Death penalty is wrong, this is why..

CFLarsen said:
That's precisely what I went with: One percentage was twice as large as the other. 1:2.

Now, I know that you just wrote a lot of zero's and thought it looked impressive. It does, but not the way you thought.

Now, if you say there is a 0.00000002% of being murdered, it means that, out of a population of 300 million, there are 0.06 homicides in all. So, you have already eradicated homicides as a possible crime. The basis of your calculation is equivalent to 1 homicide each 16 years.

Your percentages are not just grabbed from thin air, they are also totally unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Yes my numbers were invented for illustrative purposes. UNfortunately your math was just wrong.

I didn't talk about the chance of being killed.. I talked about the REDUCTION in chance of being killed.

The two figures I quoted don't divide to mean anything. Please stop killing math fairies with your bizarre statistics.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
I have a feeling this is coming down to the number of wrong convictions (unknown) vs the deterrent effect (unknown)

Not really helping is it?
Click to expand...

Not quite.

We know that the deterrent effect is....well....not there.

One known factor (no deterrence) vs an educated guess (there are innocents on death row).

Does that help?
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
Yes my numbers were invented for illustrative purposes. UNfortunately your math was just wrong.

I didn't talk about the chance of being killed.. I talked about the REDUCTION in chance of being killed.

The two figures I quoted don't divide to mean anything. Please stop killing math fairies with your bizarre statistics.
Click to expand...

Don't criticize me for going with your fairytale figures.
 
CFLarsen said:
Not quite.

We know that the deterrent effect is....well....not there.

One known factor (no deterrence) vs an educated guess (there are innocents on death row).

Does that help?
Click to expand...

Well thats basically why I am anti-death penalty right now. However, I don't believe those studies to be conclusive which is why I am open to evidence/arguments such as I hope Darth Rotor would provide but didn't.

I do not argue for moral absolutes such as '1 innocent person killed cannot be justified'
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
Well that would be an argument against allowing them to have contact with other people or for greater security in prisons.

I'm pretty sure you could design a prison that eliminate these 2 issues though I'm not sure how human rights friendly they would be.
Click to expand...

In addition to the human rights violations, and addressing the cost/benefits issue, they would be even more expensive to build, staff, and maintain than ordinary jails.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
Well that would be an argument against allowing them to have contact with other people or for greater security in prisons.

I'm pretty sure you could design a prison that eliminate these 2 issues though I'm not sure how human rights friendly they would be.

I have a feeling this is coming down to the number of wrong convictions (unknown) vs the deterrent effect (unknown)

Not really helping is it?
Click to expand...
:) It's not an easy problem.

As Hitchen's says, "Our pre-frontal lobes are too small and our adrenaline glands are too big".

I suspect that when reason trumps emotion we will not have a death penalty.

Intuitively I'm pro-death penalty. Intellectually I'm anti.

Carry on, it's an important discussion.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
Well thats basically why I am anti-death penalty right now. However, I don't believe those studies to be conclusive which is why I am open to evidence/arguments such as I hope Darth Rotor would provide but didn't.

I do not argue for moral absolutes such as '1 innocent person killed cannot be justified'
Click to expand...

Last of the Fraggles said:
No..please go with them. Just don't mangle them like you did.

Since both figures I used are unknown.. do you have better estimates?
Click to expand...

First, your figures are not estimates, but merely numbers pulled out of thin air, with no relevance to the real world.

Second, do you really think pulling numbers out of thin air make a valid argument against what you call a "moral absolute"?

Is it not a fundamental idea of modern legal systems that no innocent must be in jail (let alone be executed)?

If you want to argue that it is OK that just 1 innocent person killed (or even in jail), then it is up to you to find arguments. But don't pull numbers out of thin air and expect that to be enough.
 
CFLarsen said:
Is it not a fundamental idea of modern legal systems that no innocent must be in jail (let alone be executed)?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. No, I'm certain that it is not a fundamental idea of modern legal systems.

On the contrary, I believe that the fundamental idea is that a just society is one that is willing to err on the side of caution to let a hundred guilty go free than one innocent man be punished.

BTW, the "hundred" isn't really a hard and fast figure. No such metric exists. Clearly society can't construct an error proof justice system. No such system is possible given human dynamics. Letting all guilty people go free to avoid the incarceration of a single innocent person is not justice.

So, humans device a system that ostensibly errs on the side of the innocent and not the victim (innocent until proven guilty). It's an imperfect system that is only as good as the citizens and their willingness to speak up on behalf of the accused rights to a fair trial.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
Well if you are only considering the outcome then moral or immoral are meaningless. The fact is that in the one case the intent was very different to the other. One did not intend to kill an innocent person and the other did.
Click to expand...

No.
The other ( for example, this husband ) intented to kill a person he knew was not innocent
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
NO it doesn't mean 'better' ... where are you getting this nonsense?

It means that its been generally agreed by society and that it is open to inspection and 'change' is people object to the way things work. Vigalante justice is not open to this. Your specific case is meaningless as it is not in any way representative of any murder case ever tried or ever will be.
Click to expand...

In this particular case, at the end of a fair judgment, why a justice which has " generally agreed by society and that it is open to inspection and 'change' is people object to the way things work " should be granted instead of the justice of a person ( the husband ) who really knew how things went?
 
RandFan said:
I'm at a complete loss. I guess I will have to read the other posts but where have you demonstrated anything? Is your argument simply an appeal to individual sense of morality? If so then you have demonstrated nothing.

Perhaps you simply want to discuss the issue. If so I'm not very taken with your example. It doesn't really present any profound moral dilemmas. It's simply a garden variety one caused by the application of societal rules and the understandable hurt and traumatized state of a person who witnessed that which he most loves destroyed. We might as well discuss the ocean tides.

Do you have a better example?

Oh, BTW, let me answer your question. It's a simple one that is not at all controversial.

To society the action is immoral.
To the individual the action is both rational and moral.

Any more questions?
Click to expand...

Well, I am not sure if you read all, but my point was really to prove that death penalty is a non-sense.

About your last point, I can not see how you can differentiate this:
To society the action is immoral.
To the individual the action is both rational and moral.

Morality is one.

Did the husband behave in a moral or immoral way?

We know all the details, if his behaviour was moral, then, when caught, he should not be sent to death, or jail for a long time.
But, this way, you would condone a person who murdered an innocent ( the burglar, who, for the law, was innocent ).
If the husband behaviour was immoral, then, you have to tell why, if the jury did sent to death the burglar, that would have been " moral ".
Why the husband no, and the jury yes?
 
Matteo Martini said:
Morality is one.
Click to expand...
Says who?

Did the husband behave in a moral or immoral way?
Click to expand...
It depends on your relative point of view. Moral or immoral to whom?

We know all the details, if his behaviour was moral, then, when caught, he should not be sent to death, or jail for a long time.
Click to expand...
Moral to whom? It is immoral to society. It is in the interest of society to to see vigilante justice as immoral. It is not necessarily in the best interest of the individual.

Morality is not in any way an absolute.

But, this way, you would condone a person who murdered an innocent ( the burglar, who, for the law, was innocent ).
Click to expand...
Innocence is a legal concept. If I see my father murder my mother and he is found "not guilty" I don't have to pretend that it didn't happen. Nor to I have to pretend that it is moral or just that my father got away with killing my mother.

You are looking for an absolute standard that does not and cannot exist.

If the husband behaviour was immoral...
Click to expand...
Immoral to whom?

...then, you have to tell why, if the jury did sent to death the burglar, that would have been " moral ".
Click to expand...
You are trying to reconcile two different view points. They cannot be reconciled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom