Quote :

"do not use in cases where actual innocence is in question"

that's every case

[Edited on January 6, 2011 at 7:52 PM. Reason : where someone pleads 'not guilty']

1/6/2011 7:51:50 PM

He may have been referencing incidents where the question is between "actual innocence" and "legal innocence." For example, if during appeals nobody is bothering to argue that the person didn't do the crime, but are arguing instead that some procedural matter was poorly handled.

Not that I agree with him, but there is a distinction there -- not every case is about actual innocence.

1/6/2011 10:27:04 PM

I am talking about cases (like the one in Texas I think Willingham was the name) where some shoddy and disputed fire investigation finds arson but never finds motive, or proof of arson. That is not a death penalty case.

VS.

A robbery and murder, where DNA, Prints, Video Surveillance, forensics, ballistics, etc prove the case beyond any doubt.

1/6/2011 10:46:07 PM

You're never supposed to convict anybody, let alone sentence them to die, unless they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Please stop, you're making us look bad.

1/6/2011 11:53:24 PM

and yet innocent people get convicted every day

1/7/2011 12:31:13 AM

Possibly, but there is a wide gulf between saying "We should only execute people who are definitely guilty" and "We should only convict people who are definitely guilty," especially when you seem to be implying (as Str8BacardiL is) that we should be doing one and not the other.

1/7/2011 12:34:00 AM

I'm implying that? I don't think it is OK ever.

I also don't think "beyond a reasonable doubt" is synonymous with "known for sure"

1/7/2011 12:41:01 AM

No no, Str8Bardi was implying that. I had hoped I'd made that clear in the parentheses, but there, I've clarified it.

And nothing is "known for sure." It's an unreasonable standard for judging anything. It's why we don't have it as a requirement for convicting criminals. I know beyond a reasonable doubt the sun will rise over Raleigh tomorrow, but fuck, maybe an asteroid will knock the moon into us and obliterate the planet, or maybe aliens will blow up the sun. These are not reasonable doubts, but they do prevent us from "knowing for sure."

1/7/2011 12:47:18 AM

No one should ever be incarcerated into a system that will probably kill or injure them if we're not absolutely 100% sure that they're guilty. The cost is too high.

Also, crime continues even in states where they have prisons. Prisons are obviously not a deterrent. Get rid of them.

1/7/2011 10:24:07 AM

Quote :

"Also, crime continues even in states where they have prisons. Prisons are obviously not a deterrent. Get rid of them."

Aren't you supposed to be an empiricist?

1/7/2011 2:36:09 PM

Quote :

"fa·ce·tious [fuh-see-shuhs] Show IPA –adjective 1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark."

1/8/2011 9:17:06 AM

I have a difficult time understanding why one wouldn't want to execute, say, a guy who shoots a congresswoman and a bunch of other people in broad daylight in front of a crowd of people.

1/9/2011 3:55:15 PM

Medical experimentation

1/9/2011 3:57:17 PM

^^
Why would you WANT to execute this man? I can see someone feeling it necessary in order to protect the public, but why would you wish death upon him? He's crazy, I feel bad for him. I feel worse for the people he killed, but revenge won't bring them back to life.

[Edited on January 9, 2011 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

1/9/2011 4:13:00 PM

Oh sweet, incarcerating him for life would bring the victims back!

1/9/2011 7:06:09 PM

Well if he could resurrect the victims, that would help his case for sure.

1/9/2011 8:44:40 PM

^^
Please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.

1/9/2011 9:15:58 PM

Quote :

"No one should ever be incarcerated into a system that will probably kill or injure them if we're not absolutely 100% sure that they're guilty."

Agreed.

Let's just get everyone accused of a crime to tell the truth, and everyone who decides their fate to believe them.

Problem solved.

1/9/2011 9:42:36 PM

Quote :

"I feel worse for the people he killed, but revenge won't bring them back to life."

What was your intention of this statement then? I read it as "this is the justification for capital punishment and since it doesn't work, we shouldn't kill people." Did I interpret it incorrectly?

My point was any punishment is exactly as effective at bringing back dead victims as any other punishment, which means saying shit like "revenge won't bring them back to life" non sequitur.

Just so I get this straight from the people who would be against killing Jared Loughner, would someone killing him during his shooting rampage been morally justified? What if he had run out of bullets and could no longer shoot anyone, would killing him then have been morally justified?

1/10/2011 11:30:20 AM

Quote :

"My point was any punishment is exactly as effective at bringing back dead victims as any other punishment, which means saying shit like "revenge won't bring them back to life" non sequitur. "

Not if revenge is an important justification for the death penalty, which it is (seeing as how there aren't many other reasons to support it).

Quote :

"Just so I get this straight from the people who would be against killing Jared Loughner, would someone killing him during his shooting rampage been morally justified?"

Yes.

Quote :

"What if he had run out of bullets and could no longer shoot anyone, would killing him then have been morally justified?"

Depends, is he still attacking people? Still killing people? Is he sitting down doing nothing?

[Edited on January 10, 2011 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2011 12:04:56 PM

its really a pretty simply concept, i don't know why clarification is needed. defense- ok, murder- not ok.

1/10/2011 12:21:37 PM

Quote :

"What was your intention of this statement then? I read it as "this is the justification for capital punishment and since it doesn't work, we shouldn't kill people." Did I interpret it incorrectly?"

My point was killing people for revenge is wrong. Period. It's childish reasoning. I can see where the people are coming from who say we need to kill murderers to protect the rest of the population. Still, I see every execution as a failure of society to provide help to its weakest members.

1/10/2011 12:34:27 PM

Quote :

"its really a pretty simply concept, i don't know why clarification is needed. defense- ok, murder- not ok."

Barbarians have never been concerned with logic. Nowadays they have to play the liberal's "word game", though, and so they adopt literally any string of letters that appears persuasive for their side. The truth and sound reasoning do not matter and never have to these people.

1/10/2011 12:37:21 PM

yay, name calling! And now McDanger will make some comment how I should "think for 5 minutes".

Quote :

"My point was killing people for revenge is wrong. Period. It's childish reasoning. I can see where the people are coming from who say we need to kill murderers to protect the rest of the population. Still, I see every execution as a failure of society to provide help to its weakest members."

Is it possible that some people are beyond help? Do you think that Jared Loughner will ever be a functioning member to our society even our prison society (which conceivably contains some percentage of innocent people)? Speaking hypothetically, if a person commits such a crime, and will conceivably always be a threat to others, what should we do with them?

1/10/2011 1:20:53 PM

^
Yes, some (probably many) people are beyond help with our current methods of psychological treatment. I don't think killing them is the right answer. I also don't claim to know what the exact right answer is. I do think we can learn from at least attempting to treat them, like what makes them do what they do, how we can treat them, and how to prevent more of these events from happening.

1/10/2011 1:39:26 PM

Quote :

"Do you think that Jared Loughner will ever be a functioning member to our society even our prison society"

is this the metric to determine if we should allow someone to live? if someone is severely handicapped should they be put to death for not being a functioning member of society? i think we can all agree this is a ridiculous way to determine if one should live or die.

1/10/2011 2:14:43 PM

Quote :

"I do think we can learn from at least attempting to treat them, like what makes them do what they do, how we can treat them, and how to prevent more of these events from happening."

I'm not so sure this is really any more preferable to the death penalty. "You're crazy beyond help, and now that you've committed an awful crime, instead of executing you or simply locking you away, we're going to experiment on you so that we can learn from you." Ultimately, sure if someone volunteers to be treated this would be a way to go, but what about those who don't consent?

1/10/2011 2:15:20 PM

he never said attempting to treat them in inhumane ways or experimenting without consent

1/10/2011 2:23:54 PM

Quote :

"is this the metric to determine if we should allow someone to live? if someone is severely handicapped should they be put to death for not being a functioning member of society? i think we can all agree this is a ridiculous way to determine if one should live or die."

No, my question was directly in response to him saying that executions were "failure of society to provide help to its weakest members." Context people.

1/10/2011 2:32:03 PM

Quote :

"I'm not so sure this is really any more preferable to the death penalty. "You're crazy beyond help, and now that you've committed an awful crime, instead of executing you or simply locking you away, we're going to experiment on you so that we can learn from you." Ultimately, sure if someone volunteers to be treated this would be a way to go, but what about those who don't consent?"

You seem to be putting a negative connotation on "experimentation". Medical studies on humans are not exactly an uncommon thing, are they? They're hardly inhumane, either. This is just a way for criminals to learn how to function in society and at the same time, provide valuable information to the field of psychology. Certainly this is a better choice for them than to be killed outright, with no chance for redemption? If they have no desire to seek rehabilitation, then they can choose incarceration (in humane conditions) until they either change their mind or die.

1/10/2011 2:45:11 PM

No they're not uncommon, but there is the sticky subject of consent. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good way to go if people consented, but there's also a good argument to be made that consent given to the state in the face of incarceration or death at the hands of the state is not consent. Ultimately, for any given individual, incarceration is likely the most humane and only course of action we can take.

1/10/2011 2:56:41 PM

I'm not convinced that incarcerating someone for the rest of their life is more humane than ending their life earlier. Note I'm not arguing that we should kill people for humane reasons, nor do I think someone like Jared Loughner deserves humane treatment. I'm just saying, no matter what the conditions are in prison, trapping someone there and forcing them through it for conceivably years until they die with no freedom sounds horrible. Given the actual conditions in prison, I'd say it's pretty inhumane.

1/10/2011 3:09:24 PM

^
Prisons shouldn't be places of misery. They should provide inmates with the means to better themselves and possibly reach the point where they can return to society. Period. If they are incapable or unwilling to do that, they stay incarcerated. I don't see how this is worse than death. If they wish to choose death, by all means, they should have that choice available.

[Edited on January 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2011 3:29:06 PM

Support in cases of pre-meditated murder and serial rapists

I'm about as liberal-democrat as you can get, but in these cases, give em the chair

1/10/2011 3:51:40 PM

Quote :

"Prisons shouldn't be places of misery. They should provide inmates with the means to better themselves and possibly reach the point where they can return to society."

Haha, alright. Convince the masses pony up and pay for a prison system manages to take out the misery and provides for a decent arts and crafts program. Right now they'll barely even pay to avoid having to stack inmates like cordwood.

Of course, it doesn't matter. I'm not concerned with which fate is "worse," death or life in prison. Right now can we ensure that a person sentenced to life in prison can never commit future crimes? No. Can we ensure that a dead person does not commit future crimes? We don't even have a choice in the matter!

Quote :

"Not if revenge is an important justification for the death penalty, which it is (seeing as how there aren't many other reasons to support it). "

What the fuck kind of logic is this? I go to the dentist to have healthy teeth, but since that's only one reason I must also enjoy physical pain as a big part of my motivation. How many other reasons do we need?

I think most of us will confess to some desire for revenge, but that needn't play a role in our decision making. We can have base instincts that we put to the side. I have a desire for fucking, but that plays no role in my thinking why prostitution should be legal and regulated.

Quote :

"Yes, some (probably many) people are beyond help with our current methods of psychological treatment. I don't think killing them is the right answer."

If you kill a bunch of people and are the kind of crazy that may result in you killing a bunch more people then I don't feel that we as a society should roll the dice on how long it will take to figure out how to fix you.

And don't start with me about consent, if they're too crazy not to kill people then they're damn sure too crazy to legally consent to anything.

1/10/2011 5:41:54 PM

Quote :

"Is it possible that some people are beyond help? Do you think that Jared Loughner will ever be a functioning member to our society even our prison society (which conceivably contains some percentage of innocent people)? Speaking hypothetically, if a person commits such a crime, and will conceivably always be a threat to others, what should we do with them?"

Life in prison or a mental institution, depending on the availability of both and the current state of scientific understanding about behavior.

Quote :

"What the fuck kind of logic is this? I go to the dentist to have healthy teeth, but since that's only one reason I must also enjoy physical pain as a big part of my motivation. How many other reasons do we need?"

It depends on how weak those reasons are.

[Edited on January 10, 2011 at 5:45 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2011 5:43:53 PM

Quote :

"If you kill a bunch of people and are the kind of crazy that may result in you killing a bunch more people then I don't feel that we as a society should roll the dice on how long it will take to figure out how to fix you."

In cases like this Loughner guy, I actually don't think we should execute him (I'm pretty anti-execution, though). But in this case specifically, nutjobs like this guy should be evaluated, not because I believe in lofty ideals of re-entering them into society, but because if we can learn anything from this guy (and other similar sociopaths), we might eventually learn enough to curb these types of actions in the future. Just executing people like this seems like a wasted opportunity to educate ourselves on the human mind, and that knowledge could later be used to help identify and prevent violent outrages from deranged individuals.

I haven't read the whole thread though, and I'm sure somebody before me has took a similar position as this.

[Edited on January 10, 2011 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ]

1/10/2011 5:47:16 PM

^^^
If you're just going to cherry pick my post, I'm not going to bother with a response.

[Edited on January 10, 2011 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2011 5:48:22 PM

Quote :

"In cases like this Loughner guy, I actually don't think we should execute him (I'm pretty anti-execution, though). But in this case specifically, nutjobs like this guy should be evaluated, not because I believe in lofty ideals of re-entering them into society, but because if we can learn anything from this guy (and other similar sociopaths), we might eventually learn enough to curb these types of actions in the future. Just executing people like this seems like a wasted opportunity to educate ourselves on the human mind."

You're right, but you have to remember that most people on the right have literally zero interest in understanding criminals, because they equivocate explanation with exculpation.

1/10/2011 5:50:12 PM

^Then you just have to remind them that the end goal is to curtail this behavior in the future. Surely they'll agree with that. But as soon as the term "lost cause" enters the discussion to dismiss the notion of evaluating a psychopath, you have to inform them that information gleaned at present day may someday help society in the distant future. Obviously, this never satisfies the immediate desire for gratification/justice, but the goal of you and I has to be to get people to see the finish line that is not immediately in sight.

1/10/2011 6:00:19 PM

Quote :

"Then you just have to remind them that the end goal is to curtail this behavior in the future. Surely they'll agree with that."

Nope in fact they don't, and this is why I get so incensed over the topic. SURELY they would, right? Hah nope. They're happy with putting a slug in the offender's brain and then the offender into a grave. Fuck prevention that doesn't come with any blood and guts.

Quote :

"But as soon as the term "lost cause" enters the discussion to dismiss the notion of evaluating a psychopath, you have to inform them that information gleaned at present day may someday help society in the distant future. Obviously, this never satisfies the immediate desire for gratification/justice, but the goal of you and I has to be to get people to see the finish line that is not immediately in sight."

This is absolutely right, but nobody who equivocates explanation with exculpation would ever go for this completely reasonable line of thought.

1/10/2011 6:03:08 PM

Quote :

"Nope in fact they don't, and this is why I get so incensed over the topic. SURELY they would, right? Hah nope. They're happy with putting a slug in the offender's brain and then the offender into a grave. Fuck prevention that doesn't come with any blood and guts."

Maybe. I won't deny that there is a blood-lust and immediate desire for revenge that many (most?) people have. But, like with most debates, the battle is won over a long period of time. Maybe I'm being stupidly optimistic, but I really think that when you're trying to convince someone to change their mind, you have to have an absurd level of patience. If you just get mad and resort to flexing intellectual muscle, you'll always be met with resistance and your opinion will be dismissed regardless of its merit. It doesn't seem fair, but the burden of responsibility is always put on the adult to be patient with the listener, in my opinion. It probably shouldn't be, but thems the breaks.


I'm not trying to lecture you, by the way. I'm totally sympathetic to the desire to lash out on someone. I do it all the time to people I don't know. They're not me, so fuck 'em, why should I care about their opinion of me? But whenever I'm sincerely trying to change someone's opinion, I find it best to keep a cool head.

[Edited on January 10, 2011 at 6:15 PM. Reason : ]

1/10/2011 6:11:01 PM

Wait, am I a member of the "right?" Also is this where I just categorize everyone who disagrees with my position instead of bringing anything meaningful to the conversation? Great.

I am interested in exactly what you guys mean by learn from him and prevent further incidents. Exactly what information you think we can glean, and how do you think it should be used? Pretend you already had this information before this shooting. Having committed no prior crimes, and with no probable cause, how could this have been prevented with this information?

You think maybe we should get his library info and red flag anyone that matches?

1/10/2011 7:26:34 PM

Quote :

"I am interested in exactly what you guys mean by learn from him and prevent further incidents. Exactly what information you think we can glean, and how do you think it should be used? Pretend you already had this information before this shooting. Having committed no prior crimes, and with no probable cause, how could this have been prevented with this information?"

I think there were several clear warning signs before the incident, but knowing more about disorders means not only predicting problems cases and giving them preventative treatment, it also means meaningfully rehabilitating the person after the problem has been found (whether it was found due to erratic and dangerous behavior or not). Furthermore, knowing more about what causes this sort of behavior at its root allows us to address the problems much earlier (some of this could be linked to easily avoidable parenting practices, or perhaps genetic pairings). Of course, addressing mental health problems means we need to change a bit as a society (and either spend more or spend more wisely). There's not a lot of political viability for the notion that we should treat our worse-off citizens as human beings, especially if their defects drive them to violent or otherwise dangerous erratic behavior.

Quote :

"You think maybe we should get his library info and red flag anyone that matches?"

This would be an inappropriate way of finding loonies. We could also say to hell with protecting against unreasonable search and seizure and allow people to dig through peoples' personal belongings looking for matches too. Of course, this is likewise inappropriate. What needs to be found is a way of estimating the likelihood of a disease based on a person's behavior, which is publicly accessible and does not require gross and broad violations of privacy.

[Edited on January 10, 2011 at 7:43 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2011 7:43:00 PM

Quote :

"I am interested in exactly what you guys mean by learn from him and prevent further incidents. Exactly what information you think we can glean, and how do you think it should be used? Pretend you already had this information before this shooting. Having committed no prior crimes, and with no probable cause, how could this have been prevented with this information?"

I have no idea what we could possibly learn from the guy. Let's say he is in fact a paranoid schizophrenic, just for arguments sake. If we evaluated the guy, we could possibly figure out what stimulus triggered his violent reaction, whether or not it is typical with other people who display similar characteristics, etc. Or maybe we'll just begin to scratch the surface of a deeper issue we are only just beginning to understand.

What's so fascinating about this case (to me anyways) is that this kid didn't off himself. The columbine kids did, so did the VaTech shooter. This guy didn't (either because he didn't want to or because he was stopped before he could). So to execute him without milking him for whatever useful information we can get seems like a wasted opportunity. Yeah, the possibility is there that we'll learn nothing at all from evaluating him, but it's worth a shot.

1/10/2011 8:13:24 PM

100% against the death penalty

1/10/2011 8:14:27 PM

Quote :

" If we evaluated the guy, we could possibly figure out what stimulus triggered his violent reaction, whether or not it is typical with other people who display similar characteristics, etc."

And do what exactly? Straight jacket anyone who exhibits similar characteristics? Forced medication? That's all I'm asking. What would you do with this information to prevent another incident like this? Because I'm not seeing the usefulness outside of forcing everyone to submit to a psychiatric evaluation (which is horseshit) and incarcerating people based on those evaluations (which is even greater horseshit). Or doing something based not even on an actual psychiatric evaluation but just reports from his friends and co-workers. Is this honestly what you'd like our society to be like?

Quote :

"McDanger: What needs to be found is a way of estimating the likelihood of a disease based on a person's behavior, which is publicly accessible and does not require gross and broad violations of privacy."

And then do what, exactly? And I disagree that you could get enough information to warrant determining whether I'm suffering from paranoid delusions without gross and broad violations of my privacy.

Quote :

"What's so fascinating about this case (to me anyways) is that this kid didn't off himself. The columbine kids did, so did the VaTech shooter. This guy didn't (either because he didn't want to or because he was stopped before he could). So to execute him without milking him for whatever useful information we can get seems like a wasted opportunity. Yeah, the possibility is there that we'll learn nothing at all from evaluating him, but it's worth a shot."

Based on his "final thoughts" video and testimony from the heroes that stopped him from killing any more people, I believe he intended to but ran out of bullets in his clip. He was reloading when people jumped him.

So execute him after "milking him for whatever useful information" you can. There. Not a wasted opportunity. Then you even get to examine the physical nature of his brain. Even better.

[Edited on January 10, 2011 at 8:47 PM. Reason : .]

1/10/2011 8:43:06 PM

Quote :

"And do what exactly? Straight jacket anyone who exhibits similar characteristics? Forced medication? That's all I'm asking. What would you do with this information to prevent another incident like this? Because I'm not seeing the usefulness outside of forcing everyone to submit to a psychiatric evaluation (which is horseshit) and incarcerating people based on those evaluations (which is even greater horseshit). Or doing something based not even on an actual psychiatric evaluation but just reports from his friends and co-workers. Is this honestly what you'd like our society to be like?"

I dunno, I can't answer this. I'm not a psychiatrist or sociologist. It's above my pay-grade. But, and I'm just shootin' from the hip here, maybe we can find a way to notice the behavioral traits at a young age, get our school administrators educated on how to identify and deal with this type of student. You know, just generally equip ourselves with a enough information to nip it in the bud. In general, more information is always better, in my opinion.

And for the record, I never suggested that we force anyone to take medication/psychiatric evaluations. That's a gross overreaction, and I don't think anyone here would support that. I don't really even know why you assumed that I would jump to such an extreme position. So no, to answer your question, I don't want "our society to be like that." I just don't think we should throw our hands in the air and have such a defeatist attitude about it all. If there are viable options worth exploring, why wouldn't we?

1/10/2011 8:59:47 PM

Quote :

"You're right, but you have to remember that most people on the right have literally zero interest in understanding criminals, because they equivocate explanation with exculpation."

I think that's probably true of many on the right, especially the louder ones.

It is important to recognize, however, that this guy is going to be submitted to a wide range of psychological evaluations. His defense will want to find good ones that say he's crazy. The prosecutor will want the opposite. Between the two and the rest of the investigation, good information will come out of it all. It is not as though we get a specimen and just toss him in the garbage.

I would probably be more amenable to the idea of excluding the insane for long term research if I were more convinced that we'd derive anything meaningful from such efforts. As things stand this guy is going to get poked and prodded and analyzed seven ways from Sunday.

1/10/2011 9:10:54 PM

Quote :

"I would probably be more amenable to the idea of excluding the insane for long term research if I were more convinced that we'd derive anything meaningful from such efforts."

Is there any way you could possibly be convinced without at least first giving it an honest attempt?

1/10/2011 9:28:10 PM