[Tail Gunner]

(04-19-2014 02:20 PM)soup Wrote:  

I'm surprised more pro-lifers aren't also against the death penalty.

A lot of them believe that life and death should be in god's hands, not man's.

When viewed logically, there is no hypocrisy whatsoever between the two postions. A murderer receives due process with a jury of his peers and, if found guilty, he receives a punishment for committing a heinous crime.

An unborn baby (1) receives no due process and (2) is completely innocent of any crime. Enough said.

(04-19-2014 02:37 PM)soup Wrote:  

"Eye for an eye" isn't religious. It's Hamurabi's code. Ancient. It promotes vengeance and vendettas, and didn't do a good job of prevent people from committing crimes.

Jesus actually said "turn the other cheek" which is the opposite (and a little too far in the opposite direction because I don't believe people should just "take it")

If you really want to take care of the problem of premeditated murder, you might want to look at the systemic causes of homicide. Go deeper.

Again, a completely different result is reached when applying logic and history. An eye-for-an-eye has absolutely nothing to do with vengeance. It is simple equity, meaning that you reap exactly what you sow. What is more fair than a criminal receiving as punishment exactly what he exacted upon his victim?

That form of punishment also satisfies the victim and his family. As a result, there is no need for a personal vendetta once justice is satisfied, because the criminal justice system has worked. Moreover, the criminal's family has no reason to retaliate because the State exacted the penalty, not the victim.

You took Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" waaaay out of context. Obviously, he meant not to respond to personal slights. He did not mean to stand by while a criminal brutally rapes or murders a loved-one. This has been the common meaning of that command for thousands of years.


It is interesting that the common meaning of such basic precepts spanning thousands of years of civilization are now not only questioned but also actively undermined by distorting their obvious historical meanings, just to comply with modern politically correct dictates. If people want a debate, they should at least acknowledge the historical underpinnings and commonly understood meanings of these concepts, which are literally thousands of years old.

[Samseau]

What used to be common wisdom is now uncommon. Just a part of our decadent, corrupt, zero-pride-for-your-culture times. It's obvious that pussy countries who are too afraid to kill a crazy psychopath aren't going to be around much longer. Do you think Islamic societies are against the death penalty?

Quote:

In fact only a small percentage of cases involve DNA. For example, your usual armed robbery is not likely to have any DNA evidence in it. If you shoot someone, unlikely your DNA is left around. DNA in death penalty cases is mostly limited to your rape/murders or murders by hand (i.e. DNA from scratched skin under the fingernails of the deceased, saliva from bites, etc.).

Exonerations because of DNA are significant because they are a statistical bellwether of a much larger number of wrongful convictions because of bad eyewitness identification, lying by cops, snitches and people out for revenge, false confessions, bad luck coincidences, and police framing. In other words, there are many ways you can be wrongfully accused and convicted, but DNA is one of the few sure ways to get out of it. No DNA = no way out. For every one guy who got out because of DNA, there are at least ten more stuck because there was no DNA in their case.

Okay, then the solution is simple.

No death penalty allowed unless there is DNA evidence.

[mikado]

(04-20-2014 02:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

What used to be common wisdom is now uncommon. Just a part of our decadent, corrupt, zero-pride-for-your-culture times. It's obvious that pussy countries who are too afraid to kill a crazy psychopath aren't going to be around much longer. Do you think Islamic societies are against the death penalty?

Quote:

In fact only a small percentage of cases involve DNA. For example, your usual armed robbery is not likely to have any DNA evidence in it. If you shoot someone, unlikely your DNA is left around. DNA in death penalty cases is mostly limited to your rape/murders or murders by hand (i.e. DNA from scratched skin under the fingernails of the deceased, saliva from bites, etc.).

Exonerations because of DNA are significant because they are a statistical bellwether of a much larger number of wrongful convictions because of bad eyewitness identification, lying by cops, snitches and people out for revenge, false confessions, bad luck coincidences, and police framing. In other words, there are many ways you can be wrongfully accused and convicted, but DNA is one of the few sure ways to get out of it. No DNA = no way out. For every one guy who got out because of DNA, there are at least ten more stuck because there was no DNA in their case.

Okay, then the solution is simple.

No death penalty allowed unless there is DNA evidence.

Samseau, why are you so obsessed with Islam and white culture?
Can't you just give it a break sometimes? No one has talked about these more than you. Every single post you make is related to these.
You were definitely better when you just stuck to game advice.

[Sp5]

(04-20-2014 02:39 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

What used to be common wisdom is now uncommon. Just a part of our decadent, corrupt, zero-pride-for-your-culture times. It's obvious that pussy countries who are too afraid to kill a crazy psychopath aren't going to be around much longer. Do you think Islamic societies are against the death penalty?

Quote:

In fact only a small percentage of cases involve DNA. For example, your usual armed robbery is not likely to have any DNA evidence in it. If you shoot someone, unlikely your DNA is left around. DNA in death penalty cases is mostly limited to your rape/murders or murders by hand (i.e. DNA from scratched skin under the fingernails of the deceased, saliva from bites, etc.).

Exonerations because of DNA are significant because they are a statistical bellwether of a much larger number of wrongful convictions because of bad eyewitness identification, lying by cops, snitches and people out for revenge, false confessions, bad luck coincidences, and police framing. In other words, there are many ways you can be wrongfully accused and convicted, but DNA is one of the few sure ways to get out of it. No DNA = no way out. For every one guy who got out because of DNA, there are at least ten more stuck because there was no DNA in their case.

Okay, then the solution is simple.

No death penalty allowed unless there is DNA evidence.

On a cost basis, it would not be worth maintaining the capacity for the few number of cases.

Plus, you could still have DNA evidence but have a completely wrong conviction. Example: you visit someone's apartment, drink out of a glass, leave DNA on the glass,(you would also leave fingerprints, which are also rarer in real cases than in TV shows), person #2 kills someone in the apartment after you leave, you get framed somehow.

Prosecutors also know that they can wave around DNA and try to fool dumb jurors with expert testimony that isn't really relevant. For example, I tried a rape case in which the sex was not the issue, consent and motive to lie was. I moved to stipulate to the DNA evidence, prosecutor fought it because wanted to have experts testify for half a day just to make it seem that they had more of a case than this whore's (yes, she was a crack whore) say-so.

Another reason why the death penalty is wrong: when they question juries in death penalty cases, the prosecution is allowed to cut out anyone who says they're against the death penalty. So you end up with a jury of people in favor of the death penalty.

It's not a surprise that studies show that people in favor of the death penalty are more likely to convict on a set of ambiguous facts with reasonable doubt. A lot of people are just authoritarian mean bastards looking for someone to burn. Warps the jury system.

[big poppa]

For me it is also about justice for the victims family.

For despicable acts such as torture/murder, rape/murder of young kids etc - As a relative of the victim it would bring some comfort knowing the perpetrator was gone, rather than the thought of him chilling on a bed in prison watching TV.

[soup]

Tail gunner, you took my post out if context and tried to reframe in fail way.

[Tail Gunner]

(04-20-2014 07:31 PM)soup Wrote:  

Tail gunner, you took my post out if context and tried to reframe in fail way.

If you believe that I took your posts out of context, all you need to do is explain why.

I just re-read your posts. I believe that I directly and accurately rebutted your points.

I pride myself on my use of logic and reason, which is so lacking in our culture today. So, I do not resort to dissembling, even if I were so inclined.

So, have at it. After all, this is just a friendly debate.

[soup]

(04-20-2014 08:41 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 07:31 PM)soup Wrote:  

Tail gunner, you took my post out if context and tried to reframe in fail way.

If you believe that I took your posts out of context, all you need to do is explain why.

I just re-read your posts. I believe that I directly and accurately rebutted your points.

I pride myself on my use of logic and reason, which is so lacking in our culture today. So, I do not resort to dissembling, even if I were so inclined.

So, have at it. After all, this is just a friendly debate.

But you didn't.

[soup]

(04-21-2014 02:17 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 08:41 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 07:31 PM)soup Wrote:  

Tail gunner, you took my post out if context and tried to reframe in fail way.

If you believe that I took your posts out of context, all you need to do is explain why.

I just re-read your posts. I believe that I directly and accurately rebutted your points.

I pride myself on my use of logic and reason, which is so lacking in our culture today. So, I do not resort to dissembling, even if I were so inclined.

So, have at it. After all, this is just a friendly debate.

But you didn't.
You remind me of Ned Flanders- the ultimate beta.

[WestIndianArchie]

redacted

[Tail Gunner]

(04-21-2014 02:18 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 02:17 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 08:41 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 07:31 PM)soup Wrote:  

Tail gunner, you took my post out if context and tried to reframe in fail way.

If you believe that I took your posts out of context, all you need to do is explain why.

I just re-read your posts. I believe that I directly and accurately rebutted your points.

I pride myself on my use of logic and reason, which is so lacking in our culture today. So, I do not resort to dissembling, even if I were so inclined.

So, have at it. After all, this is just a friendly debate.

But you didn't.
You remind me of Ned Flanders- the ultimate beta.

I am not the one acting butt-hurt, like a hamster with a bad enema.

I politely gave you the opportunity to man-up and intellectually defend your position. Instead, you resorted to name calling, the last refuge of a sore loser.

[soup]

(04-20-2014 01:47 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

[quote='soup' pid='706844' dateline='1397935240']I'm surprised more pro-lifers aren't also against the death penalty.

A lot of them believe that life and death should be in god's hands, not man's.

When viewed logically, there is no hypocrisy whatsoever between the two postions. A murderer receives due process with a jury of his peers and, if found guilty, he receives a punishment for committing a heinous crime.

An unborn baby (1) receives no due process and (2) is completely innocent of any crime. Enough said.

Yes- you tried to make my post not about what I was talking about:

You can't say that god controls life and that people should stay out of god's way, and then turn around and say that people can decide when other people should live or die.

It's cherry picking.

Take one side.

Either you believe that people should decide who lives and dies or you believe that god does.

[Tail Gunner]

(04-21-2014 11:15 AM)soup Wrote:  

[quote] (04-20-2014 01:47 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

I'm surprised more pro-lifers aren't also against the death penalty.

A lot of them believe that life and death should be in god's hands, not man's.

When viewed logically, there is no hypocrisy whatsoever between the two postions. A murderer receives due process with a jury of his peers and, if found guilty, he receives a punishment for committing a heinous crime.

An unborn baby (1) receives no due process and (2) is completely innocent of any crime. Enough said.

Yes- you tried to make my post not about what I was talking about:

You can't say that god controls life and that people should stay out of god's way, and then turn around and say that people can decide when other people should live or die.

It's cherry picking.

Take one side.

Either you believe that people should decide who lives and dies or you believe that god does.

At least I now know what you mean. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. There is no biblical support for the proposition that death should be in God's hands, not man's. The command "Thou Shall Not Kill," which more accurately translates to "Thou Shall Not Murder," does not apply to killing in war, self-defense, or capital punishment cases.

Man should not spill innocent blood, which is another way of saying what I said in my previous post, i.e., that the civil authorities should not take the take life of an innocent person -- or even a guilty person, without due process.

When Jesus protected the prostitute by saying "let he who has never sinned throw the first stone," he did not mean that she was not worthy of punishment. Under Rabbinical law, she clearly was worthy of punishment. He meant, that if she could be stoned without due process, then the same thing could happen to any man there. In other words: no mob rule.

In sum, there is no conflict between the two positions. In matters of death, it is eminently logical to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent.

[Wutang]

I do not have any moral issue with the death penalty.

But I do think if someone is to be put to death (which also should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes and when the party has been proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the strictest standards for proof in place) then it should be done stoically and soberly. None of this stuff where people are hollering and savoring the guy getting toasted. The elements of revenge should be as minimized as much as possible without compromising justice.

I have the same feelings about war.

[soup]

(04-21-2014 02:24 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

I do not have any moral issue with the death penalty.

But I do think if someone is to be put to death (which also should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes and when the party has been proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the strictest standards for proof in place) then it should be done stoically and soberly. None of this stuff where people are hollering and savoring the guy getting toasted. The elements of revenge should be as minimized as much as possible without compromising justice.

I have the same feelings about war.

What difference does it make Is there really a "nice" way to kill someone? Its like saying there's a nice way to say "fuck you" to somebody.

Talk about doing a bad job of whitewashing...

[TheWastelander]

(04-20-2014 10:38 AM)big poppa Wrote:  

For me it is also about justice for the victims family.

For despicable acts such as torture/murder, rape/murder of young kids etc - As a relative of the victim it would bring some comfort knowing the perpetrator was gone, rather than the thought of him chilling on a bed in prison watching TV.

Completely agree, but I would also want them to be 100% sure he was the guy who did it. Nothing worse than killing an innocent person while the real criminal is still out there.

If it can definitively be proven in a court of law that someone committed those offenses they should be given a week in jail, taken out back on the seventh day, and shot in the head.

If it later turns out that a prosecutor, cop, or judge lied to get a conviction against an innocent man then they should be sentenced to death as well.

[cardguy]

A lot of people are against the death penalty. Because they think the government shouldn't have the right to kill people. And are worried about innocent people being executed.

Does that mean those same people are against all wars? Since war is government authorised killing - and regularly kills innocent people.

[TonySandos]

(04-21-2014 02:18 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 02:17 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 08:41 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(04-20-2014 07:31 PM)soup Wrote:  

Tail gunner, you took my post out if context and tried to reframe in fail way.

If you believe that I took your posts out of context, all you need to do is explain why.

I just re-read your posts. I believe that I directly and accurately rebutted your points.

I pride myself on my use of logic and reason, which is so lacking in our culture today. So, I do not resort to dissembling, even if I were so inclined.

So, have at it. After all, this is just a friendly debate.

But you didn't.
You remind me of Ned Flanders- the ultimate beta.

You have an strong tendency to resort to ad hominem

[Que enspastic]

Any non-American middle class dudes on here advocating death penalty ?

[Wutang]

(04-21-2014 03:27 PM)soup Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 02:24 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

I do not have any moral issue with the death penalty.

But I do think if someone is to be put to death (which also should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes and when the party has been proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the strictest standards for proof in place) then it should be done stoically and soberly. None of this stuff where people are hollering and savoring the guy getting toasted. The elements of revenge should be as minimized as much as possible without compromising justice.

I have the same feelings about war.

What difference does it make Is there really a "nice" way to kill someone? Its like saying there's a nice way to say "fuck you" to somebody.

Talk about doing a bad job of whitewashing...

There are different degrees.

I think we can all agree that removing someone quickly and painlessly from society and the world at large is not the same as drawing and quartering someonev while the public gawks and cheers on the whole spectacle. Both are ways of punishment but the latter has also the purpose of inflicting as much pain and disgrace as possible and can be said to be closer to merely inflicting revenge then the former.

To use your example, there are indeed different ways to tell someone to fuck off - ranging from directly telling someone to fuck off to making excuses about how you have to leave at the moment. Or look at how girls reject guys - they'll either say straight off they aren't interested or they'll make up some BS excuse about they already have a boyfriend. Either way they are essentially telling yout o fuck off.

[randomForest]

So much libertarian/right-wing hamster here it's difficult to know where to start.

NEWSFLASH: a gov't that is empowered to take your life, is necessarily empowered to do anything to you short of that. Put differently, if the gov't can kill you then surely taxing you a whole lot or taking your guns is also fair game.

From where I sit, the liberal attempts to resolve this difficulty by favoring big gov't largely on the basis of achieving practical objectives (ie, increase gov't to provide healthcare, making civil marriage available to gays, etc) rather than for it’s own sake. This is, of course, problematic, many times unsuccessful and subject to unintended consequences. However, libertarian attempts to resolve this quandary are even more fraught (hence the ridiculousness in this thread) because their opposition to gov't is primarily--but not completely--philosophical in it's nature.

Consider: a liberal saying "I generally favor a more expansive state to provide healthcare for people but think state powers ought to be reined in vis-a-vis the death penalty" is a lot easier to reconcile than a libertarian saying "I think gov’t is bad by nature and am inherently distrustful of central authority---but I'm fine with letting it kill people as the culmination of likely flawed, quixotic and possibly corrupt criminal proceedings. Which, by the way, are initiated by the gov’t itself".

But that's what's basically being said here. That a gov’t that can’t be trusted to do anything else can and should be able to be trusted to determine guilt or innocence to the degree that it is empowered to impose the ultimate and irrevocable penalty upon its citizens, according to our self-styled libertarians. And if you disagree, you are:

Quote:

"a part of our decadent, corrupt, zero-pride-for-your-culture times"

[soup]

(04-21-2014 04:23 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 03:27 PM)soup Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 02:24 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

I do not have any moral issue with the death penalty.

But I do think if someone is to be put to death (which also should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes and when the party has been proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the strictest standards for proof in place) then it should be done stoically and soberly. None of this stuff where people are hollering and savoring the guy getting toasted. The elements of revenge should be as minimized as much as possible without compromising justice.

I have the same feelings about war.

What difference does it make Is there really a "nice" way to kill someone? Its like saying there's a nice way to say "fuck you" to somebody.

Talk about doing a bad job of whitewashing...

There are different degrees.

I think we can all agree that removing someone quickly and painlessly from society and the world at large is not the same as drawing and quartering someonev while the public gawks and cheers on the whole spectacle. Both are ways of punishment but the latter has also the purpose of inflicting as much pain and disgrace as possible and can be said to be closer to merely inflicting revenge then the former.

To use your example, there are indeed different ways to tell someone to fuck off - ranging from directly telling someone to fuck off to making excuses about how you have to leave at the moment. Or look at how girls reject guys - they'll either say straight off they aren't interested or they'll make up some BS excuse about they already have a boyfriend. Either way they are essentially telling yout o fuck off.

Let's talk about this polite killing...

What does it mean to do it?

On the spectrum, you have violent killing on one end.. but what's the opposite? Killing someone over a long period of time without them or anyone really noticing.

We can call "indirect killing"

Let's say you allow someone to be born into a shitty situation, with very little glimpse of getting out. This person feels like they have no options. They don't have any kind of education, are probably suffering from some kind of childhood trauma growing in the shittiest ghetto or whatever.

To them, the life of crime etc. really does seem like the only option. Can you blame them at this point?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Sure, there are psychopaths from the upper class that go nuts and do serial killer shit, but most of these death penalty cases come from guys who were involved in a life of crime.

The death penalty doesn't really solve anything. It doesn't act as a deterrent to violent crime. To deal with that, you have to look deeper in to the systemic root of why someone does what he feels in the necessary thing to do in a given situation.

The death penalty brings us down as a people.

It seems like you are looking a this through a direct causation frame. Unfortunately, things are a lot more complicated than that.

In America, people supposedly have this free choice etc. You can't be free if you don't have options or the know-how to use them.

I think it's whack to try to whitewash killing people. The more we detach ourselves from what it means to kill, the more "sanitized" it gets, the less we really understand what it means.

Our culture tries to remove us from death. We want death-lite, diet-death- all the thrill of the kill but not the calories of casualties.

We get to experience it vicariously in movies, and even the military is playing videogame death with drones and smart bombs etc.

[Wutang]

Obviously the best way to deter crime is to fix the environment that breeds crime. And that should indeed be done to the fullest extent as possible. Also I would like a million dollars - but I can't have that so I have to make do with what I have.

The best way to prevent a fire from consuming a building is through fireproofing the building and other safety measures but when the fire has already broken out, it's too late and you simply have to deal with putting out the fire.

So are you against any sort of punishment whatsoever? I mean if a person really had no choice or free will then you really can't blame them for anything and it would be wrong to punish them in any way - whether it be the death penalty or locking them up.

We should also stop mocking feminists, white knights, and their allies - after all they all most likely have grown up in middle to upper class environments and went to college where these ideologies were pushed upon them and they simply couldn't make any sort of choice about whether to accept it or not.

And I don't see how I am white washing the death penalty. If anything, I am acknowledgeing what a grim matter it is and hence why I believe it should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes and when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Tail Gunner]

(04-22-2014 11:47 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

We should also stop mocking feminists, white knights, and their allies - after all they all most likely have grown up in middle to upper class environments and went to college where these ideologies were pushed upon them and they simply couldn't make any sort of choice about whether to accept it or not.

lol. Most everyone here who argues against the death penalty is a White Knight.

Men who come to the rescue of women by placing them on a pedestal because of the idealistic vision of womanly virtue are no different than men who come to the rescue of murderers because of an idealistic vision of the poor underclass as somehow victims of society.

This is not rocket science. Everyone knows not to murder. It is one of the few concepts that 99.9% of the population of the planet can agree upon. Everyone also knows the penalty. If you cannot abide by that cardinal rule of humanity, then you should be excised from humanity.

All this mindless political correctness is simply another form of White Knighting. There is no simpler concept than equity under the law.

[sheesh]

(04-21-2014 04:19 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  

Any non-American middle class dudes on here advocating death penalty ?

You will find supporters of the death penalty everywhere,of course, but at least in Western Europe you wouldn't get a majority supporting it.

Capital punishment is first and foremost a spectacle for the unwashed masses who want to see blood, imho. The fact that the US is the only western country still resorting to such practices should make one wonder.