SubJeff on 11/11/2009 at 21:26
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
I don't think a robot would use highly-judgemental terms like "sick pleasure."
I didn't say a robot was involved. If you can't see it I can't help you.
Muzman on 11/11/2009 at 21:33
No stealing my mum's counter/followup arguments.
Chade on 11/11/2009 at 21:39
I'm not aware of a single justification for the death penalty that is actually true, beyond potentially "the lil' fucker intrinsically deserves it so shut yer hole".
That being said, I've always wondered about the expense of it all: does anyone know why it's more expensive to execute a man then to hold him prisoner for life?
After all, a man on the death sentence is never in prison for longer then a man on a life sentence. What makes it more expensive? Is it extra security? Is it more expensive to get the evidence (and if so, is that causation or correlation)? Is the number of appeals greater, or do they require more evidence to dismiss?
Rug Burn Junky on 11/11/2009 at 21:44
Quote Posted by Wormrat
Hard for me snarkily dismiss things that weren't said at the time I posted, though, eh?
EDIT: Okay, just to be clear so it doesn't look like I am picking nits for no reason: I don't want the illogic of earlier arguments propped up by proxy of
your argument, which is at least something that can be evidenced one way or the other. Just because both you and earlier posters are saying "execution has some similarities to murder, and that's something to worry about" doesn't mean the positions are the same. The specific reasons are absolutely crucial.
No, you absolutely ARE being an internet nitnerd, and even missing the mark with that. I addressed your counterargument to the hypocrisy question entirely in the parenthetical, but the part about undermining the message is a stand alone argument unrelated to your attempt at a counter. I am, thankfully, able to convey multiple meanings and arguments within single statements. It's a shame such densely packed writing is so often lost on the audience here.
But, at the end of the day, the fact is the base argument about the hypocrisy of the death penalty is far more subtle and nuanced. Your snarky dismissal is countering only a simplification of that argument, and is thus why your reasoning is flawed.
A more full statement of one of the "hypocrisy" arguments (though still simplified) is thus: The finality of execution is qualitatively different than other punishments and state actions, one that can only be justified in extreme circumstances. The act of killing someone else is so unambiguously wrong that it justifies the imposition of the equally extreme death penalty. But if you rest your justification for an act on the idea that it is absolutely wrong, you can not then commit that act yourself.
The counter examples that you provide do not address this point of absolutism. The actions (trespass kidnap, etc) are wrong or right based on circumstances and the state's similar actions reflect this. A similar view of the death penalty as a conditional necessity based on circumstances renders invalid the argument that killing is so wrong as to justify it. The key here is that the hypocrisy argument as properly espoused by the anti death penalty crowd is not a stand alone argument against the death penalty, but a counter to particular strain of arguments in support of the death penalty. It does not exist in a vacuum, and your simplistic counters are irrelevant because of this, where-as the simplified form being touted here against the death penalty is .
Beyond that, the extremist argument brings in the question of whether the state is using the minimum means necessary, but this is a higher level argument than you are likely equipped to understand.
Aerothorn on 11/11/2009 at 21:46
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
If you can't see it I can't help you.
I feel like I've heard this argument before...
Also: LOL at "moral highground" ITT.
SubJeff on 11/11/2009 at 21:54
You probably heard it the last time you tried to strawman someone. And the time before that. And the
Rug Burn Junky on 11/11/2009 at 22:00
Quote Posted by Chade
I've always wondered about the expense of it all: does anyone know
why it's more expensive to execute a man then to hold him prisoner for life?
After all, a man on the death sentence is never in prison for longer then a man on a life sentence. What makes it more expensive? Is it extra security? Is it more expensive to get the evidence (and if so, is that causation or correlation)? Is the number of appeals greater, or do they require more evidence to dismiss?
You pretty much nailed it. The legal process is far more involved and requires far more lawyering and manpower devoted to the process. To prevent it from being applied capriciously, the state is required to prove repeatedly that it got everything right. 10 lawyers making 60k per year working for 3 years is already at $2M, enough to feed, cloth and shackle a man for life.
Quote Posted by Thief13x
why can you justify the killing of Nidal Hasan but not the killing of John Allen Muhammad?
(I don't buy the "he's in the military so he doesn't have the same human rights," and assume there's more to it)
That's cute that you don't buy that, but it's absolutely a lynchpin.
The military requires a much stricter code of conduct. You owe a higher duty to your fellow soldier than one does to their fellow citizen. When you are in a culture developed to handle violent, high-pressure situations where everyone is carrying a loaded weapon, there are necessarily going to be different standards, and being subject to a set of laws that is absolutely intolerant to misbehaviour to an extreme degree - with lower standards necessary to prove guilt (though, rightfully, in death penalty cases, courts-martial do adhere to the civilian necessity of a unanimous verdict, where-as in other crimes a simple supermajority is necessary to convict), and harsh punishments at all ends of the spectrum. It's a necessary part of the culture, and by signing up for the military, you consent to be held to these higher standards. You can't move to Sparta and bitch that it's too harsh.
--------------------------------------------
Now, while I would love to continue this conversation, you people are not nearly as alluring as the idea of getting stoned and catching up on the last 5 episodes of Mad Men, so toodles.
Aerothorn on 11/11/2009 at 22:41
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
You probably heard it the last time you tried to strawman someone. And the time before that. And the
Nah, usually I shove the straw in their mouth BEFORE I stick them on the pike.
Quote Posted by Wormrat
When it comes to killing people,
everyone in this thread implicitly agrees with meWhat the fuck are you talking about? Not specifically saying whether or not I have an absolute prohibition against killing means I auto-agree?
In that case, I'll be awaiting the check you implicitly agree to send me.
Aerothorn on 11/11/2009 at 22:52
Ah, gotcha.
wait, does that mean no check
DDL on 11/11/2009 at 23:04
Quote Posted by Wormrat
"killing is absolutely wrong in every situation imaginable,"
Murder is absolutely wrong in every situation, with state execution simply a 'legalised' murder. Seriously: they're fucking killing a
helpless person who does not want to die. Does this not strike you as both wrong and horrible?
