Tookie Williams: clemency denied

[ImaginalDisc]

Fair enough, but I fail to see why pushing for the most reliable justice system possible precludes a death penalty. You treat it as if the one naturally follows from the other; I don't see that at all.

If you argue that the possibility of a wrongful execution precludes capital punishment, then what possible distinction can you draw between that and abolishing incarceration? You ask me what a life is worth; let me ask you what 40 years of your life is worth.

You're taking a leap of faith no matter what you do, but it's the same leap of faith you take when you trust the person standing next to you on the train platform not to shove you in front of a locomotive. Acceptable risks are an everyday phenomenon, we just rarely notice them.

Yes. However, I would not shove someone infront of a train, no matter how sure I was that they deserved it.

 

[Freakshow]

Yes. However, I would not shove someone infront of a train, no matter how sure I was that they deserved it.

But does that actually mean that you think no one deserves being shoved in front of a train?

Saying "No one should have this happen to them, even if they deserve it" is of course different from saying "No one deserves this".

I can understand the concept of "No one deserves this." I can't understand the concept of "No one should have this happen to them, even if they deserve it." Because "should have this happen" is the very definition of "deserve", is it not?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Comparing death to spending time in jail or a fine is a false and dishonest comparison.

Not at all. All three are punishmentsof differing severities used for differing severities of crime. Paint graffiti on a building you get a fine, rob a bank you get jail time, brutally murder someone and you get executed. Just as their are differing levels of severity of crime, there are (and should be) differing levels of punishemnt. I do not agree with eliminating one of those levels just because it is 'worse' than one of the others.

I agree, certain crimes. But I don't trust the state to find genuine guilt all the time, which is why I am against the implementation of the death penalty.

But you trust them to completely remove your freedom? I don't trust the state to find guilt with absolute certainty either. In fact I don't trust anyone else for that matter. Dispensation of justice, however, is one of the things that we bother to have governments for. Are they perfect in that capacity? Not at all. I defy you to tell me who is, though.

Ahh, state sanctioned murder of innocent people is now "unfortunate". You surprise me Nyarlathotep, I thought you were better than that.

Actually, when it comes to the state murdering innocent people, the fact that it is sometimes wrongly applied is the best reason for abolishing it.

Mistakes are made. Mistakes will ALWAYS be made with or without the death penalty. Nothing you or I or anyone else can do about it.

 

[Jocko]

Yes. However, I would not shove someone infront of a train, no matter how sure I was that they deserved it.

I'm sure you wouldn't. Point is, you rely on literally hundreds of people to come to that same conclusion every day, in a thousand little ways, even when you occasionally hear about someone actually pushing someone in front of a train. You know it's an absurdly remote possibility so you don't worry about it.

 

[Tony]

Fair enough, but I fail to see why pushing for the most reliable justice system possible precludes a death penalty. You treat it as if the one naturally follows from the other; I don't see that at all.

If you argue that the possibility of a wrongful execution precludes capital punishment, then what possible distinction can you draw between that and abolishing incarceration? You ask me what a life is worth; let me ask you what 40 years of your life is worth.

You're taking a leap of faith no matter what you do, but it's the same leap of faith you take when you trust the person standing next to you on the train platform not to shove you in front of a locomotive. Acceptable risks are an everyday phenomenon, we just rarely notice them.

It's been what 20 mins? And you've already contradicted your earlier statement:"I don't celebrate an execution, but I will celebrate the fulfillment of justice, in whatever form." You don't celebrate justice, if you did, you wouldn't be so blasé with the prospect of one of your innocent fellow Americans being murdered by the state. If one innocent person is executed by the state, theres no justice no matter how many guilty people are rightfully punished. You're just increasing the amount of innocent people being killed, either by the state or by criminals.

It takes a warped mind to think more innocent deaths=justice.

 

[Jocko]

It takes a warped mind to think more innocent deaths=justice.

No, it takes a warped anarchist like yourself to use an excuse like "the system is fallible" to arrive at the "obvious" conclusion that the system should not exist.

I've contradicted nothing, Tony, my idea of justice is the same now as it was an hour ago, a year ago, and a year from now. The only thing that's changed is how you choose to read it; and that, frankly, is not my problem.

 

[Ian Osborne]

That's a great piece of mind-reading. Are you going to apply for the million?

How about sharing what's on your mind instead of launching into ad-homs?

 

[Tony]

Not at all. All three are punishments of differing severities used for differing severities of crime.

That doesn't matter. Paying a fine is, in no way, comparable to death. The two are fundamentally different.

But you trust them to completely remove your freedom?

Huh?

Dispensation of justice, however, is one of the things that we bother to have governments for. Are they perfect in that capacity? Not at all. I defy you to tell me who is, though.

This is a red herring. If you allow innocent people to be killed, there is no justice and the government has failed in its job.

How about a compromise? If someone is executed and later found to be innocent. Lets make the judge in the case, the DA, the arresting police and detectives and the governor of the state stand trial for murder and receive the same punishment.

Mistakes are made. Mistakes will ALWAYS be made with or without the death penalty. Nothing you or I or anyone else can do about it.

Umm, yes we can do something about it. Lets make it to where certain serious mistakes (like killing innocent people) aren't made. I know it doesn't satisfy your bloodlust, but at least less innocent people would be killed. Do you think less innocent people being killed is a bad thing?

 

[Tony]

No

It doesn't? So it is perfectly healthy to believe that more innocent people being killed=justice? Look at all the "justice" being done here:

(a note to Jacko: be careful you don't get too excited)

But its ok, a real murderer was killed for every innocent person in this picture.

it takes a warped anarchist like yourself to use an excuse like "the system is fallible" to arrive at the "obvious" conclusion that the system should not exist.

Heh, you support the state killing innocent people and you employ lame strawmen. Who'd-a-thunk-it?

I've contradicted nothing, Tony, my idea of justice is the same now as it was an hour ago, a year ago, and a year from now.

Sorry. Now I know that your idea of justice always included killing innocent people. I won't make that mistake again.

 

[Manny]

So what are you saying? You support the implementation of the death penalty regardless of whether innocent people will die?

Just for perspective's sake, please place the following data sets, which have very little if anything to do with each other, in order from least fatalities to most, counting from the reinstatement of the death penalty to the end of 2004 (unless another time period is noted). As a baseline, the number of executions in the United States since the death penalty was reinstated is 1,000:

Persons executed by the state after trial and appeal.
Persons killed by police officers where the ruling was justifiable homicide.
Infants and young children killed by automobile airbags after they were required by law but before parents were warned not to place children in the front seat.
Police officers killed in the line of duty.
Persons killed by asbestosis while mining asbestos, a government-required fire protectant.
Persons killed by the swine flu vaccinations in 1976.

 

[Tony]

Just for perspective's sake, please place the following data sets, which have very little if anything to do with each other, in order from least fatalities to most, counting from the reinstatement of the death penalty to the end of 2004 (unless another time period is noted). As a baseline, the number of executions in the United States since the death penalty was reinstated is 1,000:

Persons executed by the state after trial and appeal.
Persons killed by police officers where the ruling was justifiable homicide.
Infants and young children killed by automobile airbags after they were required by law but before parents were warned not to place children in the front seat.
Police officers killed in the line of duty.
Persons killed by asbestosis while mining asbestos, a government-required fire protectant.
Persons killed by the swine flu vaccinations in 1976.

I don't have time for your false analogies and red herrings. Just state your point.

 

[Jocko]

I don't have time for your false analogies and red herrings. Just state your point.

Oh, come on, I think your reply above proves you have PLENTY of time for false analogies and red herrings.

Oh, and thanks to Godwin's, I just won this thread.

 

[Manny]

Yes you do. You have nothing but time.

But OK. Government does things all the time which cost innocent people their lives in the pursuit of what it believes to be other goals. Over 8,000 people have been shot dead by police officers since the death penalty was reinstated. All without a trial or appeal. Do you think more or fewer of them were innocent? Should we take guns away from cops? More infants and toddlers were killed by government-mandated airbags than convicts were executed. And every single one of them was wholly innocent. Should the government stop mandating automobile safety because they got that one wrong?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

That doesn't matter. Paying a fine is, in no way, comparable to death. The two are fundamentally different.

Good thing I am not saying they are comparable then. Death is the harshest punishment our justice system metes out, a fine is pretty much the lightest. You brought the severity of the punishment into the discussion (i.e. by saying that death is worse than imprisonment, so the death penalty should be discontinued)) I merely pointed out that such logic fails because you can also point out that imprisonment is worse than a fine.

Huh?

Imprisonment is the removal of all freedom. I asked why you do not trust the government to decide guilt whent he punishment is death but you do when the punishment is the removal of all freedom. IF your answer is you trust the government in neither case, then I don't see how "I don't trust the government" can be used as an argument in favor of imprisonment over death.

This is a red herring. If you allow innocent people to be killed, there is no justice and the government has failed in its job.

How about a compromise? If someone is executed and later found to be innocent. Lets make the judge in the case, the DA, the arresting police and detectives and the governor of the state stand trial for murder and receive the same punishment.

I don't agree. Imperfect justice <> no justice. As long as people are imperfect then justice will be imperfect.

As for you compromise, sure if it could be proven they acted maliciously. However I think they already can be punished in such an instance. In cases of good faith errors, they could never do their job if they were given such a harsh penalty for errors. errors will happen.

So lets do something about it. Lets make it to where certain serious mistakes aren't made. I know it doesn't satisfy your bloodlust, but at least less innocent people would be killed. Do you think less innocent people being killed is a bad thing?

And what serious mistakes ARE being made. The whole reason we give people on death row years and years to make appeals is exactly that, to weed out any serious mistakes. How many innocent people do you really think ARE killed?

 

[Tony]

Yes you do. You have nothing but time.

What other super powers do you posses?

Do you think more or fewer of them were innocent?

Maybe.

Should we take guns away from cops?

Probably.

More infants and toddlers were killed by government-mandated airbags than convicts were executed. And every single one of them was wholly innocent.

Were those infants and toddlers deliberately killed as a matter of policy by the government? If so, can you provide evidence of the deliberate government drive to kill infants? Otherwise, this analogy is false.

Should the government stop mandating automobile safety because they got that one wrong?

False analogy. I have confidence you're smart enough to see how.

 

[Freakshow]

Were those infants and toddlers deliberately killed as a matter of policy by the government? If so, can you provide evidence of the deliberate government drive to kill infants? Otherwise, this analogy is false.

Only if the government has a drive to deliberately execute innocent people.

 

[Tony]

Good thing I am not saying they are comparable then.

Why didn't you say that in your last post? When I said comparing those punishments to each was dishonest and false, you said "Not at all".

Death is the harshest punishment our justice system metes out, a fine is pretty much the lightest. You brought the severity of the punishment into the discussion (i.e. by saying that death is worse than imprisonment, so the death penalty should be discontinued)) I merely pointed out that such logic fails because you can also point out that imprisonment is worse than a fine.

The severity of the punishment wasn't my logic. My point was that an innocent death is much worse than an innocent person in jail. "Severity" had nothing to do with it. My logic is that life is preferable to death because a life sentence can be reversed. Death cannot.

I asked why you do not trust the government to decide guilt whent he punishment is death but you do when the punishment is the removal of all freedom.

When did I say I did? For the record, I don't trust the government to decide guilt when the punishment is life in prison.

IF your answer is you trust the government in neither case, then I don't see how "I don't trust the government" can be used as an argument in favor of imprisonment over death.

You don't see how "I don't trust the government" can be used as an argument to keep the government from killing an innocent person? You have a low regard for innocent life.

I don't agree. Imperfect justice <> no justice. As long as people are imperfect then justice will be imperfect.

This is a cop-out. I agree with you here, but you think this is a reason to allow the government to kill innocent people, I think it's a reason to end the death penalty. I'm willing to make the imperfection less damaging.

The whole reason we give people on death row years and years to make appeals is exactly that, to weed out any serious mistakes. How many innocent people do you really think ARE killed?

1 person is too many.

 

[Tony]

Only if the government has a drive to deliberately execute innocent people.

Umm, it does. Unless you're telling me that the death penalty isn't a deliberate policy?

 

[Manny]

Umm, it does. Unless you're telling me that the death penalty isn't a deliberate policy?

Of course it is. But the deliberate part is killing guilty people. You seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm in error, that the death penalty is fatally (heh) flawed because it may have the undesired outcome of also killing some unknown but tiny number of innocent people. That argument does not hold water unless one is an anarchist. Governments do lots of things all the time which have the unintended effect of killing innocent people in furtherance of a larger goal (say, preventing a swine flu epidemic or reducing automobile fatalities or protecting the citizenry from criminals). But no one (other than anarchists and deluded woos) says "stop vaccinating people because some innocent people will die from it" -- indeed, anti-vac types are widely and correctly derided on these boards. But it's a fact -- more innocent people died from the single year of swine flu vaccinations than innocent people were killed by execution in this country since the death penalty was reinstated. So it can't be the possibility of innocent people dying alone that serves as an objection to the death penalty.

 

[RandFan]

Umm, it does. Unless you're telling me that the death penalty isn't a deliberate policy?

? Yes, it is deliberate but not deliberate to kill innocent people.