Illinois Abolishes the Death Penalty

[deepatrax]

Really? Then you're just making an argument for why we should kill the retarded, homeless, and handicapped. Ooh, let's tie this in with your previous comments. Should we also execute those who take in more in government services than they pay in taxes?

You should probably spend more time thinking about this.

*sigh*...logic once again escapes you.

Committing murder DOES NOT EQUATE TO being mentally ill, homeless or handicapped

It is shameful that in this day and age, I am forced to point out what the appeal to popularity^WP is.

Obama was popular in the 2008 elections. Funny that...the popular position usually wins out in a democracy.

And if it really bothers you that much, we can just refrain from calling it murder. Given the reasons provided, it's still immoral.

so says you...and you're in the minority.

 

[deepatrax]

So how would you make the current system in the USA, where a person who will be given the death penalty is going to sit on death row for years, more efficient? Currently it sucks up more resources that just giving them a long prison sentence.

Arguing for the current system and claiming that you're not making them a burden on society is just brain dead.

no, brain dead is not reading this entire thread and seeing where I said this on page 1:

you're just unfamiliar with the concept of STOPPING tedious lengthy legal appeals and just killing the death row inmate before he becomes even more of a burden on society.

If a death row inmate can tie his case up in courts for decades after repeatedly being found guilty and failing his appeals...the solution isn't to stop the death penalty...it's to SPEED UP THE PROCESS!

and this...

save money by speeding up the appeals and execution process while insisting on better police and prosecutors work and NOT pushing for the death penalty unless your absolutely sure of guilt.

Take for example the killers of Dr. William Petit's family in CT and the two men who sexually assaulted, tortured and killed his wife and two daughters in a brutal home invasion.

You want them to have taxpayer funded housing, entertainment, education and food for the rest of their lives.

I want them dead.

 

[Rolfe]

Wow. It's like a visit to the zoo, this forum. Or maybe a time machine.

I'm so glad I'm not American.

Rolfe.

 

[deepatrax]

Wow. It's like a visit to the zoo, this forum. Or maybe a time machine.

I'm so glad I'm not American.

Rolfe.

And I long for the day when I can become one of the enlightened...like the non-Americans here!

Please, I implore you good sir...please regale us all with tales of the utopian society in which you live.

Please tell us how much better you are than us!!

 

[Aoidoi]

Todd's not a criminal, he's just stupid.

Well, he DID get elected in Chicago... that usually involves something illegal.

It was a joke. I'm pretty sure he hasn't been murdering people.

... pretty sure.

 

[Lowpro]

I really hate being on any side of the fence Deep is on -.- It's like having the most annoying neighbor in an apartment complex of which you already despise.

 

[deepatrax]

I really hate being on any side of the fence Deep is on -.- It's like having the most annoying neighbor in an apartment complex of which you already despise.

annoying...cause I'm right.

thanks, no problem.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So apparently Deepatrax is having some trouble with this whole logic thing. I can't imagine why. It's not hard to figure out if you have half a brain... Oh now I see the problem.

In any case, when we give reasons for something, we have to be consistent. If one were to say that action A is (for example) moral for reason R, then I must say that actions B, C, D, etc. must also be good wherever R applies. If R does apply, and I say a given action is still not moral, then I am arguing against my implied point, that R is sufficient grounds upon which to deem something moral. So if R is insufficient, then when I say that A is good because R applies, then I am not making an argument at all.

For example, if one were to argue that executions are moral because they increase wealth, then it must also follow that a hired hitman is also moral, because he is killing people for the purpose of increasing wealth. Now, when someone points out this logical necessity, then they are not saying that one EQUATES TO the other, no matter how much the person with the bad argument kicks and screams. This would be a strawman argument.

Beliefs necessarily entail other beliefs. This is the basis of logic.

This is just my convoluted way of reminding the audience that if you support your arguments with bad reasons, it's only a matter of time before it bites you in the ass.

 

[I Am The Scum]

They do not weight the same in our moral compass (i hope) which is why the proposed argument you put forth scum is ridiculous.

The first question I asked you on this subject was whether or not you were forming a rational conclusion, or letting your emotions guide your actions. You insisted that it was a matter of rational thought, but inevitably your argument still rests on what "feels right" to you.

I will say this and I'm not sure if you'll agree here Scum...philosophy loves to give a number value to morality and reduce them to some equivalency all the time. This works best when having discussions with philosophers of a similar thought or method. That being said, my views on morality are (obviously) skewed.

There's not a whole lot you said in this section that makes much sense. First, I am unaware of any moral philosophy that attempts to quantify things. In fact, whereas it may seem that an ability to assign numbers to things would give us more objective conclusions, like the solution to an algebra equation, there are many moral dilemmas that exploit this misconception. The most famous of these would be the trolley problem^WP.

I should also point out that there is not, never has been, and never will be a capital punishment system on the planet that kills only one man.

 

[deepatrax]

...
if one were to argue that executions are moral because they increase wealth,
...

Can you find one comment by me where I said or even implied this??

no. you attributed this nonsense to me, then had an argument with yourself about it.

Not forcing the taxpayers to fund the housing, food, clothing and entertainment for an admitted killer for the rest of his life DOES NOT EQUATE TO increasing one's wealth!

If taxpayer money isn't spent on one thing...it WILL be spent on something else which hopefully is more beneficial to society...nobody is accumulating wealth in this scenario.

*facepalm*

 

[Lowpro]

Scum, I conceded in an earlier post that yes, it is now a part of "feeling" when I was responding to JoeTheJuggler.

There's not a whole lot you said in this section that makes much sense. First, I am unaware of any moral philosophy that attempts to quantify things. In fact, whereas it may seem that an ability to assign numbers to things would give us more objective conclusions, like the solution to an algebra equation, there are many moral dilemmas that exploit this misconception. The most famous of these would be the trolley problemWP.

I should also point out that there is not, never has been, and never will be a capital punishment system on the planet that kills only one man.

I mentioned the previous because the idea you proposed found it necessary to equate the immorality of amputation and death penalty (with no thought to the prerequisites of each, which is why I pointed out the flaw of the process and its irrationality/hilarity) If you weren't trying to equate the morality, then I don't know what you were trying to prove...

The other reason I posted that is because I don't want to give any pretense that I will entertain such ideas from you anymore unless you make them slightly more plausible.

In this same thread I also made a statement on the hypothetical idea:

If we could for a second pretend that the ability to "halo" a la Minority Report, where they pretty much comatose you for life, suspended in a vertical column hooked up to a life support system, unable to think, communicate, or act, this would make me happy. If we could go one step further and deceive all those into thinking that those who are halo'd are actually executed it wouldn't change my feelings. Death or induced lifetime coma, either works for me. Give me that Joe, and you'll get another in your pro-nonDeathPenalty camp, and you'll get by on your tagline.

I say the finality of death closes the case much better than life in prison. A man in prison is alive, he can act. He can communicate, escape, commit crime (let's not pretend crimes don't occur in prisons). Death is final, with death we know he will not be able to act ever again. That is the utility of death, that's also why it's administered so rarely considering the cases that seek it. It's also why we should be as vigilant as we possibly can in extolling the correct verdict on the correct person. Of course we don't want to execute an innocent man, but unlike Joe I don't think the (oxymoronic) methods he takes are anymore beneficial.

 

[BenBurch]

Confessions can be coerced. One case I know of, the fellow was told that if he wrote out a confession, the police could use that to catch the real criminal. He did as asked, and he was convicted. The accused was a person of low mental capacity.

Forensics can be botched, or might not be honest. Both have happened.

The amount of certainty needed to kill somebody is not there.

 

[MattusMaximus]

For all his faults, I have to give props to former governor (now in jail) George Ryan for the initial moratorium on this issue.

Ditto. That one act on his part makes me respect him, despite all of his other scumbaggery. It took real balls to do what he did.

 

[deepatrax]

Confessions can be coerced. One case I know of, the fellow was told that if he wrote out a confession, the police could use that to catch the real criminal. He did as asked, and he was convicted. The accused was a person of low mental capacity.

Forensics can be botched, or might not be honest. Both have happened.

The amount of certainty needed to kill somebody is not there.

this is true.

in fact, I've seen a case where someone admitted to a murder without any coercion, she went in and implicated herself and her boyfriend...because she wanted revenge against her boyfriend.

I don't believe either was sentenced to death...they took plea deals...and they were innocent.

The real serial killer, seeing this, wrote to the media to try and exonerate them...with no success. He killed again...was finally caught...and gave details about the previous murder which finally set the 2 people free.

however, there are cases where we know for certain of a person's guilt. The Dr. William Petit family torture, murder, and rape case in CT for example.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Hypothetical question for deepatrax:

What is an acceptable ratio of guilty-to-innocent death row executions to still justify the death penalty? In other words, pick a ratio...

guilty inmates executed
---------------------------- = ???
innocent inmates executed

... that you might find acceptable. Would 10-to-1 be okay? 100-to-1? 1000-to-1? This, of course, assumes that we find out in hindsight whether or not the executed individual was actually innocent. I'm curious to know your response.

This question is open to any supporters of the current death penalty system, not just deepatrax.

 

[JudeBrando]

Take for example the killers of Dr. William Petit's family in CT and the two men who sexually assaulted, tortured and killed his wife and two daughters in a brutal home invasion.

You want them to have taxpayer funded housing, entertainment, education and food for the rest of their lives.

I want them dead.

Period. Simple.

Or some think that their progress and improvement in justice is that the savage, brutal, ruthless, raping, vicious murderers that took the lives of others without hesitation should keep their own lives.

How come I've never heard of a study discounting the deterrent value of life in prison? Because there is none.

Prompt public gallows would increase deterrence.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Period. Simple.

Or some think that their progress and improvement in justice is that the savage, brutal, ruthless, raping, vicious murderers that took the lives of others without hesitation should keep their own lives.

How come I've never heard of a study discounting the deterrent value of life in prison? Because there is none.

Prompt public gallows would increase deterrence.

JB, care to address my question?

 

[JudeBrando]

Why is it an injustice that Timothy McVeigh is not maintained alive?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Why is it an injustice that Timothy McVeigh is not maintained alive?

It isn't. I have no moral problem with the death penalty. My issue is the implementation.

Now, care to address my question?

 

[JudeBrando]

I had a simple answer for your question, but since you think it's such an urgent gotcha, no, nevermind, I will not bother with your petulant little demand. Maybe tomorrow, if I feel like it and if, by the remotest chance, maybe you asked again nicely and considerately, but I doubt it.