Illinois Abolishes the Death Penalty

[Almo]

you want ADMITTED rapists, torturers and murderers to have taxpayer funded housing, clothing, food and entertainment for the rest of their lives.

I prefer this to executing one innocent person. If they remain alive, they can be released should evidence come to light that they were wrongfully convicted.

People die soon enough; we're fragile creatures. No need to hurry it along.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Not just feeling. Again he raped and murdered my friend. He continually tortured and stalked the mother of her friend (a friend of the family) who had left him weeks earlier and moved to another apartment which location he was asked not to go near. When he was caught, he at first denied anything to do with her disappearance, but later confessed to knowing the location of the body and not her murder. Forensic evidence showed otherwise.

The fact he still lives is nonsensical. He murdered a person, it is proven with the same forensic evidence we used to EXONERATE past deathrow inmates of crimes they didn't commit (Thereby matching the standard defined by JoeTheJuggler if he wants to argue it) A death penalty verdict was reached quickly. My rationality tells me there's no need for him to breath anymore, it's not the same "feeling" I get from bloodlust which you want me to say IATS

I acknowledge everything you are saying here, though I disagree with the last sentence. If you want to show that this is a rational conclusion, then do so. You are stating a number of facts, and then repeating your conclusion. However, at no point did you connect the two. You labeled this non sequitor "rationality," but that does not make it so. You have not made an argument.

 

[Lowpro]

Forgive me, I thought in my statements of facts you'd have understood the rationality I used. ( I also don't argue often, and I don't know what you personally want to meet your criteria for "an argument" but I'll try the best I can)

If we execute people based on (A)the evidence weighed against them and (B) the agreement from the court case and jury verdict of their guilt (though it's more like non-innocence) then that man is sentenced to die.

I don't see why it takes so long for him to sit in the cell before the execution. I shouldn't have said "the rest of his family feel this way" because I shouldn't speak for them, all I know is what they've said to me.

So overall

I agree, and everyone who knows him including his family are in agreement that he should die...
Why? Is this a rational conclusion that you have formed, or is this just something that "feels right?"

He raped and killed a girl, he is guilty of it (and again, used the same evidence we use now to EXONERATE people who are on death row) he should die. That's the rationality. If I were to hear in later news that he is innocent, then he obviously should NOT die, and I would understandably like to hear the evidence for his innocence.


Let me ask, do you prefer the rephrasing of your question: "Do you find a rational explanation for the death penalty that does not require conviction?"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

BEFORE when forensic evidence was limited we damn well got it wrong, innocent people died. Removing the death penalty will not bring them back, it will not make the system work any more perfectly, all it would do is prevent their earlier demise. What makes this so important then?

You really don't know?

It would prevent us from putting more innocent people to death in the future. It will also prevent us from unjustly giving death sentences to certain groups (low SES and certain racial/ethnic minorities).

You can prevent a murderer from killing again by life in prison with no chance of release. You can't prevent future misapplications of the death penalty without abolishing it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I also don't think it's wrong to kill for vengeance, that's part of my personal belief that you get to "seek happiness" I feel that, if I were inclined to, I should kill pastor Fred Phelps because I dislike him enough to submit myself before a court system for his murder. The Death Penalty allows for us to do that, but that us being not just the affected victims, but a jury and proper attorneys.

Not legally it doesn't (even in the states that still have it). You can't argue in favor of a death sentence based on vengeance. Again, our courts seek to make these decisions dispassionately.

 

[Lowpro]

You really don't know?

It would prevent us from putting more innocent people to death in the future. It will also prevent us from unjustly giving death sentences to certain groups (low SES and certain racial/ethnic minorities).

You can prevent a murderer from killing again by life in prison with no chance of release. You can't prevent future misapplications of the death penalty without abolishing it.

Fair enough however again, I don't own a pair of hindsight glasses, I'd like to know where you picked yours up.

I get the argument, here's the crux "A man who is executed is as effective a murderer/rapist as one who is prison for life, that is to say, you get the same outcome, he can't hurt anyone again"

I use the reverse of that, I say "If you execute a man for life you get the same end result as if they were in prison for life, only the finality of his death..."

Okay I actually think I found out something from I Am The Scum, he asked me earlier about a "Feeling"

I'm going to say this, and im sure it will be to my discredit but I'll say it because I prefer not to lie or hide things. By killing this man, I will feel like everything's right. I don't care to bring Alicia back (my friend) I do care that by killing this man, Alicia's mom, my family, know that he's dead and things feel better.

It still leads me back to my earlier point which JoeTheJuggler brought up; a dead man is equivalent to a man locked up for life, so I just say "well kill him and no one knows the difference"

Joe just doesn't want the chance of being wrong. Neither do I, but I'd give that chance up when I have the knowledge that we're right. I can deal with killing the correct people, when innocent people die, there's nothing I can do to bring them back, I can just ensure we don't make the same mistake again. Much like everything else in life.

This has been an interesting discussion. My grandfather is a judge (was actually, now he's out doing that lawyering thing again) He used to be pro-death penalty but after defending criminals who were to be executed he changed his mind. I never asked why mostly because I rarely see him. I should ask one day, I'm sure it'll be a stimulating discussion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If I were to hear in later news that he is innocent, then he obviously should NOT die, and I would understandably like to hear the evidence for his innocence.

Except if he had been put to death as you would have it, you couldn't undo it.

Do you understand why this is different than any other sentence?

And this doesn't all come down to nothing but DNA evidence. People are often convicted based on eyewitness testimony. Witness testimony can be faulty (plastic memory, for one reason, but also because witnesses might be motivated to confabulate--even motivated by the same passions you say are acceptable). And all DNA evidence still relies on fallible human chains of evidence. Believe it or not, evidence has been planted, records mixed up, and so on.

And even aside from those issues are the issues of the unequal application of the death sentence on certain minority groups. This seems to be an intractable problem inherent in the biases in our population in general.

 

[Lowpro]

Not legally it doesn't (even in the states that still have it). You can't argue in favor of a death sentence based on vengeance. Again, our courts seek to make these decisions dispassionately.

Joe in all fairness they make them based on the crime, capital punishment and all that. Vengeance plays no factor.

I wouldn't kill Fred Phelps because if vengeance, I'd kill him because it met my personal criteria AND I KNOW THIS, which is why I am not a judge, a lawyer, or a jury member at this time, and if I was a jury member I'm sure I'd be struck immediately. My rationality for the death penalty was discussed earlier, you may now pounce on it and claim a rational victory.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Forgive me, I thought in my statements of facts you'd have understood the rationality I used. ( I also don't argue often, and I don't know what you personally want to meet your criteria for "an argument" but I'll try the best I can)

If we execute people based on (A)the evidence weighed against them and (B) the agreement from the court case and jury verdict of their guilt (though it's more like non-innocence) then that man is sentenced to die.

I don't see why it takes so long for him to sit in the cell before the execution. I shouldn't have said "the rest of his family feel this way" because I shouldn't speak for them, all I know is what they've said to me.

So overall



He raped and killed a girl, he is guilty of it (and again, used the same evidence we use now to EXONERATE people who are on death row) he should die. That's the rationality. If I were to hear in later news that he is innocent, then he obviously should NOT die, and I would understandably like to hear the evidence for his innocence.


Let me ask, do you prefer the rephrasing of your question: "Do you find a rational explanation for the death penalty that does not require conviction?"

I'll try to make myself more clear.

I am not doubting the man's guilt. I don't even know who he is, but that doesn't really matter. He could be a hypothetical person and my point would still stand.

I agree that if the death penalty is to exist at all, it should be contingent upon a conviction. However, that is not my point.

I'm asking how you draw the conclusion that it is a good, just, and moral act to end the life of another person. Stating that the person in question has done bad things does not make your case.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I were to say that people who jaywalk should have their legs amputated. Now, I know this is absurd (that's part of the point). Being the inquisitive person you are, you would want to understand my reasoning, right? I could point out a number of facts about the circumstances surrounding one's jaywalking conviction: We caught him on tape, he's done it multiple times, and he's completely unrepentant. But this doesn't get me anywhere. I still haven't illustrated why it is good to chop anyone's legs off.

Although your advocating of the death penalty is far less ridiculous than my scenario, you are still suffering from the same fundamental flaws.

 

[Lowpro]

Except if he had been put to death as you would have it, you couldn't undo it.

Do you understand why this is different than any other sentence?

And this doesn't all come down to nothing but DNA evidence. People are often convicted based on eyewitness testimony. Witness testimony can be faulty (plastic memory, for one reason, but also because witnesses might be motivated to confabulate--even motivated by the same passions you say are acceptable). And all DNA evidence still relies on fallible human chains of evidence. Believe it or not, evidence has been planted, records mixed up, and so on.

And even aside from those issues are the issues of the unequal application of the death sentence on certain minority groups. This seems to be an intractable problem inherent in the biases in our population in general.

What did I say about my Hindsight Glasses -.- I will not make an argument based on hindsight, and neither should you. If i'm wrong, I I didn't know it at the time, I didn't have the knowledge and that's not my fault. I will not play caution to a lack of knowledge; instead I will try to make sure I'm right the next time.

As for witness testimony, more and more the trend has been that eyewitness testimony doesn't provide the necessary evidence to reach a capital crime verdict, don't worry, the times they are'a changin' and for the better.

I also know a LOT about institutionalized racism and crime, the death penalty follows the trend of our history of racism quite well. If you fix the system as I have been trying to say while you've clapped your hands to your ears this whole time, hindsight glasses on, you'd see what I'm saying. Institutionalized racism effects a LOT more than just those on Death Row, I suggest taking the argument to the lower crime level, not death penalty.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Fair enough however again, I don't own a pair of hindsight glasses, I'd like to know where you picked yours up.

This doesn't make sense. The reason I oppose the death penalty that you are responding to is that we can't determine guilt to a certainty (just beyond a reasonable doubt). But the death penalty is irreversible.

I get the argument, here's the crux "A man who is executed is as effective a murderer/rapist as one who is prison for life, that is to say, you get the same outcome, he can't hurt anyone again"

I use the reverse of that, I say "If you execute a man for life you get the same end result as if they were in prison for life, only the finality of his death..."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you have to invent fake quotes to characterize your opponent's position, it's a pretty good indicator that you're arguing against a straw man.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The finality of death is an argument against the death penalty. If you made a mistake or biased application, you can't change your mind once the sentence is executed.

I'm going to say this, and im sure it will be to my discredit but I'll say it because I prefer not to lie or hide things. By killing this man, I will feel like everything's right. I don't care to bring Alicia back (my friend) I do care that by killing this man, Alicia's mom, my family, know that he's dead and things feel better.

You've said as much already, and I've pointed out (at least twice now) that those are the kinds of sentiments we don't want to be part of our criminal justice system. We want it to deliver dispassionate justice, not emotional reactions.

It still leads me back to my earlier point which JoeTheJuggler brought up; a dead man is equivalent to a man locked up for life, so I just say "well kill him and no one knows the difference"

I never ever said a dead man is equivalent to a man locked up for life! A dead man is irrevocably dead. A person in prison could be freed.

However, both sentences protect the public from that convict hurting someone else.

Neither do I, but I'd give that chance up when I have the knowledge that we're right.

Our criminal court system doesn't even pretend to have that knowledge. We only make convictions of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's a decision, not knowledge. None of us have omniscience.

 

[Lowpro]

I'll try to make myself more clear.

I am not doubting the man's guilt. I don't even know who he is, but that doesn't really matter. He could be a hypothetical person and my point would still stand.

I agree that if the death penalty is to exist at all, it should be contingent upon a conviction. However, that is not my point.

I'm asking how you draw the conclusion that it is a good, just, and moral act to end the life of another person. Stating that the person in question has done bad things does not make your case.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I were to say that people who jaywalk should have their legs amputated. Now, I know this is absurd (that's part of the point). Being the inquisitive person you are, you would want to understand my reasoning, right? I could point out a number of facts about the circumstances surrounding one's jaywalking conviction: We caught him on tape, he's done it multiple times, and he's completely unrepentant. But this doesn't get me anywhere. I still haven't illustrated why it is good to chop anyone's legs off.

Although your advocating of the death penalty is far less ridiculous than my scenario, you are still suffering from the same fundamental flaws.

Scum, the punishment of amputation wouldn't fit the crime of jaywalking. I know it's ridiculous, but it's only more ridiculous when you play it as falsely as this. Death Penalty's not purely a "life for a life" institution; you have to commit capital crimes and be found guilty of them with a jury decision for the death penalty. It's NOT THAT EASY TO GET. We had to fight a good ways to get our death penalty verdict, and again I'm personally quite proud we did (find it sick if you want)

Jaywalking doesn't meet the requirements for leg amputation, a debilitating verdict to be sure. Your case is not rational, that's for sure, but neither does it illuminate any irrationality on my part.

Try again.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe in all fairness they make them based on the crime, capital punishment and all that. Vengeance plays no factor.

That's basically what I said in response to your claim that the death penalty allows for vengeance:

I also don't think it's wrong to kill for vengeance, that's part of my personal belief that you get to "seek happiness" I feel that, if I were inclined to, I should kill pastor Fred Phelps because I dislike him enough to submit myself before a court system for his murder. The Death Penalty allows for us to do that, but that us being not just the affected victims, but a jury and proper attorneys.

I wouldn't kill Fred Phelps because if vengeance, I'd kill him because it met my personal criteria AND I KNOW THIS, which is why I am not a judge, a lawyer, or a jury member at this time, and if I was a jury member I'm sure I'd be struck immediately.

So you're talking about extrajudicial murder now, not capital punishment. You've definitely drifted off the topic of this thread.

 

[deepatrax]

I'll try to make myself more clear.

I am not doubting the man's guilt. I don't even know who he is, but that doesn't really matter. He could be a hypothetical person and my point would still stand.

I agree that if the death penalty is to exist at all, it should be contingent upon a conviction. However, that is not my point.

I'm asking how you draw the conclusion that it is a good, just, and moral act to end the life of another person. Stating that the person in question has done bad things does not make your case.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I were to say that people who jaywalk should have their legs amputated. Now, I know this is absurd (that's part of the point). Being the inquisitive person you are, you would want to understand my reasoning, right? I could point out a number of facts about the circumstances surrounding one's jaywalking conviction: We caught him on tape, he's done it multiple times, and he's completely unrepentant. But this doesn't get me anywhere. I still haven't illustrated why it is good to chop anyone's legs off.

Although your advocating of the death penalty is far less ridiculous than my scenario, you are still suffering from the same fundamental flaws.

Say we have a man guilty of murder. He admits his guilt. There's 100% indisputable evidence of his guilt.

You ask: "how do you draw the conclusion that it is a good, just, and moral act to end the life of another person?"

My answer: Because he should not be allowed to be a burden on society for decades by having taxpayers fund his food, clothing, housing and entertainment.

Why should society now be punished for 60+ years to sustain this man's life?

You completely miss the question of: Is it good, just and moral to allow society to be punished for this man's acts for decades?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Again, I want to point out that my criticism does not entail any doubt over anyone's guilt. I am still opposed to the death penalty in cases of god-like knowledge of a conviction.

Jaywalking doesn't meet the requirements for leg amputation...

How do you know this is true? Did you discover this scientifically? I wouldn't blame you for just going with your gut reaction on this, but I really want you to think about it.

If you want, I can show you why jaywalking does not warrant amputation. However, in doing so, I will also illustrate how the death penalty is unjustified.

My answer: Because he should not be allowed to be a burden on society for decades by having taxpayers fund his food, clothing, housing and entertainment.

Deepatrax thinks that it is acceptable to kill people for money. There's a good reason that assassins are frowned upon in our society.

 

[Lowpro]

This doesn't make sense. The reason I oppose the death penalty that you are responding to is that we can't determine guilt to a certainty (just beyond a reasonable doubt). But the death penalty is irreversible.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you have to invent fake quotes to characterize your opponent's position, it's a pretty good indicator that you're arguing against a straw man.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The finality of death is an argument against the death penalty. If you made a mistake or biased application, you can't change your mind once the sentence is executed.


You've said as much already, and I've pointed out (at least twice now) that those are the kinds of sentiments we don't want to be part of our criminal justice system. We want it to deliver dispassionate justice, not emotional reactions.


I never ever said a dead man is equivalent to a man locked up for life! A dead man is irrevocably dead. A person in prison could be freed.

However, both sentences protect the public from that convict hurting someone else.



Our criminal court system doesn't even pretend to have that knowledge. We only make convictions of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's a decision, not knowledge. None of us have omniscience.

Don't pretend forensic evidence does not provide knowledge now...

Anyways here's what you said

You can prevent a murderer from killing again by life in prison with no chance of release

A man who is dead ALSO cannot murder again because he's dead. Same as a man who's locked up.

You just want insurance again because we "could be wrong" playing it safe and fair.

I know that you should try not to be wrong in the first place. NO one wants to be wrong here because if you're wrong you may get an innocent man executed and thereby letting the guilt man go free.

However, that application in reality may be a bit out of reach.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Say we have a man guilty of murder. He admits his guilt. There's 100% indisputable evidence of his guilt.

There is no such thing.

And even if there were (which there's not) you still have the following two issues (if not others):

-inequitable application of the death sentence to members of certain minorities

-no benefit over life in prison with no chancee of release (no deterrence, no savings in costs, no improvement in public safety)

 

[Lowpro]

Again, I want to point out that my criticism does not entail any doubt over anyone's guilt. I am still opposed to the death penalty in cases of god-like knowledge of a conviction.



How do you know this is true? Did you discover this scientifically? I wouldn't blame you for just going with your gut reaction on this, but I really want you to think about it.

If you want, I can show you why jaywalking does not warrant amputation. However, in doing so, I will also illustrate how the death penalty is unjustified.


Deepatrax thinks that it is acceptable to kill people for money. There's a good reason that assassins are frowned upon in our society.

I want AGAIN to say I want nothing to do with deepatrax's argument. I don't care about the money spent to keep a roof over anyone's head, just make sure it's not gilded with gold or something...

Anyways. If you want to talk me through how the death penalty is equiv to amputation, I'll say go ahead, but I urge you to remember this. The reason I support the death penalty is because of a real life incident, it involves a man who threatened a wife and her children who left them, he stalked them and harassed them verbally. One day he abducted her child (my friend), raped, and killed her and left her body in the woods.

You need to equate that to jaywalking, because that is the qualifications met for me to say "this man should then be put to death via the standards of the death penalty." I'll even throw you a bone, I'm from Alabama, where biases is a fact of life and ever prevalent (I also bring it up because JoeTheJuggler brought up institutionalized racism)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Don't pretend forensic evidence does not provide knowledge now...

I'm not pretending. It simply doesn't.

A man who is dead ALSO cannot murder again because he's dead. Same as a man who's locked up.

Yes. So there is no benefit to putting the man to death. And the negative is that the death penalty is irrevocable in the event of a mistake or a misapplication (due to racial or other prejudice).

You just want insurance again because we "could be wrong" playing it safe and fair.

No. I recognize that there is no such insurance. Also since there is no advantage to the death penalty, the net result is a negative (the risk of misapplication of something irreversible).

I know that you should try not to be wrong in the first place. NO one wants to be wrong here because if you're wrong you may get an innocent man executed and thereby letting the guilt man go free.

You're becoming less and less coherent now. It also seems that what you know about criminal law you learned on TV. Contrary to the way it works on Matlock, convicting an innocent man doesn't allow a guilty man to go free (nor vice versa). It's not a zero sum. There are no multiple choice trials (where a jury must either convict defendant A or defendant B).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you want to talk me through how the death penalty is equiv to amputation,

The death penalty is not equivalent to amputation.

In amputation an irretrievably damaged limb is surgically removed in order to protect the life and functionality of the patient.

I suspect you're attempting to make an analogy (and not an equivalence). But amputation is not analogous to the death penalty. If you suggest that one man is killed to save the population, it's easy enough to see that the death of a convicted criminal does NOT in fact save the population. In fact, there is no advantage or benefit at all to the death penalty over life in prison with no chance of release.