Illinois Abolishes the Death Penalty

[deepatrax]

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)

sure we do.

There are people who admit their guilt and it's known they are guilty because they are caught in the act.

btw, I was responding to I Am The Scum who was stipulating that was true in his question.

to your points...

1) irrelevant to the issue and example
2) completely misses my point: Is it good, just and moral to allow society to be punished for this man's acts for decades by having taxpayers fund his food, clothing, housing and entertainment?

 

[deepatrax]

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

You know that is a gross misrepresentation of what I've said.

pathetic.

 

[Lowpro]

Joe you just read that last part wrong. An innocent man is innocent of a crime for which must be committed, THAT is what your whole argument relies on. It relies on the execution of a man who did not commit the crime for which he was tried, that also means that whoever did commit the crime, the guilty person, is not currently on death row for said crime

That's a lot of spelling out I've had to do for you. Now stop being so petulant, please, and no one watches Matlock anymore dude.

Look your argument hinges on the "...but what if we're wrong" tag. You have no problem with the institution of locking a man up for life because as long as he's alive he has a lifetime to be proven innocent because you can't rest on anything other than 100% certainty. I do get that, and I also know that it's all but impossible to achieve. I could use that argument the other way though and say "if we don't have 100% certainty how do we have any right to lock up anyone." I mean if you think it's a fair argument do use uncertainty as the ultimate argument against the death penalty, then why can't we apply it to petty theft?

 

[Lowpro]

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.

You gotta start reading the whole thread man, I was responding to IATS earlier equivalence to amputation.

 

[Arcade22]

The death penalty might have been more efficient back in the age when people just dragged the guilty party out of the courtroom to the guillotine, but no sensible person would ever want to emulate that.

In many cases the people in the pro-death camp seems to just want to kill someone to sate their sadistic tendencies, human decency and compassion be damned.

 

[Lowpro]

The death penalty might have been more efficient back in the age when people just dragged the guilty party out of the courtroom to the guillotine, but no sensible person would ever want to emulate that.

In many cases the people in the pro-death camp seems to just want to kill someone to sate their sadistic tendencies, human decency and compassion be damned.

Probably not but it makes for an emotional speech there Glenn Beck.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

sure we do.

There are people who admit their guilt and it's known they are guilty because they are caught in the act.

There have been plenty of false confessions and coerced confessions. [ETA: in fact, I believe I already mentioned that one of the arguments death penalty proponents have used is that threat of the death penalty can be used to coerce confessions.]

And "caught in the act" is another way of saying the evidence we relied on is eyewitness testimony--probably the least reliable evidence there is.

 

[deepatrax]

There have been plenty of false confessions and coerced confessions. [ETA: in fact, I believe I already mentioned that one of the arguments death penalty proponents have used is that threat of the death penalty can be used to coerce confessions.]

And "caught in the act" is another way of saying the evidence we relied on is eyewitness testimony--probably the least reliable evidence there is.

I must ask then...

Why do you think all of these seemingly numerous innocent people should even be incarcerated for Life?

shouldn't they all be set free...based on your logic?

 

[Lowpro]

Seriously, for a moment let's just let me throw this out there:

Man who kills my friend goes to prison and is executed.

Man who kills my friend goes to prison for life

I see no difference in the outcome. Joe wants the second case because again, he lives by the tagline "...but what if we're wrong" and uses the principle of uncertainty in his argument. He doesn't care about methodology to determine the case; no matter how far 99.9999% certainty is, he'll piss all over it.

It doesn't matter to me that much, but because it doesn't matter too much to me, I don't care which truly occurs. I just want to be able to tell Tanya "He's dead now, he can't do anything anymore"

It's fundamentally different from saying "He's alive, I can't tell you what he can do next, but I can tell you he's in prison" where obviously no one can...escape...communicate...see or bother anyone...

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.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe you just read that last part wrong. An innocent man is innocent of a crime for which must be committed, THAT is what your whole argument relies on. It relies on the execution of a man who did not commit the crime for which he was tried, that also means that whoever did commit the crime, the guilty person, is not currently on death row for said crime

I understood you the first time. But you're simply wrong.

Just because a person is convicted of a crime does NOT mean another person can't be convicted of the same crime.

That's a lot of spelling out I've had to do for you. Now stop being so petulant, please, and no one watches Matlock anymore dude.

No, you really don't understand how criminal law works.

Look your argument hinges on the "...but what if we're wrong" tag.

No it doesn't. I've given several arguments, though the one we've spent the most time on is the fact that we can never know for sure that a convict is guilty.

You've ignored my other arguments--such as the fact that for no extra benefit (compared to life in prison) the death penalty is often applied in a biased way. (That's actually 2 or 3 arguments rolled together. The no extra benefit one should stand alone. Racial/ethnic bias should be one. SES bias should be one.)

You have no problem with the institution of locking a man up for life because as long as he's alive he has a lifetime to be proven innocent because you can't rest on anything other than 100% certainty.

Where did I say I have no problem with that? When we convict a person it is beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no problem with a life sentence since we can correct the conviction if new evidence comes to light. But we do believe our verdicts. But belief isn't knowledge. If we get new evidence I am in favor of reversing convictions when new evidence comes to light.

I definitely have a problem with knowingly keeping an innocent person in prison.

I could use that argument the other way though and say "if we don't have 100% certainty how do we have any right to lock up anyone." I mean if you think it's a fair argument do use uncertainty as the ultimate argument against the death penalty, then why can't we apply it to petty theft?

Because beyond a reasonable doubt is certainty enough for a reversible sentence.

You really don't seem able to grasp this point. Can you please acknowledge that there is a difference between the death penalty and all other sentences in that only one is completely unreversible? You can free a person wrongly imprisoned if new evidence comes to light. You can't bring a dead man back to life, no matter how much evidence comes to light.

 

[I Am The Scum]

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)

So here's my argument against amputating jaywalkers.

1. If an action causes one to lose one or more limbs/organs, and that action has no sufficient purpose, then that action is immoral.
2. The "jaywalking penalty" does have those qualities.
C. Therefore, the jaywalking penalty is immoral. (modus ponens^WP)

This is pretty simple. Most everyone would agree that in some cases, amputating a limb can be justified, such as when it involves saving someone's life. It's important to note here that jaywalking is fairly irrelevant to the above argument. It just so happens to be that "because they jaywalked" does not suffice as a reason to do them any harm. If anyone wanted to argue that it did, then I would be forced to inquire just what that reason is.

At this point, you may have some idea how this relates to the topic at hand. All I'm going to do is switch some words around.

1. If an action causes one to die, and that action has no sufficient purpose, then that action is immoral.
2. The death penalty does have those qualities.
C. Therefore, the death penalty is immoral. (modus ponens^WP)

Now, I wouldn't blame you if you weren't so willing to accept this argument, so I'll go over it in more detail this time around.

Logically, the conclusion does follow from the premises, if they are true. Let's take a look at them.

Premise 1 is very easy. When one kills another for a bad reason, we call that murder, and we all agree that murder is wrong.

I should point out that this raises the question over whether or not there is such a thing as a good reason to kill another person. I would say that there is, such as in cases of self defense (and if need be, I will illustrate why). However, that's not terribly relevant to the argument, here. Even a hardcore pacifist would agree with premise 1.

So that only leaves us with premise 2 to contest. Obviously, capital punishment does cause death (it is not called the death penalty for ironic reasons). So is there sufficient reason? The one that's currently being tossed around in the thread is that the person in question has killed another. I'm willing to accept that as true, but it is insufficient, because it cannot possibly be sufficient. This is because it is not possible for statements of facts, in and of themselves, to provide sufficient reason for proper behavior. Hume referred to this as the is-ought gap^WP. If this last part seems confusing, or even downright absurd, I wouldn't blame you for seeing it that way. I'm willing to go into more detail if necessary.

Another possible reason that you mentioned is that you might get some degree of satisfaction out of knowing that the individual is no longer alive. When one kills another for the pleasure of it, we call that murder, and we all agree that murder is wrong.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Seriously, for a moment let's just let me throw this out there:

Man who kills my friend goes to prison and is executed.

Man who kills my friend goes to prison for life

I see no difference in the outcome.

I understand why you see no difference. It's because in your hypothetical you have assumed something not possible in real life: certain knowledge of the facts.

BTW, do you think ALL murderers should get the death penalty? Even in states that have the death penalty, that isn't the case--not even close. What do you think should determine who gets it and who doesn't?

 

[I Am The Scum]

You know that is a gross misrepresentation of what I've said.

pathetic.

Up until this post, you had made 14 posts in this thread. 9 of them mentioned money. If this is not a central tenet of your argument, then you have a funny way of showing it. For the second time in as many days, I must remind you that you should not blame others when your obfuscation leaves others perceiving you a fool.

 

[Lowpro]

No it doesn't. I've given several arguments, though the one we've spent the most time on is the fact that we can never know for sure that a convict is guilty.

You've ignored my other arguments--such as the fact that for no extra benefit (compared to life in prison) the death penalty is often applied in a biased way. (That's actually 2 or 3 arguments rolled together. The no extra benefit one should stand alone. Racial/ethnic bias should be one. SES bias should be one.)

I'm going to have to say this. These other arguments mean absolutely nothing. Racial bias, also knows as racial institution deserves awareness in the lower convictions, not the death penalty. All these are are extensions of the "...but what if we're wrong" tagline of yours, only "...seriously guys, institutionalized racism exists, we have more to worry about being wrong"

The bias of those whom the death penalty is extolled doesn't factor into the argument, at least not to me. What matters is the death penalty itself, whether it should exist at all or not.

I understood you the first time. But you're simply wrong.

Just because a person is convicted of a crime does NOT mean another person can't be convicted of the same crime.

No crap sir, I know that, but that's not a factor either. If the innocent person gets proven innocent later and the guilty man is then tried and given the same penalty (death) then you obviously must be AGAINST the death penalty even if it's for the guilty man. You can't have this argument, I'm sorry.

 

[deepatrax]

1. If an action causes one to die, and that action has no sufficient purpose, then that action is immoral.

I already gave you a purpose:

So that person is no longer a burden on Society.

The fact that you don't like this purpose doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Two thirds of Americans support the Death Penalty. You're in the minority.

When one kills another for the pleasure of it, we call that murder, and we all agree that murder is wrong.

Murder is a legal term. The Death Penalty, when done by the State where legal, therefore CANNOT be called Murder.

 

[Lowpro]

I understand why you see no difference. It's because in your hypothetical you have assumed something not possible in real life: certain knowledge of the facts.

BTW, do you think ALL murderers should get the death penalty? Even in states that have the death penalty, that isn't the case--not even close. What do you think should determine who gets it and who doesn't?

I've said it many times for I AM THE SCUM, I'll say it for you too since you've not been reading everything.

I don't care about the other cases of the death penalty, I care about one. A case I am familiar with. A case that involved the rape and murder of a friend of mine. The murderer harassed the family for weeks, verbally and physically. He was convicted for sexual assault, rape, and premeditated murder, all at once might I add (that's how we got it, and he acquitted based on the timeframe, that FIRST he burglarized her apartment, found the girl, didn't rape her, just killed her (proof sustained however that he did rape her) took her body and threw it in the woods. He argued that FIRST it was a burglary, he STOPPED the burglary entirely, then just killed her. You see by skipping the sexual assault charges he wouldn't be committed for death because the judgment required he commit rape AND murder)

THAT...is what it takes to get a death penalty verdict and that's what it takes to get one from me.

I am against institutionalized racism, I'm all too familiar with it. Bias means nothing to my feelings towards the death penalty because bias never played a role in my familiarity with the subject itself. Forgive me, but I am not a good opponent for you to make your case.

 

[deepatrax]

Up until this post, you had made 14 posts in this thread. 9 of them mentioned money. If this is not a central tenet of your argument, then you have a funny way of showing it. For the second time in as many days, I must remind you that you should not blame others when your obfuscation leaves others perceiving you a fool.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Because if so, tell me and I'll try to simplify things for you so you can understand them.

If I need to dumb down my comments so can grasp them, please just let me know.

Let me try and help you...

Implementing the Death Penalty against a known rapist, torturer and murderer so that he is no longer a burden on Society DOES NOT EQUATE TO paying an assassin to murder someone!

get it now??

I knew that you would.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So that person is no longer a burden on Society.

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.

Two thirds of Americans support the Death Penalty. You're in the minority.

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

Murder is a legal term. The Death Penalty, when done by the State where legal, therefore CANNOT be called Murder.

It's not just a legal term. Stop equivocating.

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

 

[Lowpro]

So here's my argument against amputating jaywalkers.

1. If an action causes one to lose one or more limbs/organs, and that action has no sufficient purpose, then that action is immoral.
2. The "jaywalking penalty" does have those qualities.
C. Therefore, the jaywalking penalty is immoral. (modus ponens^WP)

This is pretty simple. Most everyone would agree that in some cases, amputating a limb can be justified, such as when it involves saving someone's life. It's important to note here that jaywalking is fairly irrelevant to the above argument. It just so happens to be that "because they jaywalked" does not suffice as a reason to do them any harm. If anyone wanted to argue that it did, then I would be forced to inquire just what that reason is.

At this point, you may have some idea how this relates to the topic at hand. All I'm going to do is switch some words around.

1. If an action causes one to die, and that action has no sufficient purpose, then that action is immoral.
2. The death penalty does have those qualities.
C. Therefore, the death penalty is immoral. (modus ponens^WP)

Now, I wouldn't blame you if you weren't so willing to accept this argument, so I'll go over it in more detail this time around.

Logically, the conclusion does follow from the premises, if they are true. Let's take a look at them.

Premise 1 is very easy. When one kills another for a bad reason, we call that murder, and we all agree that murder is wrong.

I should point out that this raises the question over whether or not there is such a thing as a good reason to kill another person. I would say that there is, such as in cases of self defense (and if need be, I will illustrate why). However, that's not terribly relevant to the argument, here. Even a hardcore pacifist would agree with premise 1.

So that only leaves us with premise 2 to contest. Obviously, capital punishment does cause death (it is not called the death penalty for ironic reasons). So is there sufficient reason? The one that's currently being tossed around in the thread is that the person in question has killed another. I'm willing to accept that as true, but it is insufficient, because it cannot possibly be sufficient. This is because it is not possible for statements of facts, in and of themselves, to provide sufficient reason for proper behavior. Hume referred to this as the is-ought gap^WP. If this last part seems confusing, or even downright absurd, I wouldn't blame you for seeing it that way. I'm willing to go into more detail if necessary.

Another possible reason that you mentioned is that you might get some degree of satisfaction out of knowing that the individual is no longer alive. When one kills another for the pleasure of it, we call that murder, and we all agree that murder is wrong.

I see, you want there to be a utility to the death penalty, and without utility it is immoral (I wish there was a sarcasm font)

I'm afraid I cannot provide any (quick) statistics either way and my preferred direction would obviously be the utility of the death penalty, which I can surmise at this moment with no other forethought that killing a killer makes him unable to act at all, that includes killing again.

That's utility. HOWEVER, then comes the jaywalking scenario. If we cut off his legs, he can never jaywalk again. Same utility.

One of these ideas doesn't give the proper solemnity to death, capital punishment institutions, or the fact that removing a person's legs for jaywalking just screams deleterious because simply put, jaywalking isn't murder. They do not weight the same in our moral compass (i hope) which is why the proposed argument you put forth scum is ridiculous. However I'm sure it's ridiculous because you want it to be, because you want people to equate the two without considering them.

You can't just change the words and expect both to be equal.

EDIT: INCOMING FALLACY RIDDLED LOGIC FOR WHICH FALLACY NAMES I AM SURE NOT TO KNOW (BUT SURE YOU DO)

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.

I mean who am I to take my own experiences for which have only been a measly 5 years of my life (far too long, kill the guy already!) and try to reason it to an institution which has existed for a long time (we're talking about the death penalty), but I also want to point out when I started talking in this thread, I wanted to point out that we should talk from the current (of an everchanging) zeitgeist. That is how I'm arguing here, I'm arguing from my personal experiences and methods. I am not arguing from the philosophies of yourself, so do not be surprised when I say that this moral equivalence B.S. is not something I tolerate very well.

 

[Arcade22]

I already gave you a purpose:

So that person is no longer a burden on Society.

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.