Here's a couple for you:

[cornflower]

Eh, you mean me - Cornflower, not Sarah... don't you?

[esskreemr]

Eh, you mean me - Cornflower, not Sarah... don't you?

Yup, duly noted and adjusted. Sorry. I haven't had any caffeine yet.


To err is human, to edit divine...

[Soldier]

Without responding to everything here...

Inq was correct in the implied reading of Cornflower's post. While such implications cannot be made in arguments such as we usually have, this is nothing of the sort - it is simply how I perceived her comment. I'm not trying to prove anything, only saying that perhaps the comment could have been differently worded so as to not have that perceived offense included.

A lot of my previous posts were half-joking. However:

1. I do think it wrong that we all pick up the tab to feed/clothe/etc. thousands of criminals.

2. I believe capital punishment is quite a deterrent. I'd like to see some specific numbers otherwise; I don't go by generally-named "studies", knowing how disgustingly easy it is to tweak numbers. "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics."

3. I used the term "ethnocentrism" rather loosely, I'll admit. However, I'd hazard to say that the North American area (US, Canada, and probably Mexico) represents multiple cultures. The belief that capital punishment is barbaric is ethnocentric - one of these cultures decrying another for its values. No different than any of us saying that a cannibalistic culture is barbaric, or a culture that eats dogs is barbaric.

[Inquartata]

That is how YOU read it, well after inserting several words into it.

Why don't you go back and read the original post, and spare me the snide accusations of dishonesty? I cut and pasted the exact statement from her post. I "inserted" nothing. Take the time to look before you leap.

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.

What's amazing is how you continue to defend only that with which you agree and those with whom you agree, in the face of their own blunt words. Even to the point of leaping to assert selective editing of those same words on my part. It's you who are the one with the blind spot, not me.

The analogy fits.

Continue to assert that 1+1=6 as long as you wish to do so. It will not change anything. You have not answered the reasons I gave for it's imperfection, only waved them off.

[Epee_Pox]

2. I believe capital punishment is quite a deterrent. I'd like to see some specific numbers otherwise; I don't go by generally-named "studies", knowing how disgustingly easy it is to tweak numbers. "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The problem is, there is no such thing as a reliable statistic on deterrence. How can we count all the crimes NOT committed? And even if we could, how could we ascertain the reasons WHY they weren't committed?

No, deterrence is almost purely a philosophical purpose of punishment. We all know deterrence happens in general, but with rare exceptions we can never prove it in the specific.

But deterrence is not the only purpose of punishment. It is not even the primary reason for punishment. I wish folks here would stop focusing on deterrence when discussing the issue, all that does is indicate one hasn't thought the issue through completely.

[Philistine]

{snip}
2. I believe capital punishment is quite a deterrent. I'd like to see some specific numbers otherwise; I don't go by generally-named "studies", knowing how disgustingly easy it is to tweak numbers. "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics."
{snip}

Here is an article discussing studies, pro and con (though with a non-deterrence bias).

Generally, the argument goes: if the death penalty deterred murders, you would expect places which abolished the death penalty to have more murders (all other things being equal) than those that don't. AIUI, this is not the case.

--Philistine

[esskreemr]

Why don't you go back and read the original post, and spare me the snide accusations of dishonesty? I cut and pasted the exact statement from her post. I "inserted" nothing. Take the time to look before you leap.

Cornflower's original statement (as you posted it):

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

Your interpretation:

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...

Is your addition of your interpretation her exact words? You extended the implications considerably

What's amazing is how you continue to defend only that with which you agree and those with whom you agree, in the face of their own blunt words. Even to the point of leaping to assert selective editing of those same words on my part. It's you who are the one with the blind spot, not me.

Who said that I agree with her? I'm not against the death penalty. If someone shops up 5 people and sticks them in their freezer, the world is better off without them breathing our air.

The problem is that soon as someone says a less than rosey word about the U.S. of A, people start acting like someone shot one of their kids. I've heard plenty of disparaging comments about Canada, some on the website.

Continue to assert that 1+1=6 as long as you wish to do so. It will not change anything. You have not answered the reasons I gave for it's imperfection, only waved them off.

Your "reasons" are based on suppositions.

[scrapinpeg]

Generally, the argument goes: if the death penalty deterred murders, you would expect places which abolished the death penalty to have more murders (all other things being equal) than those that don't. AIUI, this is not the case.

--Philistine

But, as has been pointed out, the death penalty's main reason is not deterrence. For one thing, many of the kinds of crimes subject to capital punishment are not the kind of crimes that would be deterred by ANY prospect of punishment (psychos, or killers who think they're going to get away with it, or killers who don't even think about consequences).

The main reason for a death penalty is twofold: we want to remove the criminal from our world so he can't hurt anyone again, and (though we don't like to admit it) we want to strike back at him to satisfy a primitive urge for retaliation.

If we REALLY thought punishment truly deters crime, then how come we don't publicize sentences that are handed down? The vast majority of criminal cases end without any publicity or reporting whatsoever. Most people have no idea what the likely sentence would be, should they commit a crime. And most criminals don't think about the consequences rationally. Deterrence is something we give lip service to, but don't really believe in.

This leads to an interesting thought:

Deterrence depends solely on the perception that punishment is meted out for certain acts. It works only when there is some certainty that a given act will be punished, and the punishment is a known quantity. So what if we didn't actually catch and punish that many criminals, but nevertheless worked the system so that people BELIEVED most criminals were caught and punished? That would achieve the same level of deterrence without the huge cost of police, courts, lawyers, jails, corrections officers, probation departments, social workers, and all the rest of the criminal justice system.

All this would take is a kind of Big Brother-like control of information. Shouldn't be that hard to do, even in as media-free a society as ours, given that hardly any criminal cases are reported on in the first place.

[Inquartata]

Generally, the argument goes: if the death penalty deterred murders, you would expect places which abolished the death penalty to have more murders (all other things being equal) than those that don't. AIUI, this is not the case.

The problem is with the "ceteris paribus" assumption. Because all else being equal all else is never equal...

Trying to prove deterrence this way is a bit like trying to prove a negative. But there are clues that capital punishment is a very weak deterrent, if it is operative at all. In England, they used to hang people in public. Crowds came to watch...and pickpockets worked those crowds, even though at that time in England picking pockets like that was itself a capital offense...

As I said before, criminals by and large think they're too clever to be caught, much less sentenced to death, and figure it can only happen to "the other guy". Or they're so blinded by rage, hate, or greed that they don't think as far ahead as getting caught, much less executed. So I don't think capital punishment exerts much of a deterrent at all.

OTOH, it is used as a bargaining and interrogation tool in the justice system. Plead to a lesser offense, or you're going to get the needle. Tell us who you were working for, or you take the whole rap yourself---and this is a lethal injection state, you know. That sort of thing. So it is useful in its way, even beyond the incapacitation and vengeance angles.

And BTW, I see nothing wrong with lex talionis. Vengeance is a perfectly good concept, but for the fact that some of us have taken to congratulating ourselves on being oh-so-"civilized", vaunting ourselves on having somehow evolved beyond the whole issue. It's rather like water buffalo thinking they'd evolved beyond needing to fight off lions and leopards with violence of their own. We use fines as "vengeance" against perpetrators of property and other crimes, but somehow when it comes to the most vicious and horrendous crimes we suddenly discover scruples in ourselves. I don't see any convincing reason why that should be the case.

[Inquartata]

Is your addition of your interpretation her exact words? You extended the implications considerably

OK, that's different. As I read it your previous post implied that I had added words to her statement, not that I had appended my own interpretation of what it was saying.

I do indeed read it a certain way. She may not have so intended it. If so, I'm willing to amend my understanding of what was meant....just as I am now amending my understanding of what YOU meant.

Who said that I agree with her? I'm not against the death penalty.

Duly noted. It seemed that you were defending the statement.

Words and phrases have commonly understood denotations, but their connotations can vary widely from person to person. Written, unedited, devoid of all other clues to meaning, they are all too easy to misconstrue. But you already knew that.

Sorry to have misinterpreted you.

The problem is that soon as someone says a less than rosey word about the U.S. of A, people start acting like someone shot one of their kids. I've heard plenty of disparaging comments about Canada, some on the website.

My problem was not with the "less than rosy word", or even about the opinion which may have given it rise. People are entitled to their views, even uncomplimentary ones. I was responding to your assertion that there really wasn't a "less than rosy word" in the first place, that CF's original post was completely innocuous regarding the US and only expressed a dislike of capital punishment, not a value judgement about those who lived in a country which tolerated it; as I read the statement, there was, at least by implication, such a value judgement. You'll notice that I didn't exactly jump all over her for the judgement itself...as pleasant as that might be.

As for disparaging remarks about Canada, you are of course correct...though I cannot see the relevance. Soldier characterized CFs statement as "rude". The fact that others have made rude statements does not refute his interpretation of THAT one, does it? ( In other words, it's....well, you know the Latin phrase of which I'm thinking, I'm sure. )

Your "reasons" are based on suppositions.

As most are. As are your reasons for believing the analogy to be apt. So where does that leave us?

[Inquartata]

Deterrence is something we give lip service to, but don't really believe in.

Much like "rehabilitation".

[esskreemr]

As most are. As are your reasons for believing the analogy to be apt. So where does that leave us?

Mostly agreeing.

[Inquartata]

It cannot be!