Originally posted by AmauroteIf you quote somebody, you're saying that those were their words. That's why quotation marks are used. If those were not their words, then it is a lie.
Firstly, you're confusing proof and the criterion for that proof, which is a major error. Secondly, talking about DNA evidence in this way is meaningless without context - it's all very well talking about DNA evidence as if it were a homogenous phenomenon, but it has many forms and applications, and not all of them are as error-free as you imply.
...[text shortened]... ge as if it were grammatical law is as ill-founded in North American demotic as it is in the UK.
Hmmm, lets see, how can I put it. If a five year old girl got the suspects DNA shot up her vagina, that would be pretty strong proof in my opinion.
2 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWho said I was quoting him?
If you quote somebody, you're saying that those were their words. That's why quotation marks are used. If those were not their words, then it is a lie.
When Quentin Crisp said, "I hate peas and I'm glad I hate peas, because if I didn't hate peas I would have to eat them, and I hate them", was he lying? Again you miss the point completely.
Hmmm, lets see, how can I put it. If a five year old girl got the suspects DNA shot up her vagina, that would be pretty strong proof in my opinion.
That would be proof. Your opinion would be the criterion.
Discussing the merits of proof before conviction seems to extol
that's it's OK to kill as long as the circumstances are unquestionable.
I still don't understand the states 'do as I say, not what I do', attitude
toward killing. Just as religion installs the concept of evil by the teachings
of good, the state is bringing righteous killings into our life by way
of 'prevention' and 'justice'.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThose who equate execution and murder, believing that if two acts have the same ending or result, then those two acts are morally equivalent, hold a morally untenable position.
I still don't understand the states 'do as I say, not what I do', attitude toward killing. Just as religion installs the concept of evil by the teachings
of good, the state is bringing righteous killings into our life by way
of 'prevention' and 'justice'.
Is the legal taking of property to satisfy a debt the same as auto theft? Both result in loss of property. Are kidnapping and legal incarceration the same? Both involve imprisonment against one's will. Is killing in self defense the same as capital murder? Both end in taking human life.
No, none of these are the same. Only an absence of reality or the inability to make the moral distinction would cause one to believe so.
Those who can make the distinction believe that exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life is an affirmation of the value of human life.
Originally posted by Thequ1cklook at it this way. in locales with no DP, the DP is not a deterrent. where it is applied in a minor fashion, such as the US, it is a minor deterrent. where it is applied more regularly, e.g. China and Singapore, it is more of a deterrent.
Discussing the merits of proof before conviction seems to extol
that's it's OK to kill as long as the circumstances are unquestionable.
I still don't understand the states 'do as I say, not what I do', attitude
toward killing. Just as religion installs the concept of evil by the teachings
of good, the state is bringing righteous killings into our life by way
of 'prevention' and 'justice'.
the 1999 world almanac shows around 23-24K murders/non-negligent_homicides in the US per year in the late 80s / early nineties, dropping to 21,610 in 1995 and 19,650 in 1996. those are many thousands in excess of the small number of inmates executed each year, and those excess thousands have been accumulating over the years, you can guess at up to 2 million in recent decades. and that's just for the U.S.!
with a reasonable legal system and DP policy, where a criminal might reasonably expect the DP to be applied to him if he committed a murder, you would expect those numbers to be much lower. with a legal system which values theatrics, judicial misprudence, and individual inmates' lives over those of the thousands of murder victims who die each year, you get less than one or two hundred per year (there were 45 nationally in 1996).
once i calculated the volume of blood in approx 16K murder victims for no1marauder; i think the results were that a 1500 square foot flat would be filled almost to the ceiling with blood. the blood of all executionees would might cover the foyer to the level of a foot.
you can consider that the anti-death-penalty lobbies and the legal profession bear considerable responsibility for the great difference between those two figures.
as far as innocents being executed, the judicial branch hasn't admitted to any, have they? and even for the few dozens of death row inmates that the anti-DP lobbies say are innocent, pro-DP lobbies and legislators who examine those cases have said the majority of the claims are B.S. given that the judicial branch bends over backward to avoid executing even criminals who are demonstrably guilty, even if a few hundred innocents were to be executed in a year, that would be a patch against the thousands of victims who might not be murdered in the future if the DP were actually in more than a fraction of the cases.
Originally posted by zeeblebotI am having trouble deriving any useful data from the death rates
look at it this way. in locales with no DP, the DP is not a deterrent. where it is applied in a minor fashion, such as the US, it is a minor deterrent. where it is applied more regularly, e.g. China and Singapore, it is more of a deterrent.
the 1999 world almanac shows around 23-24K murders/non-negligent_homicides in the US per year in the late 80s / ...[text shortened]... ight not be murdered in the future if the DP were actually in more than a fraction of the cases.
you've quoted without control sources. Decline in murders could be due to policing, social effects or any other thing.
If you have any data comparing states without DP and those with, I
would be interested to read it.
The act of murder requires a specific kind of mentality.
The kind of mentality that says 'I am going to kill this person'.
This can either be reactive, contemplative or purely apathetical but the
bottom line is the trigger gets pulled and the dirt gets shovelled.
My point is this, it is this mindset that needs to be targeted to limit the
number of murders each year and fear is a very primitive tool to use
to this effect.
By the state condoning murder through its own criminal justice system,
it has perpetuated the mindset that it is OK to kill in some circumstances.
That shift in how killing is viewed cannot really be measured but I
believe is a significant contributor to the murder rates in DP countries.
Originally posted by zeeblebotyou're joking, right?
...even if a few hundred innocents were to be executed in a year, that would be a patch against the thousands of victims who might not be murdered in the future if the DP were actually in more than a fraction of the cases.
A few hundred innocent lives accidently taken by the state to satisfy your (and others) thirst for revenge? It's crazy. I am happy that we don't have the death penalty anymore in Europe. I might get innocently executed by mistake, if I lived in the States.
BTW, the reason the legal system doesn't admit to any innocent killings is because the death penalty would instantly be unsustainable.
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI agree with you that peoples "mindset" as you put it needs to be changed. If it were up to me I would definitely regulate the media more.
My point is this, it is this mindset that needs to be targeted to limit the
number of murders each year and fear is a very primitive tool to use
to this effect.
By the state condoning murder through its own criminal justice system,
it has perpetuated the mindset that it is OK to kill in some circumstances.
...[text shortened
.
"By the state condoning murder through its own criminal justice system, it has perpetuated the mindset that it is OK to kill in some circumstances."
Well, maybe, but the fact is that it is necessary to kill in some circumstances. I would argue that in cases of self defense, when there is no other way, a person is justified in using deadly force. Likewise, to protect society as a whole, in terms of both deterrence and getting rid of the worst kinds of offenders (not to mention the cost involved with keeping these guys alive and healthy), it's necessary.
People have more moral judgment than you give them credit for. What you're implying is that people can't tell the difference between capital punishment and murder. This is just not the case. Most people can make the distinction. The punishment for murder is death, so don't commit murder. This is not some obscure concept.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressSo, if it were up to you, you wouldn't just want to execute people, but also control the media. You've got a few of the building blocks of a nice little facsist state going there. Keep it up.
. If it were up to me I would definitely regulate the media more.
I thought a free media was one of the principles americans were so proud of?
Originally posted by knightwestSo you don't mind getting entertained by people being murdered, you just don't want to do it yourself.
So, if it were up to you, you wouldn't just want to execute people, but also control the media. You've got a few of the building blocks of a nice little facsist state going there. Keep it up.
I thought a free media was one of the principles americans were so proud of?
Are you being hypocritical or what?
"I thought a free media was one of the principles americans were so proud of?"
Again you never cease to stereotype "Americans."
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI fail to see where in my post you can draw the conclusion that I don't mind people being murdered.
So you don't mind getting entertained by people being murdered, you just don't want to do it yourself.
Are you being hypocritical or what?
"I thought a free media was one of the principles americans were so proud of?"
Again you never cease to stereotype "Americans."
But guess what, the death penalty doesn't stop people getting murdered. It doesn't work as a deterrent, never has, never will. The rich don't go on death row; the poor who murder for drugs and or money, for them life is cheap anyway, inlcuding their own. They will not be deterred by the death penalty.
With "Americans" i meant the US as a body, not necessarily millions of individual Americans. I am sure there are many Americans who couldn't care less if their press was free or not.
Face it, the death penalty is an outdated idea, which is morally reprehensible, and it puts the US (our main ally and respected friend, i mean that, I am not being sarcastic) in the company of China and Iran and probably North Korea (not sure about that one) and half a dozen other Islamic states. That bothers me, maybe it should bother you too!
If a person kills another person, he or she should be killed. If that person is retarded he should be killed as well. Anyone who kills another is retarded anyway. If there is no fear of death there is no vehicle for deterrence. Taking away freedom from most career criminals is not a big thing. Prison is their second home. Time out doesn't work.
Look at when a child kills another child. Most of the time they are time out kids. They think that the worst thing that can happen to them is time out. They have no association with pain as a repercussion. With more and more parents working multiple jobs because of worsening economy (thanks Bush), parents are not able to discipline their children. My wife is a homemaker. Discipline is not punishment. It is just doing what you are supposed to be doing for the benefit of everyone. Without it you have a breakdown in efficiency and everyone suffers. Time out would not have worked against Japan.
Many innocent were killed to stop the bloodshed. Killers are not innocent civilians, they will kill again.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightwestIf you don't believe in regulating the media, then what you're saying is that you don't mind all the horror and human suffering that goes on in the movies, music, etc. If you don't mind getting entertained by that garbage, then your pacifistic position becomes hypocritical.
I fail to see where in my post you can draw the conclusion that I don't mind people being murdered.
But guess what, the death penalty doesn't stop people getting murdered. It doesn't work as a deterrent, never has, never will. The rich don't go on death row; the poor who murder for drugs and or money, for them life is cheap anyway, inlcuding their ...[text shortened]... hat one) and half a dozen other Islamic states. That bothers me, maybe it should bother you too!
Funny how you would accuse me of fascisim for not wanting that crap to influence our younger generation. If you believed your own rhetoric, you would want the media regulated as well.
To say that the death penalty won't work on its own is probably true. It will take a combination of things to bring about positive changes. If you're saying that the death penalty is not a deterrence, then you're just making wild speculations based on your own beliefs (see my previous post citing the studies that have been made). Poor people care about their lives as well, and if the rich get away with crime, that is a problem with the judicial system. Changes should be made there as well.
The fact that you compare the U.S. with places like Iran and N. Korea just confirms your blind bigotry against America. Is capital punishment about dictatorship? Is it about torture? Is it about brainwashing society into an extremist religion, No.
Originally posted by knightwesti'm not joking about anything ... there're 280M people in the US, so why are you worried about being executed when innocent, when there are only a hundred or so executions per year? what are the odds?
you're joking, right?
A few hundred innocent lives accidently taken by the state to satisfy your (and others) thirst for revenge? It's crazy. I am happy that we don't have the death penalty anymore in Europe. I might get innocently executed by mistake, if I lived in the States.
BTW, the reason the legal system doesn't admit to any innocent killings is because the death penalty would instantly be unsustainable.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckhere, read the section on Deterrence (or you could even read the whole article) at this link: http://tempknak.home.att.net/YoHoHo.html
I am having trouble deriving any useful data from the death rates
you've quoted without control sources. Decline in murders could be due to policing, social effects or any other thing.
If you have any data comparing states without DP and those with, I
would be interested to read it.
The act of murder requires a specific kind of mentality.
The kind o ...[text shortened]... ly be measured but I
believe is a significant contributor to the murder rates in DP countries.
for example, Singapore has the highest or almost highest per capita execution rate, and its murder rate is one tenth of the U.S. rate.