topleft topright

Closed Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73
  1. #41
    Senior Member Array cornflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    2,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier
    Since there is no such word as "culture-centric", "ethnocentric" also refers to matters which have to do with culture.

    And, it seems we disagree. I still find your comment rather more acerbic than necessary.
    I made my opinion known, and you felt that it wasn't civil... well, unfortunately, not everyone's ideas of "civility" match up to your standards. If they did, then this board would be called the "Say Nice Things Only (in accordance to Soldier's Standards of Civility)" board.
    Last edited by cornflower; 11-21-2004 at 10:53 PM.

  2. #42
    Din Älskling Array esskreemr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Somewhere inside your head. Or am I?
    Posts
    4,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier
    Well, I'm sorry that's all you can say - because that is also rather ethnocentric and rude. Perhaps a bit of civility could be tried for?

    Rude, why? She did not say that the U.S. was barbaric. She believes that the practice of executing criminals is barbaric.

    Do you agree with the Islamic law principle of severing the hand of someone who steals, regardless of what they steal? Sounds kind of barbaric doesn't it?

    As for the belief that "capital punishment" is barbaric being ethnocentric, I think you would find a significant number of people in the U.S. that would agree with her. Aren't there over 20 states that do not have a death penalty?
    "Since when does being a patriot in America mean shutting your mouth?"
    ---

    zz,zz,zz,zz,zz,zz!

  3. #43
    Senior Member Array cornflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    2,106
    Quote Originally Posted by esskreemr
    Rude, why? She did not say that the U.S. was barbaric. She believes that the practice of executing criminals is barbaric.

    Do you agree with the Islamic law principle of severing the hand of someone who steals, regardless of what they steal? Sounds kind of barbaric doesn't it?

    As for the belief that "capital punishment" is barbaric being ethnocentric, I think you would find a significant number of people in the U.S. that would agree with her. Aren't there over 20 states that do not have a death penalty?
    Bravo esskreemr... I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.

  4. #44
    Curmudgeon Emeritus Array Inquartata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    Posts
    33,804
    Quote Originally Posted by esskreemr
    Rude, why? She did not say that the U.S. was barbaric. She believes that the practice of executing criminals is barbaric.
    The relevant statement implied more than that.

    "I'm happy to be Canadian, and not to have to live in a country that permits such a barbaric practice as capital punishment."

    The phrase "a country that permits" implies that the country is immoral for allowing capital punishment to continue---for not rising to Cornflower's moral standard. At least this is how it reads: as an imputation of turpitude onthe part of the country and hence its citizenry...





    Do you agree with the Islamic law principle of severing the hand of someone who steals, regardless of what they steal? Sounds kind of barbaric doesn't it?
    The analogy isn't quite apt, because of the phrase "regardless of what they steal". We don't execute people "regardless" of their crimes---even if it's murder, the death penalty isn't always applied. What separates Western from sharia law is the evidentiary and procedural measures which are supposed to guarantee fairness---and the principles behind what constitutes a crime---not the punishments per se.
    Last edited by Inquartata; 11-23-2004 at 04:03 AM.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Array telkanuru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    7,746
    I suggest you all read 'Discipline and Punish', by Michel Foucault. It is a work on the transition of punishment from public torture and execution to the modern hiding of criminals and their deaths. Part of his argument is that execution (painful or not) and/or torture are no longer acceptable in western society becaust the removal of the monarch is accompanied by a removial of the idea that the state controls one's body. That is, in an egalitarian system of government, one punishes the mind (ie. attempts to reform, life sentances, etc.) rather than the body because there is no need for an assertion of power of the state that public execution (for that matter execution at all) or a torture of the body represents. This is sort of a response to Inq. We are barbaric in allowing for the death penalty because our society has evolved beyond the need for it.

    With this, I agree completely. Without the need to assert the power of the state, and without the red herring of deterrence ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...cid=12&did=167 ), the only reason one is left with for capital punishment is vengance, and vengance is certainly not equated with justice. Sure, if my family member is killed, I want to see the murderer put to death. That is why I'm not sitting in judgement.

    Certainly many deserve death who live. But do not others who deserve life die? Can you give it to them? Be not quick to deal out death and judgement. If I may paraphrase a very good thought by Tolkien.
    The only way to atone for being occasionally a little over-dressed is by being always absolutely over-educated. -Oscar Wilde

  6. #46
    Senior Member Array Epictetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    St. Mary's College of Maryland
    Posts
    197
    Well, to contribute to the discussion, I now bring you a deep, meaninful vision seen by me in a dream:
    "Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy, and good with ketchup."
    Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another. ~Homer

    Student St. Mary's College of Maryland

    Philosophy Major: Will think for food.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Array telkanuru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    7,746
    Halflings: the Eternal Debate. Bite sized, or just less filling?
    The only way to atone for being occasionally a little over-dressed is by being always absolutely over-educated. -Oscar Wilde

  8. #48
    Senior Member Array cornflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    2,106
    Quote Originally Posted by telkanuru
    Halflings: the Eternal Debate. Bite sized, or just less filling?
    I don't get it

  9. #49
    Senior Member Array cornflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    DC
    Posts
    2,106
    Quote Originally Posted by telkanuru
    I suggest you all read 'Discipline and Punish', by Michel Foucault. It is a work on the transition of punishment ...
    Noted! I'll most definitely put that on my growing list of books to read!

  10. #50
    Curmudgeon Emeritus Array Inquartata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    Posts
    33,804
    Quote Originally Posted by telkanuru
    in an egalitarian system of government, one punishes the mind (ie. attempts to reform, life sentances, etc.) rather than the body because there is no need for an assertion of power of the state that public execution (for that matter execution at all) or a torture of the body represents. We are barbaric in allowing for the death penalty because our society has evolved beyond the need for it.
    All very well as an iteration of a personal opinion of the author's, but I don't see any reason to accept his assumptions as Truth. They are merely his views, no? Why is society bound by them, or obliged to pay homage to them?

    Without the need to assert the power of the state, and without the red herring of deterrence....the only reason one is left with for capital punishment is vengance
    Demonstrably false, as there is also the desideratum of incapacitation: preventing the criminal from committing furthur crimes. This capital punishment alone does best---even in prison some convicts continue to commit more crimes, sometimes serious ones.



    Certainly many deserve death who live. But do not others who deserve life die? Can you give it to them? Be not quick to deal out death and judgement. If I may paraphrase a very good thought by Tolkien.
    Note that the quote says "Be not quick", not "Do not ever". Nothing about the American system of capital punishment gives grounds to consider quickness as a possible fault.

  11. #51
    Senior Member Array Epictetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    St. Mary's College of Maryland
    Posts
    197
    But, back to the topic at hand. I wish I could pull out the binder I have on this issue back at home. I have always been a strong opponent of the death penalty, for three main reasons.
    Moral reasons are to rely on, as there are so many varying opinions, undoubably the weakest of my points, so I won't list it as an argument. Sufice to say I agree with telkanuru. It is not our place to choose who lives and dies. By killing, society lowers itself to the same level as the criminal him/herself.

    1) Economic Reasons: It is statistically much cheaper to incarcerate a person than to kill him. Federal (I believe) law requires that the government fund the appeals process, which requires an average of 2-4 million dollars. On the flip side, keeping a inmate in jail for 70 years comes out somewhere between 700,000 and one million.

    2) Practical Concerns: There has never been a study released showing conclusively that the death penalty provides a deterant. Simply no evidence for this idea.

    3) Legal Concerns: There is a very good chance that some of the people on death row are actually innocent. While they can always be released from prison if new evidence turns up, there is no coming back from an execution.

    Given this trifecta, I see absolutely no reason to keep the death penalty. It has no positive effect, costs more than the alternative, and may remove any chance for an innocent person to clear his or her name.
    Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another. ~Homer

    Student St. Mary's College of Maryland

    Philosophy Major: Will think for food.

  12. #52
    Senior Member Array telkanuru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    7,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquartata
    All very well as an iteration of a personal opinion of the author's, but I don't see any reason to accept his assumptions as Truth. They are merely his views, no? Why is society bound by them, or obliged to pay homage to them?
    See, this is why I started with 'You should read...'. The above is a very much boiled down version of a carefully constructed argument which I cannot find flaws in. It's not an assertion without proof, which is what you are claiming.


    Demonstrably false, as there is also the desideratum of incapacitation: preventing the criminal from committing furthur crimes. This capital punishment alone does best---even in prison some convicts continue to commit more crimes, sometimes serious ones.
    Is there a crime more serious than the murder of another person? Or are you suggesting we should execute someone who steals $500 from a convenience store? However, it is true that capital punishment prevents a life of crime. It is, of course, not reversable. Thus, if your standard for a reversable conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, a non-reversable (versable?) one should be beyond any doubt, which is, of course, impossible.



    Note that the quote says "Be not quick", not "Do not ever". Nothing about the American system of capital punishment gives grounds to consider quickness as a possible fault.
    Define 'quick'. Geologically, perhaps? Do not confuse wait times with hours spent in trial.
    The only way to atone for being occasionally a little over-dressed is by being always absolutely over-educated. -Oscar Wilde

  13. #53
    Curmudgeon Emeritus Array Inquartata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    Posts
    33,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Epictetus
    1) Economic Reasons: It is statistically much cheaper to incarcerate a person than to kill him. Federal (I believe) law requires that the government fund the appeals process, which requires an average of 2-4 million dollars. On the flip side, keeping a inmate in jail for 70 years comes out somewhere between 700,000 and one million.
    Not proven. I have read the relevant studies, and they do not take a number of things into account---for instance, they ignore the extensive, lengthy, numerous and expensive appeals made by those incarcerated. Yes, that's right, it's a cost to society in both instances, yet the studies assume it only applies to one. The costs of construction of facilities ( prisons, jails, detention centers, halfway houses, etc ) are likewise left out of the analysis. The list goes on. In short, the calculations are highly suspect on factual grounds.

    I see absolutely no reason to keep the death penalty.
    How about this: incarcerated criminals can go on committing crimes, often serious ones.

    I give you the case of Bob "Bonzai" Vickers. From an AP story at the time of his execution:

    Violent days ticking away for `Bonzai'
    Wednesday execution scheduled for Vickers
    Sunday, 2 May 1999
    METRO/REGION 1B
    By Hipolito R. Corella
    THE ARIZONA DAILY STAR

    Robert Wayne Vickers asked for a quick execution in 1981, three years after he murdered a cellmate who drank his Kool-Aid.

    ``I told my lawyer & attorney General to pull my appeals and gas me,'' he wrote to Bruce Babbitt, then governor. ``I know it don't take to long to do that, `So whats the hold up fella?' If ya don't do it soon, `i'm gonna draw more blood then your cheap mop's can absorb.''

    Vickers is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection Wednesday, after 18 years in which he has seemed committed to fulfilling that vow.

    In 1982, after a federal judge granted him a stay of execution, Vickers burned to death a fellow death row inmate who had made a sexual remark about his niece.

    Vickers used Vitalis and toilet paper to commit that crime. He has crafted weapons out of virtually anything - toothbrushes, newspapers, plastic foam - and used them whenever he had the chance.

    The door of his cell was covered with a thick layer of plastic to keep him from throwing bodily waste or stabbing at those who walked by.

    It wasn't a violent crime that brought Vickers to the Arizona State Prison in Florence in 1977. He was 19 when he was sentenced to three to nine years for a Tempe burglary.

    But Vickers, who was first arrested in the sixth grade, walked into the prison with a history of violence. He had gained a reputation at the Catalina Mountain School north of Tucson for stabbing other boys with pencils, and would be convicted in 1978 of a jailhouse stabbing that would add 10 to 15 years to his original sentence.

    At the time Vickers said he was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood and attacked the inmate because he was black.

    In October 1978, Vickers' cellmate, Frank Ponciano, failed to wake Vickers for lunch, taking Vickers' Kool-Aid from his food tray.

    Vickers strangled Ponciano and stabbed him repeatedly with a sharpened toothbrush. Then he carved his misspelled nickname, Bonzai, into the dead man's back, an idea he said came from the character Zorro.

    A corrections officer realized Ponciano was dead under the covers of his bunk when Ponciano didn't react to the lighted cigar Vickers shoved into the sole of the victim's foot.

    Vickers had called the officer to his cell to remove the victim.

    They had been cellmates less than two weeks. Ponciano had been serving a life term for a Coconino County murder.

    Vickers was sentenced to die for the Ponciano murder.

    Seventeen hours before Vickers was to die in the gas chamber, then-U.S. District Judge Carl Muecke in Phoenix granted him a stay of execution. He ruled that Vickers and another inmate scheduled to die then were covered under a 1980 moratorium on executions.

    Hours after the ruling, Vickers told reporters that he hoped someone ``snuffs Judge Muecke's momma'' and that he would carve the judge's name on his next victim.

    Three months later, in March 1982, Vickers killed again.

    He made a firebomb out of an ice cream container filled with five bottles' worth of Vitalis and toilet paper. He threw it on fellow death row inmate Wilmar ``Buster'' Holsinger, 55, setting him ablaze.

    When the firebomb failed to generate enough flames to engulf the obese and disabled Holsinger fast enough, Vickers doused him with more hair tonic, court records show.

    Vickers explained later that he killed Holsinger because after seeing a photograph of his niece, Holsinger asked Vickers if he had ever performed a sex act on her.

    Although the death sentence for killing Ponciano was later overturned, a federal appeals court last year upheld Vickers' death sentence for the murder of Holsinger.

    The Arizona Department of Corrections is scheduled to execute Vickers at 3 p.m. Wednesday.

    ``He has, technically, exhausted all of his appellate remedies,'' said Assistant Attorney General Paul J. McMurdie, who is in charge of the criminal appeals section. ``It's moving on.''

    Still, McMurdie said he expects the usual flurry of last-minute appeals to be filed in state and federal courts.

    Neither Alan Kyman, the attorney of record on the case, nor lawyers from the Arizona Capital Representation Project returned telephone calls seeking comment this past week.

    Vickers - who turned 41 recently - has spent the most time on death row of the state's current 118 condemned prisoners. He is the only one to die for murdering other inmates.

    He will be the 17th inmate executed here since Arizona reinstated the death penalty in 1992. He will be the fifth inmate put to death this year.

    Vickers has refused requests for interviews from the media, said Camilla Strongin, a spokeswoman for the Arizona Department of Corrections.

    He also refused to choose the method of execution; the state decided that he will die by lethal injection. Inmates sentenced to die before 1992 can pick the gas chamber or lethal injection.

    He refused to attend a clemency hearing Tuesday in Florence.

    Vickers' voluminous prison file is filled with two decades of disciplinary reports, from asking corrections officers to slip him some cigarettes to attacks on guards and other inmates.

    Vickers and another inmate tried to escape in 1980, squeezing through the ventilation system to reach the prison roof, where they were captured.

    His file shows that Vickers has easily slipped out of handcuffs by either squeezing through them or using handcuff keys he has made out of plastic lighters.

    Far more of the disciplinary reports document the confiscation of weapons - mostly ``shanks'' - he has fashioned from an assortment of items, including the leg of a metal locker, a scrap of steel, toothbrushes and plastic foam he melted, then hardened into a knife to attack inmates and jailers.

    In June 1986, Vickers stabbed a corrections officer in the ribs with a spear. He made it from a sharpened piece of metal from a typewriter and a 30-inch handle he'd made out of newspapers.

    Vickers is so dangerous that until he was moved last month to a special holding cell to await his execution, he was housed in a pod for the most violent on death row, Strongin said.

    The pod also houses Robert Charles Comer, on death row for the 1987 killing of a camper at Apache Lake and the rape of another there.

    James Hamm, who served 18 years in prison for murder and now is a leader in the prisoner-advocacy group Middle Ground, said the corrections system shares the blame in creating the vicious man to be executed Wednesday.

    ``He was a burglar. And they threw him in a prison system that was too much to handle,'' said Hamm, who testified about prison conditions in Vickers' retrial for the Ponciano murder.

    ``The result is that more than one person is dead.''

    While Vickers' penchant for violent outbursts is well-documented, his family background in the prison file is mostly limited to information he has provided officials in pre-sentencing reports.

    Vickers was born in Phoenix in April 1958. He has a sister.

    According to court and prison documents, Vickers said his father and an uncle took him along to commit burglaries when he was a child.

    After his parents split up, Vickers said, he and his sister were left with relatives.

    The pair eventually became wards of the state and lived in a series of foster homes. Vickers told a probation officer for a 1985 pre-sentencing report that he and his sister were sexually molested by a woman in one of their many foster homes.

    The names of Vickers' relatives were removed from court documents.

    According to the report, Vickers did not know the whereabouts of his natural parents but has maintained some contact with his sister and an aunt, records indicate.

    Vickers claimed to have fathered a daughter. He also claims to have been in a common-law marriage in California until he returned to Arizona in the mid-1970s.

    No relatives have contacted the Corrections Department regarding the execution, officials said late last week.

    Vickers still uses a swastika to dot the ``i'' in letters he signs ``Bonzai Bob.'' It is a nickname he earned in prison for his vicious attacks, some of which he readily admits to prison officials occurred solely because the victims were black.

    Yet some of his letters are decorated with smiley faces, and one 1988 letter to a Corrections captain asking for contact visits with a lady friend is written on stationery bordered with flowers and a Bambi-like wilderness scene.

    Vickers' letter to the governor's office didn't end with his 1981 request for a swift execution.

    In 1983, he again wrote Babbitt, asking that he be executed quickly so he could donate his heart to a Fort Huachuca boy who needed a transplant. The boy died a day before Babbitt's office received the letter. At the time, a doctor said the heart of a person killed in the gas chamber would be unsuitable for transplant.

    Another letter to the governor that same year asks for permission to wear a three-piece suit when he is executed. ``I wanna die dressed,'' he wrote. ``Gonna be some ladies there. I don't want to go nude or in state clothes.''

    He also asked that his last meal be prepared by a woman.

    Neither request will be granted Wednesday.
    Note that he killed twice while in prison, including once after already being sentenced to death, and threatened to do it again whenever possible. A life sentence would have made it possible for quite a long time.

    Now, I shed no tears over his killing other killers ( assuming, as I am sure you will not, that those two victims were guilty ). But what if he had killed someone who was in for a minor offense? Possession of marijuana? Forgery? Embezzlement? Auto theft?

    What if he'd killed a guard, or an infirmary worker, or someone not guilty of anything at all? What then? Keep on sentencing him to life? How many times is enough?

  14. #54
    Senior Member Array telkanuru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    7,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquartata
    How about this: incarcerated criminals can go on committing crimes, often serious ones.
    So you would like to punish people for crimes they might commit?
    The only way to atone for being occasionally a little over-dressed is by being always absolutely over-educated. -Oscar Wilde

  15. #55
    Senior Member Array Epictetus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    St. Mary's College of Maryland
    Posts
    197
    That's what it sounds like.

    In regards to your first point, the difference lies in the source of the funding. In a capitol case, all court/lawyer fees are automatically covered by the government, coming dirctly out of the budget. However, in the case of life imprisonment, the inmate funds his own case. So the cost to the taxpayer is less.

    In regards to your second point, it sounds cold, but we cannot punish people based on assumptions of what they may do in the future. The concept is fundamentaly opposed to the ideals of the American justice system.

  16. #56
    Curmudgeon Emeritus Array Inquartata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    Posts
    33,804
    Quote Originally Posted by telkanuru
    The above is a very much boiled down version of a carefully constructed argument which I cannot find flaws in. It's not an assertion without proof, which is what you are claiming.
    No, I'm sure he buttresses his position well enough with research, but it still rests on a foundation of assumptions: about the nature of state power, the logic behind it, the morality of state killing and so on. That states use CP as an "assertion of power". That they inevitably must eschew it in order to be considered to have "evolved". Etc. Not so?

    That is the whole of what I meant to point out: that in the fuzzy, unscientific realm of human behavior there are no absolutes, no invariable universal standards of behavior or of moral rectitude. Any theory which purports to reach an inevitable conclusion about "egalitarian societies" and the outcomes they must or ought to obtain generally is immediately suspect on those grounds, IMO.






    Is there a crime more serious than the murder of another person?
    Some societies have certainly thought so. Today? Probably not. Though there is not such a unitary thing as "murder", unless one lumps together Dean Corle, John Wayne Gacy and Dr. Kervorkian---are torture killings the same as euthanasia?



    Or are you suggesting we should execute someone who steals $500 from a convenience store?
    What?


    Thus, if your standard for a reversable conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, a non-reversable (versable?) one should be beyond any doubt, which is, of course, impossible.
    I see no reason to accept your standard as following logically.

    There are cases in which the perpetrator is beyond obvious. If someone is seen by a dozen witnesses killing his ex-girlfriend in front of her business, is caught covered with er blood and the weapon used, and confesses to the crime, this is what's known as a "dead bang" case. There are more of these than you might suppose, because so many criminals are too stupid to delay the gratification of a killing or to conceal it effectively. See the Vickers case I cited above for another example of dead-bang case.





    Do not confuse wait times with hours spent in trial.
    Even in derogated Texas, the average inmate spends 14 years on death row before being executed. That's not quick by any stretch of the imagination.

  17. #57
    Senior Member Array telkanuru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    7,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquartata
    No, I'm sure he buttresses his position well enough with research, but it still rests on a foundation of assumptions: about the nature of state power, the logic behind it, the morality of state killing and so on. That states use CP as an "assertion of power". That they inevitably must eschew it in order to be considered to have "evolved". Etc. Not so?

    That is the whole of what I meant to point out: that in the fuzzy, unscientific realm of human behavior there are no absolutes, no invariable universal standards of behavior or of moral rectitude. Any theory which purports to reach an inevitable conclusion about "egalitarian societies" and the outcomes they must or ought to obtain generally is immediately suspect on those grounds, IMO.
    Again, read it. It's an observation of what as happened rather than a prediction on what will.

    Some societies have certainly thought so. Today? Probably not. Though there is not such a unitary thing as "murder", unless one lumps together Dean Corle, John Wayne Gacy and Dr. Kervorkian---are torture killings the same as euthanasia?
    What I am trying to say is that it makes no sense to kill murderers because you are afraid of them commiting a worse crime.


    What?
    Well, if you want to kill certain people in order to prevent them from perpetrating worse crimes in prison, why not kill a petty theif so he dosn't participate in a sexual assault, etc?


    I see no reason to accept your standard as following logically.

    There are cases in which the perpetrator is beyond obvious. If someone is seen by a dozen witnesses killing his ex-girlfriend in front of her business, is caught covered with er blood and the weapon used, and confesses to the crime, this is what's known as a "dead bang" case. There are more of these than you might suppose, because so many criminals are too stupid to delay the gratification of a killing or to conceal it effectively. See the Vickers case I cited above for another example of dead-bang case.
    Fine. What then do you say to the prosecuters who had "dead bang" cases in the state(s) which declaired a moritorum on CP because of the high error rates/inadaquate representation? What do you say to the families of those wrongfully killed? Juries are obviously falliable. Who watches the watchers?

    Even in derogated Texas, the average inmate spends 14 years on death row before being executed. That's not quick by any stretch of the imagination.
    Again, do not confuse time spent in jail with time spent having one's case considered.
    The only way to atone for being occasionally a little over-dressed is by being always absolutely over-educated. -Oscar Wilde

  18. #58
    Curmudgeon Emeritus Array Inquartata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in your nightmares!
    Posts
    33,804
    Quote Originally Posted by telkanuru
    What I am trying to say is that it makes no sense to kill murderers because you are afraid of them commiting a worse crime.
    Agreed. Keeping them from committing the same one is a legitimate goal, however.


    Well, if you want to kill certain people in order to prevent them from perpetrating worse crimes in prison, why not kill a petty theif so he dosn't participate in a sexual assault, etc?
    Bit of a straw man, what? No one is talking about executing petty criminals.

    However, I think it's fairly noncontroversial to say that a serial killer of the likes of Coral Eugene Watts or Tommy Lynn Sells or Henry Lee Lucas is not going to be averse to killing again if he gets the opportunity---and imprisonment, however straightened, provides opportunities. The aforementioned Bonzai Vickers managed it even while on Death Row. At a minimum, he cannot now do so again. Death is the only 100% effective means of incapacitation, and IMO it is warranted in some cases.

    I would be willing to see conditions put in place to improve the odds that it is not incorrectly applied, but not to see it discarded on the grounds that it is irreversible.



    Fine. What then do you say to the prosecuters who had "dead bang" cases in the state(s) which declaired a moritorum on CP because of the high error rates/inadaquate representation?
    I say "Sorry, the stupid court threw out the baby with the bath".

    If there was error, then overturn the sentence/conviction. Why overturn ALL convictions in a class---even the uncontroversial ones? Other than because there is a sense of moral animus toward the punishment itself informing the decision, that is? If we a large number of rapists being wrongfully sent to prison, do we declare a moratorium on imprisoning rapists?



    What do you say to the families of those wrongfully killed?
    What they ought to know already: that people are fallible, that horrible mistakes are made, and that we are sorry when they are. I would NOT say to them that henceforth we're not going to punish anyone ever again, not even the most egregiously guilty, just to make sure no future mistakes can possibly be made.


    Juries are obviously falliable. Who watches the watchers?
    A fair question, but one which does not recommend paralysis and inaction as its answer. As you say, people ( and not just juries ) are fallible. It does not follow that avoidance of decisions is a better alternative to the chance of error.


    Again, do not confuse time spent in jail with time spent having one's case considered.
    I don't see your point.

  19. #59
    Senior Member Array Philistine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Epictetus
    {snip}
    In regards to your first point, the difference lies in the source of the funding. In a capitol case, all court/lawyer fees are automatically covered by the government, coming dirctly out of the budget. However, in the case of life imprisonment, the inmate funds his own case. So the cost to the taxpayer is less.
    {snip}
    No.

    In both cases--to the extent the Defendant is unable to pay for a private attorney, the state will pay for his attorney (and for experts, investigators and other costs, if necessary).

    Where there is a sentence of death, appeals are much more likely to be extensive, as courts are more likely to allow discretionary appeals, even if they ultimately deny them.

    --Philistine

  20. #60
    Din Älskling Array esskreemr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Somewhere inside your head. Or am I?
    Posts
    4,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquartata
    The relevant statement implied more than that.

    "I'm happy to be Canadian, and not to have to live in a country that permits such a barbaric practice as capital punishment."

    The phrase "a country that permits" implies that the country is immoral for allowing capital punishment to continue---for not rising to Cornflower's moral standard. At least this is how it reads: as an imputation of turpitude onthe part of the country and hence its citizenry...
    That is how YOU read it, well after inserting several words into it.

    It's amazing how you make connections between implied statements of a Fencing.net poster, and yet refuse to accept connections implied by individuals who earn their living playing with words. Are we to believe that you hold CornFlower (no doubt a very intelligent individual, but not a politician) at a higher standard than you do the Bush Administration? Perhaps you should review various other threads and apply the same "logic".


    The analogy isn't quite apt, because of the phrase "regardless of what they steal". We don't execute people "regardless" of their crimes---even if it's murder, the death penalty isn't always applied. What separates Western from sharia law is the evidentiary and procedural measures which are supposed to guarantee fairness---and the principles behind what constitutes a crime---not the punishments per se.
    The analogy fits. It was answering the idea that capital punishment is barbaric, not the process by which capital punishment is applied. Soldier had stated that Sarah was being ethnocentric for saying that the death penalty was barabic. I was merely presenting a well-known example of the laws of other countries that most Westerners would find "barbaric," which from the perspective of the Arabic mind would be an ethnocentric viewpoint.
    Last edited by esskreemr; 11-23-2004 at 11:29 AM.
    "Since when does being a patriot in America mean shutting your mouth?"
    ---

    zz,zz,zz,zz,zz,zz!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30