[zibber]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here is my opinion of capital punishment. In theory I'm against it; in practice I support it. Liberal Democrats may need to consult someone to explain this. This incident took place just a few miles from where I live and I believe all four should be dragged to a public square and hung by the neck until dead. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Count to ten.

(Oh, and your thread title gave me the idea there would be a case. These are some hyperlinks. Truth in advertising!)

[yoginimama]

Another thing to consider with regard to the type of crime under discussion here--

The lives of the four men who have been arrested for the murder of the local mother have now become a nightmare from which there will be no awakening. They're shackled, they're imprisoned, their names and faces have been broadcast across the local news, they've been jeered and cursed by enraged crowds. They've brought horrible shame to their families. If it starts looking more and more like they really are guilty--like they really did decide to commit a savage murder just for the fun of it--those families may very well disown them. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened.

They will not be able to make their charges go away. If they did kill this woman and injure her daughter, there's no going back, there's no wishing it away, there's no saying they're sorry. Because of the brutality of what they did, no one will feel sorry for them even if significant mitigating circumstances exist for their behavior. If those mitigating circumstances cause a lessening of their sentence, people will believe they're "getting off" and will hate them even more. They will have good reason to fear becoming victims of vigilante justice. And they will know perfectly well that no one who would be in a position to help them will have a whole lot of sympathy for their plight.

Whatever vision they might have had for their future--and it may never have extended beyond having fun over the next upcoming weekend--is over now. In a sense, they are now as dead as their victim; the lives they might have lived are forever beyond them. Even if they don't get significant prison sentences, what kind of lives will they be able to live? As the reality of this settles in on them, to whom can they express their horror and grief? Everyone will just say, "Maybe you should have thought of that before you went and killed someone, dumbass. Now shut up."

In other words: no one here needs to worry about these guys beyond feeling the natural revulsion at what they've allegedly done. Their lives are already total hell, and unlikely to get any better. We want them to suffer? They are. That doesn't change or fix what happened--but nothing can do that, unfortunately. The horrific karma of these men, however, has assuredly already found them and will continue to play out for the rest of their miserable lives.

[Holiman]

Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm all for the death penalty. In fact, I'd like to see it used a little more, but not because it has a deterrent effect. It may or may not, but the purpose is to punish, not to deter someone from committing a crime. Warrior added to this post, 7 minutes and 4 seconds later... So. It's well worth it. This is not relevent. Innocent people being convicted of crimes is not good, but it is a seperate matter. It has no bearing on whether or not the death penalty is suitable punishment for a crime. Again not relevent. The penalty for any crime is to punish, not to deter. This logic could be used to abolish all penalties for all crimes. What payment would you suggest? I think taking a person's life is fitting punishment for some crimes.

I dont think I can find a middle ground with someone who simply doesnt seem to care about the issues with capital punishment. You from what I have gathered have a predisposition towards punishment as some kind of fix all that I cannot agree with. The cost to me is the most important part of any goverment program regardless of the outcome I judge its worthiness by its expense compared to how much good its does. That you have no problem with the state ordering peoples death regardless of their innocence again boggles the mind. Since you are utterly married to your punishment which can never 'fit' a crime and wont consider any argument that doesnt effect your opinion of just desserts I doubt you will ever be satisfied with any argument against the death penalty.

As for my suggestions they are simple take some of this mis-spent money on research and grass root movement to alter our present penal system towards something less expensive and more fruitful solutions that our society can adopt.

[Tyrant Soup]

	Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can't answer for Lucid, but I would still be against capital punishment for any crime, assuming the criminal could be safely detained.

If you are simply presenting a personal preferences, then I have no problem with it. You are free to choose to spare those who kill your love ones. But if you would like to force the view on all others, then logical justification is called for.





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 13 minutes and 29 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can hate them and what they did without thinking it's a good idea for the state to kill people. Because, imho, it's not.

You started out appealing for the use of logic, but you did not use any in your argument. You simply presented a personal preference.

[Valiyn]

	Originally Posted by Tyrant Soup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You started out appealing for the use of logic, but you did not use any in your argument. You simply presented a personal preference.

I think she makes a valid point when it comes to using logic and did make use of it in her argument. After all, she is making the case from the point of view many took to try to better communicate her view -- which she acknowledges is from the same breeding ground as many who have posted so far in terms of hating the guilty for their actions. That is not a lack of logic so much as a continuation to convince others stop and think before deciding someone is guilty and must be dealt with in a brutal fashion.

[Corbu]

Originally Posted by yoginimama To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Another thing to consider with regard to the type of crime under discussion here-- The lives of the four men who have been arrested for the murder of the local mother have now become a nightmare from which there will be no awakening. They're shackled, they're imprisoned, their names and faces have been broadcast across the local news, they've been jeered and cursed by enraged crowds. They've brought horrible shame to their families. If it starts looking more and more like they really are guilty--like they really did decide to commit a savage murder just for the fun of it--those families may very well disown them. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened. They will not be able to make their charges go away. If they did kill this woman and injure her daughter, there's no going back, there's no wishing it away, there's no saying they're sorry. Because of the brutality of what they did, no one will feel sorry for them even if significant mitigating circumstances exist for their behavior. If those mitigating circumstances cause a lessening of their sentence, people will believe they're "getting off" and will hate them even more. They will have good reason to fear becoming victims of vigilante justice. And they will know perfectly well that no one who would be in a position to help them will have a whole lot of sympathy for their plight. Whatever vision they might have had for their future--and it may never have extended beyond having fun over the next upcoming weekend--is over now. In a sense, they are now as dead as their victim; the lives they might have lived are forever beyond them. Even if they don't get significant prison sentences, what kind of lives will they be able to live? As the reality of this settles in on them, to whom can they express their horror and grief? Everyone will just say, "Maybe you should have thought of that before you went and killed someone, dumbass. Now shut up." In other words: no one here needs to worry about these guys beyond feeling the natural revulsion at what they've allegedly done. Their lives are already total hell, and unlikely to get any better. We want them to suffer? They are. That doesn't change or fix what happened--but nothing can do that, unfortunately. The horrific karma of these men, however, has assuredly already found them and will continue to play out for the rest of their miserable lives.

Let me clarify: The four were arrested, if they are found guilty there is no chance of redemption on their part, they have done something so horrific their karma is screwed for at least the rest of this life.

your position is: they can do no more harm, they are in a hellish way, they are suffering like we want them to and for all intent purposes they are dead. correct?

Your position is compelling and has many merits, where/what we disagree upon is the compassion aspects. Simply I view the use of the death penalty as a compassionate means to put their suffering to an end and have great difficulty understanding the opposite position. Admittedly I do have sensitivity issues, it is just the image of injured and tortured animals with no chance of survival pops into my head and my logical conclusion is euthanasia.

[PunkinA]

	Originally Posted by Tyrant Soup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you are simply presenting a personal preferences, then I have no problem with it. You are free to choose to spare those who kill your love ones. But if you would like to force the view on all others, then logical justification is called for.

The desire to preserve even the lives of criminals is not a logical one, I agree. It is a personal value judgment.

The desire to kill murderers to fulfill a sense of just punishment is not logical either. It is a personal value judgment. Logical justification cannot legitimize either perspective. They are both results of desires.

I do agree that logical arguments can be made to develop a case for either view, explaining how one view leads to some intended or unintended consequences. The final judgment still lies in whether the consequences themselves are found desirable. There exists no condition which is objectively or absolutely desirable so any argument boils down to a persuasive appeal to ethos, not logos.

I also agree that legal policies are best developed by considering logical arguments. In this case there is no perfect logical justification FOR or AGAINST. I also agree that some arguments are illogical, and should be thrown out. A value judgment is neither logical nor illogical though, so I earnestly believe the realm of valid rhetoric limits itself to only non-contradictory or non-illogical arguments. A strict reliance on logic is fruitless.

To exemplify my point, this whole thread lacks a logical basis for either side. The Pro-Hangers merely state their values as if they were true axioms; Punishment is required, or Justice must be served. What is illogical is treating these personal values as if they were impregnable bastions of truth. They only become true upon assumption, but logic does not provide for Truth by assumption. Lewis Carrol illustrates this well in "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles."

[Holiman]

	Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In this case there is no perfect logical justification FOR or AGAINST.

Ahem I think I made logical arguments against the death penalty.

1. its expensive. I know everyone thinks they can make it cheaper but you cannot and keep it fair and just if you did it would just make more problems.

2. its unfair. How many death row inmates have been found either innocent or wrongly convicted. You cannot make amends to a corpse.

3. its never been proven to stop others from commiting crimes. You sometimes only make the person killed into a icon that those of bent natures might look up towards later.

4. its not a very good punishment. No matter how terrible the wait, the fear or the trauma in the death penalty it doesnt really pay for the crime one must commit to be deserving of the punishment.

[PunkinA]

Holiman, the arguments follow logical form, but the strength of the arguments come from the non-logical assumptions they are built upon.

1. is valid, but helps me only if I value efficiency of dollars spent.

2. the notion of fairness is determined by personal preference. We may each have different opinions of what is fair.

3. Is a valid argument, but it only refutes an assertion made by the opposition. It does not posit any merit on its own. 3b, is not even logical, it is hypothetically anecdotal. What may possibly happen in one occurrence does not reflect the overall effectiveness of policy.

4. What constitutes a good punishment is subject to personal judgment.

Each of your arguments stem from some arbitrary position you happen to hold. Even if we both hold these values in common, they are not absolutely true.

[Profit]

Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Holiman, the arguments follow logical form, but the strength of the arguments come from the non-logical assumptions they are built upon. 2. the notion of fairness is determined by personal preference. We may each have different opinions of what is fair. Each of your arguments stem from some arbitrary position you happen to hold. Even if we both hold these values in common, they are not absolutely true.

What if instead of saying its not fair Holiman had just said he was against the death penalty because innocent people have been convicted and executed. That sounds like a logical argument to me.

Also, I think everyone agrees that its not 'fair' when an innocent person is convicted and given a the death penalty for a crime they didn't commit.

[Holiman]

Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Holiman, the arguments follow logical form, but the strength of the arguments come from the non-logical assumptions they are built upon. 1. is valid, but helps me only if I value efficiency of dollars spent. 2. the notion of fairness is determined by personal preference. We may each have different opinions of what is fair. 3. Is a valid argument, but it only refutes an assertion made by the opposition. It does not posit any merit on its own. 3b, is not even logical, it is hypothetically anecdotal. What may possibly happen in one occurrence does not reflect the overall effectiveness of policy. 4. What constitutes a good punishment is subject to personal judgment. Each of your arguments stem from some arbitrary position you happen to hold. Even if we both hold these values in common, they are not absolutely true.

I dont see how cost isnt a logical argument. All things are basically finite, the system doesnt have an unlimited source of finance. The goverment as a keeper of the system must weigh the basics of cost vs. effectivness in its endevors. So if the program in question isnt cost effective it should be scraped.

The term fair isnt whats important the fact is a death sentence is final once its carried out and since death is something that cannot be undone. A death sentence must needs be used only when its positive it cannot be a mistake. Since that is an impossibility and has been proven so time and again we must admit its flawed and find an alternative.

Since there has been research long and tedious amounts regarding the subject of deterence in crimes I would say this is entirely logical. There are enough facts to make a solid opinion that deterence is ineffective at the very least, and potentially makes things worse.

Punishing a person is personal and because of that reason alone we must improve our system, our system has been flawed for hundreds of years and changes are few and poorly thought out and implemented.

[IrishGuy]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Punishing a person is personal and because of that reason alone we must improve our system, our system has been flawed for hundreds of years and changes are few and poorly thought out and implemented.

I agree that our system has some serious flaws in it. What kind of improvements did you have in mind?

[Holiman]

	Originally Posted by IrishGuy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I agree that our system has some serious flaws in it. What kind of improvements did you have in mind?

I had earlier posted;

As for my suggestions they are simple take some of this mis-spent money on research and grass root movement to alter our present penal system towards something less expensive and more fruitful solutions that our society can adopt.

study the problem, seek new solutions and implement them in tests and stages until we find something worthwhile.

If I attempt to row a bow with a wet noodle I dont just try rowing harder I seek a better oar. What has changed about the US penal system in 200 years?

[Ray9]

	What has changed about the US penal system in 200 years?

It's not the penal system that has changed, it's the people who are coming into it. The odious legacy of "The Great Society" -- the propagation of single-parent families has unleashed a tidal wave of criminality that threatens the very fabric of our way of life. We are now suffering the law of unintended consequences as criminal behavior and a lack of respect for life itself wreaks havoc in our communities. There is no way to structure prisons to deal with the results of bad social engineering because the seeds of evil are planted early in the development of perpetrators and some, unfortunately, are born evil. We need to return to a time when punishment is swift and sure. More bad social engineering is not the answer.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	the propagation of single-parent families has unleashed a tidal wave of criminality that threatens the very fabric of our way of life.

Do you have any sources to back this statement up? I mean actual published and peer-reviewed psychological studies that suggest a link between single parent families and criminality?

[yoginimama]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

the propagation of single-parent families has unleashed a tidal wave of criminality that threatens the very fabric of our way of life. We are now suffering the law of unintended consequences as criminal behavior and a lack of respect for life itself wreaks havoc in our communities....the seeds of evil are planted early in the development of perpetrators...We need to return to a time when punishment is swift and sure....

And very probably visited on the wrong people, for exactly those reasons ("swift and sure")

But if you're seriously arguing that social evil is the result of family structure, how do you explain the antebellum South? Slave owners thought they had the right to:

1) Buy and sell their slaves
2) Break up their slaves' families in doing so, separating husbands, wives, parents, children
3) Have sex with their slaves
4) Visit sadistic, cruel, graphic, often extreme punishments on their slaves--shackles, whipping, threats of death, branding...
5) Prohibit their slaves from learning to read and write

How do we account for this ongoing, multigenerational crime, perpetrated without shame and in fact supported not just by slave-owners but by almost all the bystanders in the region?

How do we account for that pervasive "lack of respect for life itself"? That disdain for the family?

Were the majority of Southerners from 1650-1865 raised by single parents??

Was antebellum Southern society the result of some kind of big-government social engineering from the 1660s that we somehow don't know about??

[PunkinA]

Holiman, you have done well to restate your opinions, and show how the lynch mob approach logically fails to uphold your opinions. I also hold many of the same things you express as valuable myself. I was not intending to imply you were wrong in your judgments.

Even though we both agree, even if 100 people agree, the opinions we hold do not become facts. Saying that we should do something, or that we must do something, in an unqualified sense, is not a logical statement. It is merely an expression of our position.

I desire intensely to prevent the government from killing individuals who are not-guilty of the crime. My desire is not logical, but to me it feels undeniable. Yet, if I come in contact with someone else who doesn't feel the same, I will not be able to persuade them to my view through any logical argument. A person who values chaos or destruction is no less logical than I am. They just have a different set of core values.

Some things just don't qualify as 'TRUE' or 'FALSE'. These things lie outside the jurisdiction of logic.

[Aronnax]

Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's not the penal system that has changed, it's the people who are coming into it. The odious legacy of "The Great Society" -- the propagation of single-parent families has unleashed a tidal wave of criminality that threatens the very fabric of our way of life. We are now suffering the law of unintended consequences as criminal behavior and a lack of respect for life itself wreaks havoc in our communities. There is no way to structure prisons to deal with the results of bad social engineering because the seeds of evil are planted early in the development of perpetrators and some, unfortunately, are born evil. We need to return to a time when punishment is swift and sure. More bad social engineering is not the answer. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's interesting Ray, it's too bad that your entire argument is based on the false assumption that crime rates are increasing.

Per capita incidence of violent crime, theft, burglary and rape have all decreased. Here's a chart from the FBI that gives actual values from 1986 to 2005:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The invention of the 24 hour news network increased your awareness of crime. The networks are drawn to the heart wrenching horror stories that will get people to tune in and sit through commercials. Crime has gone down, your awareness of crime has gone up; you're confusing personal perspective with reality.

[Holiman]

Originally Posted by PunkinA To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Holiman, you have done well to restate your opinions, and show how the lynch mob approach logically fails to uphold your opinions. I also hold many of the same things you express as valuable myself. I was not intending to imply you were wrong in your judgments. Even though we both agree, even if 100 people agree, the opinions we hold do not become facts. Saying that we should do something, or that we must do something, in an unqualified sense, is not a logical statement. It is merely an expression of our position. I desire intensely to prevent the government from killing individuals who are not-guilty of the crime. My desire is not logical, but to me it feels undeniable. Yet, if I come in contact with someone else who doesn't feel the same, I will not be able to persuade them to my view through any logical argument. A person who values chaos or destruction is no less logical than I am. They just have a different set of core values. Some things just don't qualify as 'TRUE' or 'FALSE'. These things lie outside the jurisdiction of logic.

Maybe it was my misunderstanding I had thought you meant my argument must be logical not my interpretation of what I consider are facts.

I consider my points logical because they are based on solid research or real world concepts that can be studied, checked or backed up. My opinion comes from how I interpret those concepts and of course you are correct that doesnt mean I am correct or will be able to persuade anyone.

I felt that since I can lay out my sticks and point to real world situations, and not speak of arbitrary concepts like justice or deserving punishments that we could come to a consenus about the issue. Such as if someone could lay out a logical justification for the death penalty other than the one fact of a dead man cannot commit crimes again. I would be more than willing to hear them out.

[Ray9]

	The invention of the 24 hour news network increased your awareness of crime. The networks are drawn to the heart wrenching horror stories that will get people to tune in and sit through commercials. Crime has gone down, your awareness of crime has gone up; you're confusing personal perspective with reality.

I don't watch a lot of television news. I'd be interested to see crime statistics before "The great society".

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't watch a lot of television news. I'd be interested to see crime statistics before "The great society".

Ha Ha ! Sounds like an admission of a rich fantasy life - just like an INTJ, by golly !

[Tyrant Soup]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I felt that since I can lay out my sticks and point to real world situations, and not speak of arbitrary concepts like justice or deserving punishments that we could come to a consenus about the issue.

1. Justice is not an arbitrary concept. If I gouged out one of your eyes, it will make you less capable at competing with me for resources. Since society cannot restore your vision, it must restore the balance by depriving me of the same.

2. The fact that all murderers cannot be convicted with certainty does not mean that the same uncertainty applies to a particular case.

3. In the absolute sense, nothing can really be proven with a 100% certainty. We must necessarily arbitrate how much proof is sufficient.

[Holiman]

	Originally Posted by Tyrant Soup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1. Justice is not an arbitrary concept. If I gouged out one of your eyes, it will make you less capable at competing with me for resources. Since society cannot restore your vision, it must restore the balance by depriving me of the same.

I absolutely hate the eye for an eye qoute for so many reasons. First regardless of why you made the comment its traces are to jewish law but then jesus said to NOT follow the concept. But most of the people who support the Death penalty are self proclaimed christians.... sorry seperate rant there. The entire concept is tit for tat and this is entirely arbitrary. There are thousands of reasons why tit for tat is not reasonable or logical when dealing with people. But since its your comment back up your point show me one article showing an eye for an eye restores balance. Hell just show any evidence of that working ever.

	Originally Posted by Tyrant Soup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	2. The fact that all murderers cannot be convicted with certainty does not mean that the same uncertainty applies to a particular case.

What part of the Death penalty isnt something you can get wrong and make amends with. Regardless of where the faults end or how we spin relevance death is finale. Mistakes have been made you cannot argue this nor can we be assured they wont occure again would you trust your own life or that of a loved one with a system proven to be curropted ?

	Originally Posted by Tyrant Soup To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	3. In the absolute sense, nothing can really be proven with a 100% certainty. We must necessarily arbitrate how much proof is sufficient.

In all things but the Death penalty I find the levels we strive for to be acceptable.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My guess is that public hangings would have a profound deterrent effect on thrill killers.

I hope you wouldn't actually execute someone based on a guess.

	Originally Posted by Ray9 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't watch a lot of television news. I'd be interested to see crime statistics before "The great society".

Here's a start on that.

Homicide rate in the US per 100,000 population, 1960-2005
1960 -- 5.1
1961 -- 4.8
1963 -- 4.6
1965 -- 5.1
1967 -- 6.2
1969 -- 7.3
1971 -- 8.6
1973 -- 9.4
1975 -- 9.6
1977 -- 8.8
1979 -- 9.8
1981 -- 9.8
1983 -- 8.3
1985 -- 8.0
1987 -- 8.3
1989 -- 8.7
1991 -- 9.8
1993 -- 9.5
1995 -- 8.2
1997 -- 6.8
1999 -- 5.7
2001 -- 5.6
2003 -- 5.7
2005 -- 5.6

Even the lowest of these numbers is still three to six times the homicide rates of countries like Ireland, Germany, France, the UK, Norway, and Canada. Just for reference purposes, in 2008, the US executed more people than Europe, Africa, South America, the rest of North America, and Oceania combined. Evenly distributed, the US executes someone every 10 days.

[MartinH]

	Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Though the crime you cite is indeed heinous and warrants an appropriate punishment (execution perhaps), I don't think a public hanging would really do much except to satisfy the mob that demands "justice".

Entertainment and gratification, anyway.

Why do people enjoy self-righteousness so much? The tabloids here (UK) are always whipping it up - find someone blameworthy most of all, the punters *love* it.

If you (not Mogura, in general) want to kill criminals, whatever, but do it privately, in public it's not a deterrent it's sick entertainment and if anything desensitises people to violence/murder as long as it's to *them*.