Quote :

"We have this lengthy appeals process for the express purpose of exonerating innocent people. I'd say it's working."

You're saying that based on what?

12/13/2005 1:54:30 PM

Based on the fact that it appears to have successfully saved the lives of 122 people.

12/13/2005 1:55:01 PM

Out of?

12/13/2005 1:56:08 PM

An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death. Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.

Albert Camus (1957)

12/13/2005 1:56:19 PM

I guess Camus never watched Silence of the Lambs omfg pwnt

12/13/2005 1:58:35 PM

Quote :

"Out of?"

Roughly 3,500.

Of course, unless you mean to imply that one in twenty five people convicted of a crime in this country are convicted wrongfully, that's largely irrelevant.

12/13/2005 1:59:11 PM

^^^ I didn't know this quote, but that's what I've been saying for years. Death penalty is mental torture.

what I "mean to imply" is that you don't know how many innocent people have been on the death row altogether. The system is working if (at the very leat) most of failing are corrected. The mere presence of failings is not an indication of anything other than that the system is inherently flawed. Get some real education, and they'll teach you basic logic.

The argument that it leads to fewer deaths overall does not hold water anyway. Even if it's true which it isn't. I mean you're a sick Christian fuck, and wouldn't know anything about morals, but if you did, you'd know that if, say, my wife and I are starving, and the only way for us to survive is to kill you and eat your flesh, we still cannot do it. Despite the fact it would lead to fewer deaths overall (1 vs 2).

There is a moral absolute according to which you cannot murder defenseless people, let alone those who may very well be innocent. It's an absolute because it comes with no preconditions. You cannot ever do it. No matter what. This is the real argument against the death penalty.

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 2:07 PM. Reason : ,]

12/13/2005 1:59:55 PM

Quote :

"Where do you gather that they were all factually innocent?"

I did not say that they were all factually innocent. Go back and re-read carefully.

Quote :

" I never denied that some innocent people have been killed by the death penalty. I have, however, denied that more innocent people die through executions than through the farce that is "life without parole" and other lesser sentences."

Death is irreversible. After someone is executed, there is no "woops".

12/13/2005 1:59:58 PM

^^^^

PUT THE FUCKING LOTION IN THE BASKET!

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 2:01 PM. Reason : ^^^^]

12/13/2005 2:01:08 PM

you sound like you think your position would save lives.

attn: everyone dies.

12/13/2005 2:01:41 PM

^^love that movie

12/13/2005 2:02:23 PM

Quote :

"I did not say that they were all factually innocent. Go back and re-read carefully."

OK....

Quote :

"They were about to be executed, and they were factually innocent."

I'm confused, perhaps you could clarify.

Quote :

"Death is irreversible. After someone is executed, there is no "woops"."

Where did I say anything different? What the fuck are you even responding to?

Convicted murderers who should have been executed but were not have gone on to kill at least 71 more innocents before they were stopped one way or the other. The death penalty, according to the most liberal statistics available, has killed 56. Never mind that the first figure is certainly higher, since it does not take into account the murders of fellow inmates or those ordered or otherwise participated in from inside prison, and never mind that the latter figure is ridiculously inflated.

At the end of the day, letting convicted murderers live has killed more innocent people than executing convicted murderers has.

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 2:07 PM. Reason : I'm out for now, back later, oh don't you worry]

12/13/2005 2:05:20 PM

Quote :

"The death penalty, according to the most liberal statistics available, has killed 56."

i could have sworn tookie was the 1001 execution in the United States since it was ininstated in 1973. Where the hell do you come up with 56?

Quote :

"At the end of the day, letting convicted murderers live has killed more innocent people than executing convicted murderers has."

What gives you the right to kill the innocent? if what you are saying is that 56 innocent people have been killed. Those are 56 people who will not talk to their children again. Those are 56 people who were wrongly killed by the system. Furthermore, if the death penalty is that great of a punishment, then 71 people wouldn't have been killed by death row inmates. There is a short fiction called The lottery I suggest you read it.

p.s. how would you feel if one of those 56 was your brother, mother, father, or even yourself?

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

12/13/2005 2:14:46 PM

Quote :

"Where the hell do you come up with 56?"

The highest estimate for the percentage of people executed that are wrongfully convicted is 5.6%, that number being suggested by a couple of anti-death-penalty organizations and heavily flawed in its own right. Ergo, if 1000 people have been executed, then according to that figure then 56 of them were executed wrongfully.

Quote :

"Furthermore, if the death penalty is that great of a punishment, then 71 people wouldn't have been killed by death row inmates."

No. Most of the people who killed those 71 were not sentenced to death, though all of them should have been. They weren't on death row, they were in prison -- many of them "for life without parole."

The rest of your post is an appeal to emotion and not to logic. Yes, I'd be sad and angry and everything else if my brother was wrongfully executed. But you know what? I'd be sad and angry and everything else if my brother was rightfully executed, or sentenced to life in prison. The thing that makes people upset often isn't whether the sentence was just or unjust, but merely that it befell their loved one.

But why not play the emotions-instead-of-arguments game? How would you feel if one of the 71 was your brother, mother, father? Wouldn't you want the repeat-killer scum to die?

12/13/2005 2:29:10 PM

Quote :

"What gives you the right to kill the innocent?"

It's their Christian value.

12/13/2005 2:33:22 PM

12/13/2005 2:36:59 PM

Quote :

"What gives you the right to kill the innocent?"

I don't have the right to kill the innocent. The state does, because we have given them that right.

Quote :

"There is a moral absolute according to which you cannot murder defenseless people"

Really? From whence did you divine this? Or should we just call you MathFreak the Lawgiver?

12/13/2005 3:39:34 PM

I think you're not getting the whole moral absolute thing. It's unquestionably true. I don't need to justify it to you.

I totally get that you don't get it. You think murdering defenseless people is ok. Well, you're an animal. I mean, it may or may not be totally your fault. As I said, you're a Christian, which obviously implies you've been brainwashed to believe a warped moral code, where it is ok to punish people indefinitely for a finite number of sins that they have committed. You were fucked up as a child, so I personally don't hold you 100% responsible for your hateful views. But they are hateful views, and you're less of a person because of that.

12/13/2005 3:48:29 PM

That's lovely, Oleg, but I can't remember the last time that simply saying, "It's a moral absolute that I don't have to justify" won an argument.

It also bears mentioning that I seem to recall your opinions on abortion or assisted suicide/euthanasia.

My views are hateful: I HATE murder, I HATE rape, I HATE all these manifestations of evil. I don't hate the people responsible. I feel sorry for them. All the more so because they are cancers on the body which have to be removed for its good.

Now you and nutsmackr both have fallen back to appeals to emotion, which strikes me as being as much a concession of defeat as a white flag. But I'll continue to humor you in hopes that maybe you'll throw something with a little meaning into the fray.

12/13/2005 4:08:03 PM

I don't care to win an "argument" whether or not it is ok to murder defenseless people.

Uhm, a fetus is not "people".

What are my views on euthanasia?

12/13/2005 4:09:43 PM

Camus pretty much sums it up.

12/13/2005 4:14:52 PM

Sorry, I changed the line from asking you to reiterate your views to how you see it now. I do not actually recall your euthanasia views, but I have my suspicions.

Quote :

"Uhm, a fetus is not "people"."

YES THEY ARE

IT IS A MORAL ABSOLUTE TO NOT KILL T3H B4B13Z!!!1

Quote :

"Camus pretty much sums it up"

Camus only "sums it up" if you assume that the purpose of capital punishment is "an eye for an eye." It doesn't matter if the death penalty can be "compared" to a killer's crime.

12/13/2005 4:18:33 PM

Quote :

"YES THEY ARE IT IS A MORAL ABSOLUTE TO NOT KILL T3H B4B13Z!!!1"

OK, except you are not being serious, and I am.

12/13/2005 4:56:07 PM

Interesting story, I am serious about it being wrong to kill babies.

The party I'm not serious about is just throwing around, "It's a moral absolute," without any justification whatsoever and then acting like you should take it seriously.

12/13/2005 9:38:44 PM

He can say it is a moral absolute based upon what a moral absolute is.

Then of course, if you are a Christian, you should read the bible more because one of the Ten Commandments is, "Thou shall not kill."


^What if one of those babies grows up to be a serial killer? Shouldn't we execute that baby before it can go on a serial killing rampage?

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2005 2:08:00 PM

Quote :

"He can say it is a moral absolute based upon what a moral absolute is."

No, he can't.

He can't just assume that there are such things as moral absolutes and then go on even further to assume that not killing defenseless people is one of them.

Quote :

" "Thou shall not kill.""

The Bible tells me not to murder, and so I don't. In fact, I take it one step further and try to stop other people from being murdered as well.

You guys can call executions "murder" all day long, and it won't change the definition of either term.

Quote :

"What if one of those babies grows up to be a serial killer?"

My effort is to not punish people who have done nothing wrong. A baby has done nothing wrong, regardless of what it might go on to do. My desire to execute certain criminals is not just about what they will do, but also what they already have done.

Also, the predictive ability we gain from knowing somebody's history of violence is vastly superior to any you could have with an unborn baby.

12/14/2005 2:33:08 PM

the KJV says kill. In fact I don't know a bible that says murder.

Quote :

"My effort is to not punish people who have done nothing wrong. A baby has done nothing wrong, regardless of what it might go on to do. My desire to execute certain criminals is not just about what they will do, but also what they already have done."

What about the innocent people. Aren't they like teh babies who have done nothing?

12/14/2005 2:52:50 PM

yeah but the KJV also has "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (Genesis 9:6).

If we're going to quote Scripture to try and influence someone's opinion in a death penalty debate, opponents are probably better off sticking w/ the New Testament

12/14/2005 3:37:49 PM

Quote :

"What about the innocent people. Aren't they like teh babies who have done nothing?"

Yes, but God, the law, and I all recognize an accident when we see one. Not to mention that there is literally -0- room for doubt with babies: they are innocent 100% of the time.

Quote :

"the KJV says kill."

Regardless of how that line is worded in any version of the Bible, all you have to do is look at the rest of the freaking Old Testament and you'll rapidly get that if it is at all consistent with the rest (and it is) then it must not be referring to "killing" in the most general sense.

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 3:49 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2005 3:49:05 PM

Quote :

"If we're going to quote Scripture to try and influence someone's opinion in a death penalty debate, opponents are probably better off sticking w/ the New Testament "

Except the pseudo-conservatives have already discarded the Old Testament in a separate discussion about Christianity, which normally goes on like this:

- OMFBOMBQUOTEFROMTHEOLDTESTAMENT! Your Bible is an excrement of some sick fuck seriously bent on violence.
- [Oh, no you don't!] Jebus came and changed everything!

Quote :

"Yes, but God, the law, and I all recognize an accident when we see one."

Except killing innocents on a death row is NOT an accident. When you design a system that everybody knows WILL kill innocent people, they are no longer killed by accident. It may seem like an accident to you, because you are stupid and ignorant. But that doesn't make killings accidental. By instituting death penalty, the society EXPRESSLY CHOSES to tolerate killings of innocents, because that's a CERTAIN consequence of death penalty.

Quote :

"Interesting story, I am serious about it being wrong to kill babies."

No, you are not. You would not regard a woman who did an abortion the same as a murderer.

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 5:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2005 5:23:51 PM

Quote :

"One incident in how many?"

thank you so much for invalidating the argument of "OMFG IT KILLS INNOCENTS!!! WE MUST STOP IT RIGHT NOW!!!"

12/14/2005 6:30:38 PM

Quote :

"the KJV says kill."

well, now you're asking him to take a literal interpretation of a translated Bible, which (1) isn't sensible, and (2) you would bitch about if he cited a literal interpretation of a verse in conflict with your beliefs (a verse that would be at least arguably something not to be taken literally)

and yeah...it's pretty obvious what the "Thou shalt not kill" command means. That's a really weak argument against the death penalty, even if you were going to do so strictly based on what is written in the Bible.

Quote :

"Except killing innocents on a death row is NOT an accident. When you design a system that everybody knows WILL kill innocent people, they are no longer killed by accident. It may seem like an accident to you, because you are stupid and ignorant. But that doesn't make killings accidental. By instituting death penalty, the society EXPRESSLY CHOSES to tolerate killings of innocents, because that's a CERTAIN consequence of death penalty."

look, he's already pretty much explained his argument against this, and he's pretty much got you, ideologically.

the only recourse you have is debate over the statistics, because you are both playing the odds in a bid for the fewest innocent deaths. It's simply a matter of which numbers you use.

Quote :

"No, you are not. You would not regard a woman who did an abortion the same as a murderer."

Most women who have abortions don't believe they're killing another human being, either. For that reason, you SHOULDN'T regard them the same as a convicted murderer. It is roughly analagous to someone not guilty by reason of insanity.

12/14/2005 6:57:23 PM

Hey mathfreak, Its time for me to lay you out about your "moral absolute" concerning "killing defenseless people." lets see, which avenue should I use to attack this? well, lets just go from the beginning...

"Defenseless?" This seems to be the key claim to your alleged moral absolute. If we take out that word, then the claim is little more than "killing is wrong," which I think we can agree will be easily slaughtered upon any reasonable reflection. Defenseless. What does this mean? Does this mean "innocent?" If so, we've bashed that to death. Plus, its fair to assume that most people on death row are not innocent. Thus, that definition doesn't work if we are to be honest with ourselves.

So, maybe you mean "defenseless" as in "had no opportunity to resist." Sure, if we look at the man strapped to the table, then we must assume that he was defenseless. We must assume that he was some poor soul, picked at random from the population and strapped down to that table, about to be given the fatal dose of chemicals. But, a closer look will reveal that this man was not picked at random. Instead, a majority of these men committed crimes which led them to the table. Thus, in order not to be executed, they merely needed only not to kill someone. Plus, lets factor into the equation the fact that the man has had a myriad of attorneys and lawyers and many years for those people to search for evidence to prove his innocence. Thus, the man has had ample opportunity to resist the punishment, via his lawyers and via his own previous actions.

The only case that the "previous actions" argument does not apply is in the case where the man was actually innocent. Having not studied the data extensively, I will avoid making the supposition that the man had any criminal history which might have worked against him, and will instead point you to the lawyers and years of appeals. Thus, the man still has the opportunity to resist, even in his innocence. Your argument against the death penalty based on this "moral absolute," then, falls flat on its face.

Your natural rebuttal? "Well, because this man is innocent, the death penalty is wrong!" Ahhh, but even that argument is wrong. Your problem in this case is not with the actual death penalty. Rather, it is with ensuring that the sentence is carried out only on those who are actually guilty. If we are to remove the death penalty from consideration based solely on the fact that innocent people sometimes get it (regardless of how many actually do get it), then by that very same logic we must abolish all punishment, because innocent people will sometimes get punished as well. You will no doubt argue that "Well, the death penalty is final and irreversible!" Well, so is any amount of punishment already inflicted upon realizing a man's innocence. So, then, your argument, again, revolves around ensuring that the death penalty only be applied to the guilty.

You might be tempted to venture down the path of "well, being killed is not as bad as life in prison," but even that argument is flawed, and is based on little more than deciding the "worst acceptable thing." Unfortunately, when we eliminate the things past the "worst acceptable thing," we are then again faced with this boogey-man(sp?) of giving someone the maximum possible sentence, at which point we can then argue anew about the "worst acceptable thing." Thus, without an actual absolute, we cannot truly judge the "worst acceptable punishment."

Thus, in the absence of any evidence which shows that the death penalty is administered unfairly (IE, bias), we must look at your argument against the death penalty with great skepticism, especially the part based on the "moral absolute." Aside from not actually establishing the existence of "moral absolutes," much less the establishment of this particular one's existence, upon examining this "absolute" it becomes clear that the argument is not based upon the proclaimed absolute (for it doesn't apply here), but rather upon a different concern, that concern being an interest in the welfare of the innocent. Ironically, in being so concerned for the innocent man on death row, ostensibly by mentioning this "moral absolute," you neglect the multitides of those on death row who themselves ignored this "absolute."

All in all, I have to give you a "GG" for your sheer stupidity in mentioning the "absolute."

12/14/2005 7:09:15 PM

I'm not capable to digest this amount of bullshit.

"Defenseless? You mean random?" I stopped reading there.

WHAT?! Please try to understand what you wanna say first. Then I'll listen.

12/14/2005 7:58:13 PM

in other words, you didn't read it because you knew you were full of shit to start with. good work.

12/14/2005 8:00:09 PM

that's more than i read

not enough brevity for my tastes

12/14/2005 8:00:43 PM

i read it, and i LOLed like 894980732475 times

12/14/2005 8:03:22 PM

thats a shame. cause I tore MF to shreds.

Cliff notes version: the moral absolute argument is bullshit, because his problem is actually related to the proper administration of punishment, not that this particular punishment is actually wrong.

12/14/2005 8:05:56 PM

dude, you tore the argument YOU made FOR mathfreak to shreds

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 8:08 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2005 8:08:23 PM

^hahahahha

12/14/2005 8:15:00 PM

^^^

No.

Well, yes...but that is based on his assertion (correctly, in my opinion) that perfect implementation of the punishment is not only unrealistic, but impossible.

that's a legitimate concern that can still be argued against (a la GrumpyGOP), but you aren't going to get anywhere with your argument (based upon the abridged version...i'm not gonna read the whole thing)

12/14/2005 8:23:52 PM

Quote :

"dude, you tore the argument YOU made FOR mathfreak to shreds"

hey, thx for the insight and relevant commentary!

12/14/2005 8:33:49 PM

Quote :

"cause I tore MF to shreds."

no, no you didnt.

AND, infact, i'll probably be the only person who reads that pile garbage. so thank YOU for your steaming pile of shit commentary, but it's on par with my post as far as insight and relevance goes. k? thanks

[Edited on December 14, 2005 at 8:47 PM. Reason : V...yeah, YOU GOT ME!!1]

12/14/2005 8:39:02 PM

in other words:

"NUH UUUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!!!!"

thx

12/14/2005 8:45:50 PM

Quote :

"Except the pseudo-conservatives have already discarded the Old Testament in a separate discussion about Christianity"

We weren't the ones who brought the Old Testament into this. We weren't even the ones who brought the Bible into this, maybe because the Bible is not Government Affairs 101.

Quote :

"When you design a system that everybody knows WILL kill innocent people, they are no longer killed by accident."

Are you serious? What about the American highway system? What about the fact that cops are allowed to shoot people in certain situations? What about various vaccines that occasionally cause severe side effects that can kill? Innocents being killed by the death penalty are no more or less a certainty than any of those and countless others.

Quote :

"You would not regard a woman who did an abortion the same as a murderer. "

A woman who has an abortion almost certainly does not know she is committing murder. She's a murderer, yes, but she's in a different category as a result of that. Duke covered it fairly well.

12/14/2005 9:53:42 PM

Larry Elder reflects on Tookie and redemption..

Quote :

"Williams claims redemption, but refuses to accept responsibility for murdering four innocent people. Williams shot one victim, Albert Owens, who worked at a 7-Eleven, twice in the back, after Owens pleaded for his life. Williams, 11 days later, gunned down the owners of a small motel, a family of three. According to Gov. Schwarzenegger's decision refusing clemency: "Williams ... robbed a family-operated motel and shot and killed three members of the family: (1) the father, Yen-I Yang, who was shot once in the torso and once in the arm while he was laying on a sofa; (2) the mother, Tsai-Shai Lin, who was shot once in the abdomen and once in the back; and (3) the daughter, Yee-Chen Lin, who was shot once in her face. For these murders, Williams made away with approximately $100 in cash. Williams also told others about the details of these murders and referred to the victims as 'Buddha-heads.'" Consider the following hypothetical. David Duke, former imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, murders, in cold blood, four innocent blacks. But, wait. Duke later renounces the Klan and pens children's books urging white kids to reject racism. But he refuses to accept responsibility for the murder of the four innocent blacks, claiming that a racist jury convicted him for his reputation, not for the murders. Imagine Snoop Dogg, Jamie Foxx, Ed Asner or the NAACP organizing a campaign to spare the "redeemed" Duke's life. Williams' life inspired the movie called "Redemption." But a truly redeemed Williams would have said: "This is what happens. This is where you end up when you think the rules do not apply to you; when, because of anger and rage, you kill innocent people. I accept responsibility for what I did. I apologize to the family members. Please understand that I was not a victim of a racist, unfair criminal justice system, and I urge all criminals to first look into the mirror before blaming the police, the judges, the system. I made choices that put me here. The lesson of my life is -- no matter your circumstances, your race, your class -- you are responsible for making proper moral decisions. It is your duty to do so." That's redemption. "

12/15/2005 11:04:58 AM

Quote :

"What if one of those babies grows up to be a serial killer? Shouldn't we execute that baby before it can go on a serial killing rampage?"

omf minority report

12/15/2005 5:34:50 PM

Vengeance is AWESOME!

12/15/2005 5:50:14 PM

Who said anything about vengeance?

12/15/2005 9:33:29 PM

i dont seek vengeance


i seek punishment



frank castle is a badass

12/16/2005 1:21:45 AM