You are relying upon a per impossible argument that is entirely flawed. There is no merit in taking my statement to the absurd extremes.

[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2010 12:13:46 PM

Quote :

"first I will show ho the death penalty is not a deterrent using actual stuff instead of anecdotes"

Well, go ahead, we are all waiting. You cannot skip this step and then proclaim you satisfied it.

That said, I am willing to stipulate that the effect of the death penalty, seeing as executions are rare, may be so small it cannot be found in the statistics. Executing one person a year should be indistinguishable, in terms of incentives, from no executions at all.

[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/14/2010 12:35:41 PM

sorry, i am currently going on 31 hours without sleep. will reply shortly

12/14/2010 12:43:14 PM

Quote :

"You are relying upon a per impossible argument that is entirely flawed. There is no merit in taking my statement to the absurd extremes."

No, I was illustrating that punishing criminals is in fact a deterrent to crime. Your entirely unfounded claim that "there is no such thing as a deterrent to crime" make absolutely no sense, especially since you admit: "Yeah sure, if you eliminate any and all possible means for punishment".

So which is it? In one breath you say that nothing can deter crime and in another you say punishment is necessary to deter crime. If anyone here is guilty of hyperbole it's you in your original assertion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LoneSnark, he will show you that in states that have the death penalty, violent crimes are actually higher. Like that clearly shows anything.

[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2010 1:14:53 PM

Because you are relying upon a reductio of a reductio. It's a strawman (and a bad one at that).

12/14/2010 1:17:09 PM

It's not a reductio ad absurdum and you know it. Quit trying to sound smart.

Let's go back to your original claim. "there is no such thing as a deterrent to crime" You "proved" this by stating "society we haven't stopped murders and other crimes."

If it'll make you feel better I'll rephrase my rebuttal. It is not necessary to completely stop crime to be considered a deterrent. It is demonstrable that the existence of criminal justice systems is a deterrent to violent offenses. Your claim is nonsense.

12/14/2010 1:56:18 PM

still working on something for a deadline, but start here:
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1842&context=alea

Quote :

"CONCLUSION We have surveyed data on the time series of executions and homicides in the United States, compared the United States with Canada, compared nondeath penalty states with executing states, analyzed the effects of the judicial experiments provided by the Furman and Gregg decisions comparing affected states with unaffected states, surveyed the state panel data since 1934, assessed a range of instrumental variables approaches, and analyzed two recent statespecific execution moratoria. None of these approaches suggested that the death penalty has large effects on the murder rate. Year-to-year movements in homicide rates are large, and the effects of even major changes in execution policy are barely detectable. Inferences of substantial deterrent effects made by authors examining specific samples appear not to be robust in larger samples; inferences based on specific functional forms appear not to be robust to alternative functional forms; inferences made without reference to a comparison group appear only to reflect broader societal trends and do not hold up when compared with appropriate control groups; inferences based on specific sets of controls turn out not to be robust to alternative sets of controls; and inferences of robust effects based on either faulty instruments or underestimated standard errors are also found wanting. Whether or not the death penalty has a deterrent effect is—as Sunstein and Vermeule rightly argue—a very important question. If policymakers are willing to debate the issue based on the consequences of capital punishment (as Sunstein and Vermeule urge them to do), then it is crucial to try to establish reliable evidence on whether executions deter or stimulate crime. As such, it seems reasonable to appeal to econometric pyrotechnics. Unfortunately, our survey of the literature suggests that too often these pyrotechnics have yielded heat rather than light. "

[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 2:07 PM. Reason : i see the aaronburro type arguments have started]

12/14/2010 2:05:19 PM

Quote :

"It's not a reductio ad absurdum and you know it. Quit trying to sound smart"

You are right...It's a reductio of a reductio. If it were merely a reductio there wouldn't be a problem. The reason being, you used my statement in a capacity it was never intended to be utilized. It was never meant to have any sort of merit in a system whereby there is no punishment for crime.

Quote :

"If it'll make you feel better I'll rephrase my rebuttal. It is not necessary to completely stop crime to be considered a deterrent. It is demonstrable that the existence of criminal justice systems is a deterrent to violent offenses. Your claim is nonsense."

We exist with a criminal justice system. There is no point in discussing the nonexistence of it.
It gets us nowhere when talking about proper levels of punishment and the genuine merit of the death penalty.

Capiche?

[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 2:46 PM. Reason : ,]

12/14/2010 2:42:31 PM

Quote :

"It gets us nowhere when talking about proper levels of punishment and the genuine merit of the death penalty."

I wasn't the one making outlandish claims like "there's no such thing as a deterrent to crime." Where exactly does such a claim get us in the context of "talking about proper levels of punishment and the genuine merit of the death penalty?"

12/14/2010 2:51:28 PM

Quote :

"except that is not the "camp" i am talking about. you can't dismiss a group by pointing to another group, there are plenty of people who don't like it in any situation. "

Plenty of these people claimed to share your views, and I contend that with most of the people who agree with you an exception could be found that would lay their rhetoric bare as the hollow, self-righteous lies they are.

Quote :

"the next response will be an assertion that the death penalty is analogous to self defense."

Eventually we'll go to something similar, but for now my point was that clearly you think killing people can be and is, at times, defensible. That's at odds with your earlier statement and establishing it as reality is essential to having an honest conversation.

Quote :

"the real issue here comes down to the purpose of the death penalty: what is the purpose and goal of the death penalty?"

Guaranteeing the removal of a serious continued threat to society, first and foremost. This can stand alone.

If implemented more rigorously and consistently it would serve an excellent deterrent function. As it is, sporadically using it in cases where it is inappropriate doesn't help much.

And, sure, revenge. Not just for victims but for society as a whole. When Americans are wronged they want their pound of flesh, and the crimes for which the death penalty is appropriate are heinous enough that I'm willing to say that the perpetrators have forfeited their membership to the human race.

Quote :

"in an argument of morals, logistics should not be allowed to sway one's morals."

I beg to differ. Logistics can come into play with moral choices, and they do so here. The logistics of overcrowding and other aspects of incarceration that are "imperfect" increase the odds that a violent criminal will either escape or be released or, at the very least, kept in general population rather than in solitary confinement. Each of these outcomes means he can kill more people. If you're not weighing the possibility of future, innocent deaths -- factors directly resulting from the logistics -- in your moral decision-making, you're doing it wrong.

Quote :

"I do not understand why Republicans and libertarians want the state to have the power to run about executing people."

The same reason we're always eager to break out the bombs: we hate big government, but we really, really hate bad guys. I think I speak for many of us when I sum up the philosophy as "We need fewer laws to violate and harsher punishments for what's left over."

Quote :

"i mean if we are arguing anecdotes i can just take my ball and go home"

Anecdotes about deterrence may be appropriate in arguments about the death penalty. If even one person has been deterred by fear of lethal injection then a deterrent effect clearly exists.

Quote :

"can you admit that there are other options for incapacitation?"

We're aware that there are places called "prisons." Their incapacitation rate < lethal injection's rate.


LoneSnark:

Quote :

"all these costs are worth the benefits if it stops the state from ever executing a single innocent person."

Explain to me why, say, five innocent lives lost to criminals who should be dead is a lesser moral outrage than one innocent life lost to an accident on part of the state.

12/14/2010 2:53:01 PM

Quote :

"I wasn't the one making outlandish claims like "there's no such thing as a deterrent to crime." Where exactly does such a claim get us in the context of "talking about proper levels of punishment and the genuine merit of the death penalty?""

The purpose of my post, which seems to have flown over your head in your effort to pounce, was to refute this claim by our good friend eyedrb:

Quote :

"The problem with it not being the deterrent is bc it isnt swift. THe people being put down now no one remembers their crimes. imo. People dont think about 10+ yrs in teh future. Hell how many people in their 20s save for retirement? gotta speed it up for the ones you know are guilty or it to be a deterrence. imo"

Hence my reference to the death penalty's long documented history in our society and the varrying degrees and swiftness of which its use and still those crimes are being committed.

Now do you understand the point of my post or are you going to continue to act the fool?

12/14/2010 2:56:20 PM

Quote :

"Explain to me why, say, five innocent lives lost to criminals who should be dead is a lesser moral outrage than one innocent life lost to an accident on part of the state."

because the criminals are singular individuals who act on their own accord and in their own best interest. The State acts on my behalf and with the intent of the better good. That's why the State taking the life of an individual is much worse than an individual taking the life of an individual.

[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2010 2:58:03 PM

Quote :

"Hence my reference to the death penalty's long documented history in our society and the varrying degrees and swiftness of which its use and still those crimes are being committed."

So the fact that the crimes which are punishable by the death penalty are still being committed is evidence that the death penalty is pointless?

Is the fact that crimes which are punishable by life in prison are still being committed evidence that life in prison is pointless?

That's my point. It is wrong to set the bar at "100% abolition of crime" when determining the efficacy of punishment. All eyedrb and grumpy are doing are suggesting that the reason it is not as effective of a deterrent is its implementation.

Quote :

"because the criminals are singular individuals who act on their own accord and in their own best interest. The State acts on my behalf and with the intent of the better good. That's why the State taking the life of an individual is much worse than an individual taking the life of an individual."

I disagree, and in fact Grumpy's question was why it would be worse to let more people die by not putting these people down than the innocents we accidentally kill.

12/14/2010 3:21:25 PM

Quote :

"So the fact that the crimes which are punishable by the death penalty are still being committed is evidence that the death penalty is pointless? Is the fact that crimes which are punishable by life in prison are still being committed evidence that life in prison is pointless? That's my point. It is wrong to set the bar at "100% abolition of crime" when determining the efficacy of punishment. All eyedrb and grumpy are doing are suggesting that the reason it is not as effective of a deterrent is its implementation"

Still playing with this retarded argument I see.

If you cared to remember I spoke to the efficacy of a punishment in terms of functioning as a deterrent. deterrence is only one metric when determining the efficacy of a punishment.

The purpose and intention of punishment should not be its ability to function as a deterrence; because the goal of the penal system is not to stop all murders or crimes, but to punish those who commit them.

Quote :

"I disagree, and in fact Grumpy's question was why it would be worse to let more people die by not putting these people down than the innocents we accidentally kill."

Reread grumpy. Grumpy is asking why the state killing one innocent person is worse than more people dying by not putting someone to death.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point today.

12/14/2010 3:54:33 PM

That's exactly what I said, only phrased differently.

Quote :

"The purpose and intention of punishment should not be its ability to function as a deterrence; because the goal of the penal system is not to stop all murders or crimes, but to punish those who commit them. "

I wholeheartedly agree, see my reasons for punishment earlier in the thread. The death penalty is an appropriate punishment and deterrence is only an ancillary function. Which is why the argument "it is a shitty deterrent" is not a good one.

12/14/2010 4:21:18 PM

Quote :

"Explain to me why, say, five innocent lives lost to criminals who should be dead is a lesser moral outrage than one innocent life lost to an accident on part of the state."

Because we are talking moral outrage and not logical utility maximization.

Quote :

"The purpose and intention of punishment should not be its ability to function as a deterrence; because the goal of the penal system is not to stop all murders or crimes, but to punish those who commit them."

Absolutely not. If we could flip a switch and make it function as a deterrence, we most certainly would. As such, that the penal system already does function as a deterrence gives it that purpose and intent.

[Edited on December 14, 2010 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/14/2010 5:09:38 PM

Quote :

"I wholeheartedly agree, see my reasons for punishment earlier in the thread. The death penalty is an appropriate punishment and deterrence is only an ancillary function. Which is why the argument "it is a shitty deterrent" is not a good one."

the argument that "it is a shitty deterrent" is not being made as cause for the removal of the death penalty, only for the cause of removing deterrent as a purpose of the death penalty. if it is not an effective deterrent than the only reasons any one else has listed are for revenge and for incapacitation. other options exist for incapacitation, leaving only revenge as the purpose of the death penalty. you seem to be getting caught up in a reduction fallacy where you are trying to make my argument one that states that the death penalty should be removed because it is not a good deterrent.

Quote :

"If even one person has been deterred by fear of lethal injection then a deterrent effect clearly exists. "

Well I apologize for thinking that we would not be childish about this. Of course there may be some small effect in the same way that posting a sign on your front door that reads, "Please do not kill us" would also have a small deterrent effect. I was hoping we could all understand that we were talking about any appreciable effect.

12/14/2010 6:07:00 PM

Quote :

"Well I apologize for thinking that we would not be childish about this. Of course there may be some small effect in the same way that posting a sign on your front door that reads, "Please do not kill us" would also have a small deterrent effect. I was hoping we could all understand that we were talking about any appreciable effect."

I don't believe it to be childish to recognize that a small deterrent effect is still a deterrent effect. There were 17,034 murders in 2006. Just deterring 0.1% of them is still 17 lives saved a year.

12/14/2010 6:47:54 PM

Quote :

"Absolutely not. If we could flip a switch and make it function as a deterrence, we most certainly would. As such, that the penal system already does function as a deterrence gives it that purpose and intent."

If we could we most certainly would. But we are talking about reality here not mythical everything is groovy awesomeland.

12/14/2010 6:50:29 PM

Quote :

"Because we are talking moral outrage and not logical utility maximization."

You didn't strike me as the type to place moral outrage above logical utility maximization. Not that the two are exclusive. I'm personally way more outraged by five innocent people being killed than by one innocent person being killed.

Certainly I'm outraged about both. There are many modifications that could be made, easily I think, to reduce the number of innocents executed dramatically.

Quote :

"I was hoping we could all understand that we were talking about any appreciable effect."

It's real fucking appreciable to the person who would otherwise have gotten killed. But, as I've admitted, the death penalty as currently employed fails to meet up to its substantial deterrent potential. That's what comes from half-measures.

12/15/2010 12:50:30 AM

Oppose.

12/15/2010 1:34:04 AM

mcfluffle, you're a girl, right?

I'm operating purely on my own personal experience here, but I've got a couple of guesses:

1) You don't have kids
2) You will change your mind at the latest by 24 hours after your first kid is born.

Over and over you see it, once liberal-minded people turned to savage conservatism with regards to crime as soon as they have offspring. The idea of kids getting raped and murdered stops being abstract and suddenly everyone is willing to drag out the guillotine.

Maybe I'm wrong. Hell, there are exceptions to every rule. Maybe I've just run into all the exceptions.

12/15/2010 3:42:12 AM

Quote :

"our current best option is life imprisonment without parole and violent criminals can be segregated out. where did this false dilemma fallacy come from?"

It came from the fact that sometimes parole suddenly becomes granted after many years of it being denied. There was that one case back in the '80s I believe where a man had killed a cheerleader. He had raped her and killed her in the most horrible way and was sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole. Then after several years (I want to say about a decade), his sentence was lifted from life without to parole to life sentence with possible parole (due to many years of "rehabilitation" and good behavior). After a year or so of debate, he was indeed granted parole and within months or his release he was convicted of aggrevated assault and sexual misconduct, throwing him back in prison for the rest of his life.

The point is, the judicial system can make amends as it "see's fit." Besides, what good is someone doing if they are locked up for life without parole? Some would say that is "inhumane." They are a waste of resources, as cynical as that sounds. Resources like food and clothes could be better used to help promote the lives of those in poverty who have yet to lose society's trust and they could contribute to the growth/development of their communities. Long term banishment/imprisonment, I understand. But a lifetime of imprisonment? Might as well be dead as there's nothing to live for.

Hell. There's been so many studies and stats in regards to those who have been imprisoned for decades being unable to adapt back into society. They've been locked up for so long that they're unable to come out of prison with any decent work experience, so they are competing with the odds against them. At best, they'll be working in entry level positions and most employers are not going to want to hire someone with criminal history worthy of such a "harsh" punishment... So because their inability to score a decent job to help them start their life over again, many result to crimes to make ends meet. Hell some do it because it's easier to live in prison than it is to "fight" their way out of poverty starting their life again. Sure there are programs to "help" these people make the transition back into society, however they aren't anything to rely on and are very poor in delivering results. Lets face it. If you commit a crime and you are locked up for a decade or longer, you might as well consider your life finished unless you have connections.


Prison is not supposed to be a luxury. Pitty that my tax dollars make it so.

[Edited on December 15, 2010 at 4:20 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2010 4:10:38 AM

^Could you be more clear about your point or points?

^^Why does so much of your argument revolve around accusing people of secretly or potentially being pro-death penalty?

12/15/2010 11:37:55 AM

Quote :

"mcfluffle, you're a girl, right? I'm operating purely on my own personal experience here, but I've got a couple of guesses: 1) You don't have kids 2) You will change your mind at the latest by 24 hours after your first kid is born. Over and over you see it, once liberal-minded people turned to savage conservatism with regards to crime as soon as they have offspring. The idea of kids getting raped and murdered stops being abstract and suddenly everyone is willing to drag out the guillotine. Maybe I'm wrong. Hell, there are exceptions to every rule. Maybe I've just run into all the exceptions."

Yes, you are wrong. I am a woman and do not have children, but real crimes are not abstractions in my mind, not even crimes against children. I still also know that dragging out the guillotine does not constitute justice.

The actions and beliefs of people you know are not enough to prop up this kind of assertion. Many people do change their beliefs from liberal to conservative or vice versa after traumatic events, but enough do not. There are indeed exceptions.

12/15/2010 12:25:42 PM

Logically (morals or Freudian conscience aside),

I oppose lethal injection.

I support a firing squad or electric chair. Bullets and amperes are more economical and better for the whole of society. If the state is going to implement capital punishment, they should do it efficiently. Of course, [insert thesis about how governments rarely do things efficiently].

Slightly off topic, but why would you care if your death was painful or not. Either way, you're going to die. Dead. Died. Dust. Ashes. Gone with the wind. INTO THE ABYSS OF NON-EXISTENCE (or HELL). What sweet moment of peace right before death will ever overcome an eternity of non-life/Hell? I guess humans are creatures of the moment; blind creatures only focused on what's directly in front of them. I digress.

---

Now, morally, my conscience opposes capital punishment. If my heart desires retribution then I've already lost the moral battle in my book. I've never experienced the murder of a loved one, but if I ever go through such an experience, I cannot say without a doubt that I would not long to see the wrong doer punished for his/her deed. I can only hope that I hold true to my morals and belief system.

12/15/2010 1:37:44 PM

Quote :

"Over and over you see it, once liberal-minded people turned to savage conservatism with regards to crime as soon as they have offspring. The idea of kids getting raped and murdered stops being abstract and suddenly everyone is willing to drag out the guillotine. Maybe I'm wrong. Hell, there are exceptions to every rule. Maybe I've just run into all the exceptions."

why does your entire argument seem to be that everyone is secretly in favor of it? what if i've had a family member murdered and still don't support it, how do you explain that?

12/15/2010 1:56:57 PM

I don't think everyone is secretly in favor of it. I think for many and possibly most people there is a conceivable event that would cause them to change their minds, even if it was just regarding one individual.

It's relevant because when someone like supplanter drags up some dubious statistics from a survey by an anti-death penalty site that shows people opposing the death penalty, it's one more thing to add against it. I wonder if any of the people polled were the same ones on forums talking about Eve Carson's killers: "Now normally I am opposed to the death penalty but these animals deserve it."

12/15/2010 2:14:15 PM

our moral standards shouldn't be set my the metric of what a person enraged by some terrible event understandably may want. someone kills your family member and rage is pretty understandable... but that's not what we should use to judge our morality.

or GOLO users, they shouldn't really be our metric either

[Edited on December 15, 2010 at 2:48 PM. Reason : internet forums? really?]

12/15/2010 2:47:21 PM

Quote :

"Public Policy Polling surveyed 517 North Carolina voters between Nov. 19 and Nov. 21"

Quote :

"Nearly 520 people asked during a two day period? I'm sold."

First off, that is 3 days, not 2. Secondly, 450 to 1050 respondents is the range almost every politics poll out there falls within, and 2 to 4 days captures the time frame for most of them too.

Grabbing a story off Gallup's front page:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145214/Rate-Nurses-Doctors-Highly.aspx

Quote :

"Survey Methods Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Nov. 4-7, 2010, with a random sample of 510 adults"

I guess we can't trust Gallup any more either, I mean if 517 isn't enough to describe a state, then there's no way 510 could describe a nation.

Here is another example, pulling the most recent poll from Elon:

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/elonpoll/112210.xhtml

Quote :

"Elon Poll: Majority of state residents oppose school vouchers Fifty-seven percent of respondents in the latest Elon University Poll disagree with the idea of using school vouchers to help parents pay for their children to attend private or religious schools instead of public schools, and nearly the same number believes doing so would weaken public schools. ... The poll, conducted Nov. 15-18, 2010, surveyed 520 North Carolina residents"

I challenge you to find any North Carolina focused poll that has significantly more than 520 respondents and significantly more than 3 days for the period in which it was conducted.

[Edited on December 15, 2010 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2010 3:28:00 PM

Quote :

"I don't think everyone is secretly in favor of it. I think for many and possibly most people there is a conceivable event that would cause them to change their minds, even if it was just regarding one individual."

That's rather presumptuous. You're still saying most people are secretly in favor of it, they just don't know it themselves.

12/15/2010 3:59:38 PM

^Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Or, put a different way, "never" is a really difficult standard to meet. One exception kind of sinks that position quickly. References to cost -- both in terms of $$$ and innocent lives taken -- are really much more stable.

^^Fair enough. I've always thought that such low samples were a bit inane when the expense of expanding them wouldn't seem so high, but then the statistics gathering area was never in my area.

That said, you've got one anti-death penalty organization citing another organization that is pretty clearly against the death penalty in turn citing a survey to which, unless I'm missing something, we are never linked. I'd like to see something from a more neutral perspective, or hell, failing that, a coldhearted conservative one. Either one might illuminate some facts ignored by "DeathWatch."

12/16/2010 1:03:21 AM

http://www.starnewsonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?p=1&tc=pg&AID=/20070425/NEWS/704250470/-1/State

Quote :

"The poll found that 58 percent of adults support the death penalty, but only 48 percent said it's always the most appropriate punishment for those convicted of first-degree murder, according to researchers at Elon University. Another 10 percent said the sentence depends on the circumstances. About 38 percent of respondents said they believe life in prison is the most appropriate sentence for murderers. Those numbers indicated a significant shift from a November 2005 poll that showed nearly two-thirds of adults supported the death penalty, and 61 percent said it was always the most appropriate punishment for first-degree murder. Just 27 percent preferred life in prison."

Quote :

"The poll, which surveyed 476 adults from households in North Carolina"

The trend already seemed to be in that direction between that 2005 then this 2007 poll, so its not out of the realm of reason that a 2010 poll would continue in that direction, especially with some government incompetence thrown in between then and now.

Quote :

"Sixty-eight percent of people surveyed said executions should be halted until problems with blood tests at the State Bureau of Investigation are fully investigated."

That quote about the new poll isn't necessarily indicating unwavering opposition to it, it is a statement that we need to get better at the whole criminal justice thing before going ahead.

[Edited on December 16, 2010 at 8:33 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2010 8:20:17 AM

oppose the DP

12/16/2010 8:21:15 AM

If I haven't posted it already:

I oppose the DP, with the exception of extremely rare and horrific crimes like mass murder (and I don't mean "mass murder" as in a crazy person killing three family members, I mean "mass murder" as in shooting/sniper sprees and bombings).

12/16/2010 9:48:24 AM

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20101228chief_woburn_cop_slay_like_wild_west_shootout_ended_in_hail_of_bullets_diamonds/

Putting this POS down earlier would have saved a life.

12/28/2010 4:51:40 PM

Quote :

"When a career cop on the verge of retirement"

I'm gettin too old for this shit

[Edited on December 28, 2010 at 6:00 PM. Reason : ]

12/28/2010 6:00:41 PM

^yeah. Sad when it happens in real life though.

12/28/2010 6:01:20 PM

Quote :

"The same reason we're always eager to break out the bombs: we hate big government, but we really, really hate bad guys. I think I speak for many of us when I sum up the philosophy as "We need fewer laws to violate and harsher punishments for what's left over.""

I really wish conservatives would get scientific about crime

Quote :

"mcfluffle, you're a girl, right? I'm operating purely on my own personal experience here, but I've got a couple of guesses: 1) You don't have kids 2) You will change your mind at the latest by 24 hours after your first kid is born. Over and over you see it, once liberal-minded people turned to savage conservatism with regards to crime as soon as they have offspring. The idea of kids getting raped and murdered stops being abstract and suddenly everyone is willing to drag out the guillotine. Maybe I'm wrong. Hell, there are exceptions to every rule. Maybe I've just run into all the exceptions."

This is completely irrelevant, unless you think that we should direct social policies and group behaviors by individual, snap intuitions based on biologically programmed emotional responses

[Edited on December 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM. Reason : .]

12/28/2010 6:15:37 PM

Quote :

"Cinelli was the son of late Boston police officer Arthur Cinelli, whose other son, also named Arthur, shot and wounded Medford Detective Sgt. Richard McGlynn in a 1981 robbery, according to news reports. Dominic Cinelli’s parole records show a checkered past: a rehabilitated junkie who started shooting heroin at 14, he was a career criminal who at one point was serving three concurrent life sentences for several armed robberies, armed assault with intent to commit murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and unlawful possession of a firearm. But an appeals court decision made him eligible for parole and he walked in February 2009. The Parole Board at that time noted: “Cinelli’s release to community supervision at this time is not incompatible with the welfare of society.”"

If "life" sentences actually meant life, I would be less inclined to support the death penalty.

12/29/2010 1:06:24 PM

Quote :

"If "life" sentences actually meant life, I would be less inclined to support the death penalty."

They could be "life" more often if we stopped throwing non-violent drug offenders in prison

12/29/2010 1:26:25 PM

We agree on the pointlessness of throwing non-violent drug offenders in jail. Well, to an extent. I'd want lethal injection for anyone who moves certain quantities of crack, heroin, or meth, regardless of whether or not they were violent in the traditional sense.

Quote :

"This is completely irrelevant, unless you think that we should direct social policies and group behaviors by individual, snap intuitions based on biologically programmed emotional responses"

In that particular case I wasn't suggesting that we direct social policies at all. I was simply reiterating my assertion that far fewer people are actually opposed to the death penalty than claim to be.

12/29/2010 1:53:31 PM

your assertion based entirely on a premise at least 2 people itt have contradicted

12/29/2010 8:52:19 PM

A happy advantage of my position on the matter is that I believe those people are most likely liars, even if they don't know it.

Another advantage is that my observation is just that. It isn't a reason to support the death penalty, it's just a thing I've noticed about its opponents.

12/29/2010 9:19:32 PM

Well I assert that people who are in favor of the death penalty simply haven't thought it through, or don't have the mental facilities to do so. And if they tell you that they have or do, then they are liars. It isn't a reason to oppose the death penalty, just something I've noticed in every one of its proponents.

12/29/2010 9:21:52 PM

Well good luck with that. I mean, it's just some bullshit you came up with to mock me rather than a real assertion, but everyone's gotta do their own thing.

I'll say it again. It's an awfully high standard that anti-death penalty people set for themselves, and one that's easy to fall short of. I as a death penalty advocate can oppose individual executions for a variety of reasons without being a hypocrite, because we don't claim to want to execute everybody.

But you guys say it's never OK to give someone the needle, so one exception is a big deal. And plenty of you guys make an exception here or there.

12/29/2010 10:18:23 PM

It's not bullshit, it's just an observation that I think is always true. See how convenient it is? I get to be completely presumptuous and don't need any kind of basis or proof beyond my own opinion. And, by doing this, I get to completely circumvent any kind of discussion or debate because you can't disprove me. You could show me an example that completely goes against my assertions but I get to just call you a liar. It's really quite the sweet little position I've found on the topic.

Quote :

" But you guys say it's never OK to give someone the needle, so one exception is a big deal. And plenty of you guys make an exception here or there."

just an fyi, phrases like "and plenty of you guys" throw up flags in debate. how many of "us" is plenty? who is "us"? there are "plenty of us" who oppose the death penalty in any and all situations.

so, grumpgop, which are you; liar or mentally deficient?

12/30/2010 7:19:46 AM

if you cannot think of one situation in which the death penalty could be warranted, you are being dishonest with yourself and this board.

12/30/2010 12:20:08 PM

Well you are a murderous liar or are mentally deficient.

The death penalty is murder, it is never ok ever under any circumstance.

12/30/2010 12:57:45 PM

sticks and stones.

if ever there is a serial-killing baby-raper who gets his kicks by stringing up the remains of his victims in front of their grandparent's houses, video tapes the actions and sells the tapes on the internet before turning himself in with a full confession verified by the top psychologist in the world as being of sound mind...

I will remember your post here and its ridiculousness. I myself settle for much less when it comes to the death penalty, but that is my own opinion.

12/30/2010 1:22:39 PM