Innocent Man was Executed in TX

[Hauptman]

Some of your posts are getting a bit weird, but anyway.

I THINK you may have missed my point. The DP is possibly not much of a deterrence because you are very unlikely to be executed if convicted in America. The only way of reversing this is by removing the various obstacles operating on this sentence (SC freezes, clemency, other interventions, excessive appeals).

Actually, I believe that the DP is not a deterrence because it is only applied to crimes in which the effect is not likely. For instance, the most heinous murders are usually crimes of passion, in the course of other crimes, or because of mental illness in which no thought is given to the consequences.

You want to see deterrence? Apply the death penalty to white collar crimes; Wall Street and Congress would change over night.

[fencerchica]

Let's pretend that we both know something about the nuking of Japan. Let's pretend we both know something about Japanese society, and how they felt about civilian populations at the time. As i said before, sometimes you take all the terrible fallout (intended) associated with the choice and still accept it. Some people don't accept it. I was just wondering if you would have or would not have gone with the choice of nuking Japan. I didn't say it was wrong or right, it just gives me a very quick baseline to go by. It's not my worldview that's simplistic... i CHOSE to make this simplistic so i wouldn't have to hear people rehash something i'm more than familiar with.

My point was this kind of simplistic yes/no answer doesn't exist all the time, and certainly doesn't exist in your scenario. I used a lot of question marks in my response to emphasize that a lot of those items actually are open questions, thus a black/white answer is not possible unless you choose to close your eyes to all the complexity of the situation -- a dangerous choice, IMHO.

Btw you can't use me as an example of being a conservative, simply because i'm more liberal on other things when it comes to social conduct. My previous remark on liberals was the stereo typical liberal. I'm not saying anybody here is in the "liberal" or "conservative" box. If you are a liberal than i hate you. I do, however acknowledge that you can be liberal on somethings and conservative on other things.

All right, then let me clarify that I was speaking wrt the stereotypical conservative, which Superscribe appeared to be speaking as. Definitely my personal experience is that conservatives as a group show a strong tendency to seek to fit the world into black/white boxes. Conversely, liberals as a group/stereotype exhibit a tendency to get lost in nuance.

[Superscribe]

My point was this kind of simplistic yes/no answer doesn't exist all the time, and certainly doesn't exist in your scenario. I used a lot of question marks in my response to emphasize that a lot of those items actually are open questions, thus a black/white answer is not possible unless you choose to close your eyes to all the complexity of the situation -- a dangerous choice, IMHO.



All right, then let me clarify that I was speaking wrt the stereotypical conservative, which Superscribe appeared to be speaking as. Definitely my personal experience is that conservatives as a group show a strong tendency to seek to fit the world into black/white boxes. Conversely, liberals as a group/stereotype exhibit a tendency to get lost in nuance.

BTW, you quoted be both times, it's just somethign funny happened and it looked like i luv saber was quoted.

It's always, YES (i agree with the decision), or NO (i don't agree with it, don't feel comefortable with it, thought there was a better way, etc etc.) When you think about it is rather simple isn't? It is seems it is harder to get a YES opinion than a NO.

If you think there was a better way of stopping Japan than nuking two cities, then you DON'T think it was justified. What the crap is so wrong with that?

Having an opinion doesn't mean you didn't think things through. It means you thought through them enough and have a stable enough moral system that you can have an opinion.

[Hauptman]

Having an opinion doesn't mean you didn't think things through.

True, but unfortunately, that just happens to be the most common scenario.

[TrainingDummy]

But don't we do this already?

Our psychiatric institutions are filled with people who society has deemed to be a threat to themselves or others. The issue is that our prisons contain many people whose crimes are the result of psychological issues that make them a threat to themselves and others too. Letting them back out on the streets when they are still a clear threat makes no sense.

Agreed. Rehabilitation is necessary, and longer sentences are needed for those who can't or won't be rehabilitated. I still believe, though, that the dangers of eroding due process - you do the crime, get a sentence, then serve the sentence - are larger than the dangers of letting someone who has served their time but may still be dangerous go free.

This really has to do with the current system of classifying crimes. Let's look at murder for example; a man kills another man having walked in on him in bed with the first man's wife, or a man kills another man during a drug deal gone bad, or a man kills another man because he thought the other man was a space alien who was going to abduct him. Superficially these are all the same; a man kills another man, but there is much more involved there.

The first crime being a crime of passion is mostly about punishment and the criminal serves his time and is released. The second crime is possibly social/economic and requires at least minimal rehabilitation to prevent him from going out and getting involved in the same situation. The third example is the result of mental illness that requires the illness to be adequately addressed, otherwise releasing him is almost a guarantee of him committing more crimes based on his delusions.

Good points! I see sentencing this way: Paramount are the civil rights of the convicted to not have rights taken away unjustly (so no cruel or unusual sentences), then comes the right of the community to protect itself from dangerous criminals, then the rehabilitative needs (if applicable, not everyone can be rehabilitated) of the convicted.

[thereom4]

If you are a liberal than i hate you.

you're nuts.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion but you hold rather extremist views. Is everything okay in your world? Need a hug? Have you eaten today? It may be hunger pangs.

[Superscribe]

Because I don't think our bombing of Japan was justified (because I don't) you've concluded how I feel about punishment, revenge, and my understanding of Japanese society, and the fact that you aren't a number's person when it comes to decisions about life and the value thereof?
Puh-lease. Clearly there is no point in arguing with you because you've said a whole lot of nothing.



^ Easier.

pbtthh. I'm making some assumptions, but i think they're good assumptions. There are some key points you have to address before you formulate an opinion about a hotly debated topic. Your answer shows me how you've addressed them, or how little you know about the subject. Either way. I did that to label and put you in a box, because i'm pretty sure you don't like to be labeled and put into boxes.

Given you history of "arguing" or rather taking shots at points being made without any justification and not giving anything to support your own points, i think my quick and dirty eval of you is pretty good.

[keith]

I'm making some assumptions, but i think they're good assumptions.

People rarely make assumptions that they consider bad.

[thereom4]

pbtthh. I'm making some assumptions, but i think they're good assumptions. There are some key points you have to address before you formulate an opinion about a hotly debated topic. Your answer shows me how you've addressed them, or how little you know about the subject. Either way. I did that to label and put you in a box, because i'm pretty sure you don't like to be labeled and put into boxes.

Given you history of "arguing" or rather taking shots at points being made without any justification and not giving anything to support your own points, i think my quick and dirty eval of you is pretty good.

at making me Such

You're awesome.

[Superscribe]

yet many people don't admit that they are making assumptions

[Superscribe]

at making me Such

You're awesome.

quod erat demonstrandum

[keith]

yet many people don't admit that they are making assumptions

Well that all depends on where you stand on the objective nature of knowledge.

One man's assumption is another's truth after all.

.... but they all tend to be good.

[thereom4]

quod erat demonstrandum

You know Superscribe, you truly are special. A gift. Quite rare in fact. I feel like I want to take care of you. You know the way one would care for an invalid. No hard feelings?

[thereom4]

I tried not to get involved in this thread drift- but as the original debate has descended into a bizzare but elaborate smilies battle...

I'll take blame (credit) for that. I'm kinda sick and have been for about a week and I didn't want to waste my good words (and energy) on Superscribe. Smilies felt sufficient, and kinda funny. At least to me.

[thereom4]

I'm enjoying the smileys (I had to save a few) and the thread-drift.

I'm glad you liked them. As for the topic, it just saddens me that so many people have to die when the conflict is between governments and not civilians.

[Superscribe]

You know Superscribe, you truly are special. A gift. Quite rare in fact. I feel like I want to take care of you. You know the way one would care for an invalid. No hard feelings?

[pigeonmeister]

I mean how much thought really goes into statements like that?

I don't know. About as much as simply judging yes without giving any indication of how or why you came to that conclusion?

Or maybe as much thought as it takes to scold someone for making a judgement you don't like without outlining why you don't like it?

Probably less thought than using your unsubstantiated judgement as a litmus test to establish everyone else's political and moral compasses?

I would think considerably less thought and research than you put into smilie identification.

(amateur, I know)

[Slim]

I'd like to point out the type of people who would would say it was unjustified.

"it just saddens me that so many people have to die when the conflict is between governments and not civilians."

I mean how much thought really goes into statements like that?

No logical reasoning or thought. All emotion.

[Slim]

My assumptions are heavy handed. I meant them to be that way, largely for effect. The statement i'm criticizing is something that was thought up to sound like it was sympathetic to the people and deeply morally insightful, but somebody pulled the chicken out before it was completely deep fried, and the watermelon hadn't been cut yet. My take on the "half baked idea".

You've just characterized the liberal mindset. Partially thought out ideas driven by emotion ("Think of those poor uninsured people...", "Its for the children...") and a position of a moral high ground ("those who disagree are mean spirited and selfish") with no logical/rational explanation and a total disregard to the reality of what they are proposing.

Like the entire Obama campaign....Hope and Change. "If it feels good, do it" I'm sure being able to say they voted for the first black president made a lot of people feel real good and had a huge impact on his winning (not to discount the loser ticket the repubs had), but as the polls are showing, the glow is fading fast.

[Slim]

Jeff, no time now for interesting points re. WW2.

I'm sure that now Slim's on board he would like nothing better, however, than to chew the fat on Iran with me!

I'm waiting for you to take the discussion towards evil Israel.