raises an important point. Suicide bombers often come from societies where women are severely repressed. If that was the case in your example I'd be inclined to take it into account.

So let's make the wannabe suicide bomber male, intelligent, well-educated, and additionally let's say that he targeted exclusively civilian targets without knowing anything of their beliefs, killing one. I'm taking away every excuse that I can think of here.

With all the excuses taken away, and also assuming an unrealistic level of certainty of guilt (as per Jono's other thread) then probably the only thing left stopping me from supporting the DP in this case is that martyring jihadists actively encourages others.

How is being repressed in anyway a mitigating factor for planning to kill, preparing to kill and then murdering someone? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
As for encouraging more jihadists, I think not killing one might make them make sure they don't muck it up. This might lead to them carrying bigger bombs, leading them to killing more people. Speculation of course.
Scott
Scott

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2009, 11:56 PM
How is being repressed in anyway a mitigating factor for planning to kill, preparing to kill and then murdering someone? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Because when people have fewer meaningful life options they may become more likely to seek meaning for their life in an extreme act of self-sacrifice. One would think they would do so by rebelling against the source of the repression, but when the repression is total enough it doesn't necessarily work like that.


As for encouraging more jihadists, I think not killing one might make them make sure they don't muck it up. This might lead to them carrying bigger bombs, leading them to killing more people. Speculation of course.

Well, it's a rather artificial scenario anyway, since it's pretty rare for a would-be suicide bomber to survive and succeed in killing someone in the process.

But it does happen sometimes. This (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/14/reformed.jihadist/index.html) is an argument in favour of not executing the bomber in such cases - except according to him he was not intentionally a bomber, and was used.

Basil
18-11-2009, 03:42 AM
Gunner. I don't want people to die, ... so how am I going to make an exception and say I want her dead.
And all of this I understand and respect. And on these grounds of belief, I have no quibble with your line.

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2009, 05:31 PM
“People who claim that sentencing a murderer to "life without the possibility of parole" protects society just as well as the death penalty ignore three things: (1) life without the possibility of parole does not mean life without the possibility of escape or (2) life without the possibility of killing while in prison or (3) life without the possibility of a liberal [leftard] governor being elected and issuing a pardon.”--Thomas Sowell

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2009, 06:50 PM
“People who claim that sentencing a murderer to "life without the possibility of parole" protects society just as well as the death penalty ignore three things: (1) life without the possibility of parole does not mean life without the possibility of escape or (2) life without the possibility of killing while in prison or (3) life without the possibility of a liberal [leftard] governor being elected and issuing a pardon.”--Thomas Sowell

(1) Build better prisons. If you can't afford that save money by cutting unnecessary imprisonments, especially those generated by the failed and bogus War on Drugs.
(2) Put all murderers sentenced to LWPP in solitary.
(3) Remove this power from individual governors and transfer it to the legislature and require a bipartisan and substantial majority to pardon.

Goughfather
18-11-2009, 07:19 PM
“People who claim that sentencing a murderer to "life without the possibility of parole" protects society just as well as the death penalty ignore three things: (1) life without the possibility of parole does not mean life without the possibility of escape or (2) life without the possibility of killing while in prison or (3) life without the possibility of a liberal [leftard] governor being elected and issuing a pardon.”--Thomas Sowell

Another inane rationalisation by Thomas Scowl (I'm sure Jono will be quite impressed with my wit for being able to come up with a pejorative rhyme). No hint of statistical analysis to demonstrate how this state-sanctioned brutality is counter-balanced (to the extent that utilitarianism is even an appropriate way to decide this question) by people who kill in prison, after escaping from prison or after being pardoned from prison.

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2009, 07:20 PM
(1) Build better prisons. If you can't afford that save money by cutting unnecessary imprisonments, especially those generated by the failed and bogus War on Drugs.
(2) Put all murderers sentenced to LWPP in solitary.
(3) Remove this power from individual governors and transfer it to the legislature and require a bipartisan and substantial majority to pardon.
Those are all reasonable. But how likely are any of these reforms in practice?

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2009, 08:00 PM
Those are all reasonable. But how likely are any of these reforms in practice?

Probably not very likely at all when neither side has a complete commitment to the protection of innocent lives. But it doesn't matter. The point is that it is not the principle of LWPP that allows murderers to still kill people, but suboptimal implementation of LWPP.

Death penalty proponents might say that only suboptimal implementation of thr DP allows innocents to be executed. The problem there is that it is far more difficult to identify how you reliably avoid such problems, whereas eliminating them when it comes to LWPP should be much more objective and straightforward.