The Death Penalty

[Keith&Co.]

It is part of the evolved human emotional behaviour system.

So is gay pair-bonding, but look where you landed on that issue.

I am a bit dubious about the relative cost. I think the 'higher cost' is because they sit around on death row for 15 years with lawyers' meters ticking which is something we could do without.

Um, mojo? Guys on life sentences also have lawyers. They can still appeal their convictions.

the California penal system published a breakdown and the significant differences in cost for a life-sentence versus seeking the death penalty were in the original court case itself. Not 5 or 10 or 15 years on death row vs. 20-25 years in max security.

And a lot of people in the appeals process are civil servants. They get paid the same whether they do a little bit of work on 4 appeals in a week or 40.

 

[TSwizzle]

On the other hand, I'd be willing to compromise by confining convicted killers/child abusers in solitary on a basic diet, and a cyanide tablet always within reach so they can repent in their own time and by their own hand.

There was a recent case in a Scandinavian country that covered this scenario. I forget the details but the convicted murderer (life sentence I think) had gone to court to be allowed to kill himself. I think it was initially granted then struck down. Or something. If I come across it again, I'll update.

 

[dystopian]

I apologise. It had completely slipped my mind that you are the grand authority on "innate human psychology". Please accept my sincerest apologies.

Apology accepted.

I don´t think it´s possible. It´s the lack of freedom that kills the soul. Even if they´d get to sleep in bouncy castles with candid sugar for breakfast and and strippers every night it´s still not life. Humans need freedom to thrive. Not a lot of freedom. Just a little. Even if it´s just the option to say "fuck it" and walk away. But prisons give no freedom at all. It kills the soul and destroys what is human in the human.

There you go again, deciding for everyone one else. First of all, let's not use terminology like the 'soul', okay? Secondly, I don't even know where to begin with the notion that it 'destroys' what is 'human' in the human. That's is such mindboggingly vague handwaving that it's barely even worth thinking about. Besides, most people who've been to prison manage to adjust back into society and life in general well enough; which of course completely dismantles the notion that what you've been saying is some sort of absolute law of prison psychology. You can't just get your 'humanity' back if its been *destroyed*.

It´s torture. the lack of freedom destroys the mind and the soul. There´s no way to polish that turd enough to make it something other than torture. The fact that there are degrees of torture, doesn´t make this less torture. Prisons fosters the idea that a person is competely impotent in every way.

Even if that were true (and it isn't true a priori, even if individual prison systems might foster this sort of thinking) it still isn't torture. Getting your fingernails torn out while someone pushes a hot poker into your eyesocket is torture; lack of freedom is not. If it were, then any student below the age of 18 experiences torture on a daily basis. And while many of them may claim just that, the rest of know better. You're just confusing your own inability to deal with the psychology of a situation with torture. Those of us who've actually had our freedoms taken from us in a meaningful way (whether through prison or something similar) know better than to try and pretend we've experienced suffering on the same level as those who've undergone actual torture.

Ok, fine, then I´m absurd. As if people who are dead don´t suffer any more, is an argument for anything. What annoys me is that prison is seen as "the humane option". It´s just as fucking barbarous as execution, and I´ll have none of it. At least the death penalty wastes peoples time minimally.

Let´s agree to disagree.

You want to kill people.

So yeah, let's *not* agree to disagree. If I wouldn't let a serial killer murder people because he thinks they're better off dead, what the fuck makes you think I'd let you get away with the exact same thing because you think they're not worse off dead than alive? What you're proposing is the exact same thing that serial killer does... with the exception that he'd have a lower bodycount.

There´s a time and place to get all philosophical. This aint´t one of them. We´re talking about psychological impacts here. There´s nothing rational about human feelings. Philosophy is not going to help you understand this situation.

If the discussion about whether or not we should kill people isn't the time to get philosophical, then there will never be a time to get philosophical. Besides, you've got some nerve justifying killing people based on what you think are universal human feelings while flat-out refusing to allow people to decide for *themselves* what they're feeling.

You´re talking like a guy who just poured acid all over a woman who rejected him "hey, I spared her life. Now I´m the bad guy here?" It´s nuts.

Wait. What? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? How is saying that people have a right to go on living if they so choose even REMOTELY equivalent to your example?

I´ve had the opportunity to learn.

That tells me nothing. It COULD mean that you've been in prison yourself (which would just be your personal anecdotal experience), or it could mean you've just googled some random sites. Why don't you explain, in detail, how you know these things?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I haven't read the thread, but here is a small portion of my views on capital punishment.

I voted no. I am not categorically opposed to killing. If I lived in a small group or tribe where survival was difficult, I may think it appropriate to kill dangerous people. Imprisoning them is not practical, and letting them go free is not safe. Other options likely exist, and I'd be willing to explore those, but killing the offender would be under consideration as an expedient means of (hopefully) containing the situation as much as possible. That said, I'd still be concerned on the impact on the group dynamic, especially if I was the only person certain of the offender's guilt, or if that offender's kin didn't accept the sentence. There's no easy answer.

But in a much larger, industrialized society like Canada, I don't want to authorize the state to carry out the death penalty. Our justice system is imperfect. Wrongful convictions occur. It's largely unnecessary. It doesn't seem to improve society in any way. Granted, paying for a murderer or serial rapist or some other heinously violent offender to be a ward of the state for the remainder of their life is an unfortunate way to spend tax dollars, but there are other places we could likely save money before implementing some sort of expedited capital punishment scheme (to avoid potentially lengthy and costly appeals processes). I do not feel it is the state's job to exact vengeance on behalf of victims or that the death penalty compensates anyone for their loss.

There hasn't been an execution in Canada in roughly half a century, but I don't think society has suffered for it. Violent crime has gone up and down at times, but it's been a pretty safe and stable country in all my life time.

 

[Cerberus]

I haven't read the thread, but here is a small portion of my views on capital punishment.

I voted no. I am not categorically opposed to killing. If I lived in a small group or tribe where survival was difficult, I may think it appropriate to kill dangerous people. Imprisoning them is not practical, and letting them go free is not safe. Other options likely exist, and I'd be willing to explore those, but killing the offender would be under consideration as an expedient means of (hopefully) containing the situation as much as possible. That said, I'd still be concerned on the impact on the group dynamic, especially if I was the only person certain of the offender's guilt, or if that offender's kin didn't accept the sentence. There's no easy answer.

But in a much larger, industrialized society like Canada, I don't want to authorize the state to carry out the death penalty. Our justice system is imperfect. Wrongful convictions occur. It's largely unnecessary. It doesn't seem to improve society in any way. Granted, paying for a murderer or serial rapist or some other heinously violent offender to be a ward of the state for the remainder of their life is an unfortunate way to spend tax dollars, but there are other places we could likely save money before implementing some sort of expedited capital punishment scheme (to avoid potentially lengthy and costly appeals processes). I do not feel it is the state's job to exact vengeance on behalf of victims or that the death penalty compensates anyone for their loss.

There hasn't been an execution in Canada in roughly half a century, but I don't think society has suffered for it. Violent crime has gone up and down at times, but it's been a pretty safe and stable country in all my life time.

Notwithstanding the point I made a few posts back (that with cctv and forensics it is possible to prove beyond any doubt the guilt of someone?), I submit that in the unlikely event there is the slightest doubt of guilt, then the death penalty should not be carried out. Trouble with the custodial option, though, is that a convicted offender could escape and kill, or rape a child, again. This makes me wonder: if it were possible to foresee it, would someone who's against capital punishment in all circumstances now change their mind knowing that this notional escapee is fated to commit an identical crime against a member of their own family?

 

[dystopian]

Notwithstanding the point I made a few posts back (that with cctv and forensics it is possible to prove beyond any doubt the guilt of someone?)

Actually, neither CCTV nor forensic (nor the combination thereof) can guarantee someone's guilt. Video images can never provide a 100% positive identification, and you're hugely overestimating modern forensic science if you're under the impression it could establish guilt beyond any and all doubt.

Trouble with the custodial option, though, is that a convicted offender could escape and kill, or rape a child, again.

Sure, they MIGHT escape... though if you maintain and run your prisoners properly that's a very minor concern.

And sure, after they hypothetically escape they MIGHT commit their crimes again... or they might not.

However, what MIGHT happen is not a valid reason for killing them.

This makes me wonder: if it were possible to foresee it, would someone who's against capital punishment in all circumstances now change their mind knowing that this notional escapee is fated to commit an identical crime against a member of their own family?

It is not, however, possible to foresee it. Besides, there's a huge glaring flaw in your scenario: if it's possible to foresee that someone will escape and kill a member of a specific family (or indeed, kill anyone at all)... you can just prevent their escape to begin with. You don't need to kill them for that. Unless you seriously expect prisons to be so utterly and completely incompetent that we might as well get rid of them entirely.

"Uh oh, the prisoner has escaped."

"The one we foresaw would do exactly that followed by murdering some very specific individual?"

"That's the one."

"Didn't we foresee how he would escape!?"

"You'd think so, given this foresight was apparently accurate enough to specify exactly who he's going to kill even though they've never met or have any link whatsoever. But no, the vision/foresight/whatever was remarkably vague on that point."

"If only we just paid special attention to this prisoner and increase security!"

"Well, that would've been pointless, obviously, since it was already foreseen."

"Oh that makes... wait, what about that guy on some internet forum who kept saying this particular foresight meant we ought to kill the prisoner to prevent the foresight/vision from coming true?"

"Yeah, we should've listened to him."

"No, no... if preventing the prisoner's escape by taking sensible security measures was impossible because he was fated to escape... would it not be impossible to kill him anyway since that would be messing with fate?"

"...dude, I'm a prison guard, not a philosopher."

"Well, are we at least going to warn the person he's fated to kill? Maybe move them out of the country?"

"What? No, it's too late now."

"But there's got to be at least a 1000 miles between them still!"

"Dude, it's fated."

 

[Cerberus]

Actually, neither CCTV nor forensic (nor the combination thereof) can guarantee someone's guilt. Video images can never provide a 100% positive identification, and you're hugely overestimating modern forensic science if you're under the impression it could establish guilt beyond any and all doubt.

Unless you can provide the evidence or a scenario where those two means of evidence cannot conclusively provide the 100% proof needed, thereby persuading me that I'm wrong, then we'll obviously have to disagree.

Sure, they MIGHT escape... though if you maintain and run your prisoners properly that's a very minor concern.

And sure, after they hypothetically escape they MIGHT commit their crimes again

Well it isn't at all unknown for an escapee - or even a parolee - to commit their crimes again, so I don't really know where you're coming from.

However, what MIGHT happen is not a valid reason for killing them.

Obviously not, but what DOES happen is.

It is not, however, possible to foresee it.

Well I know that!! It's why I made a point of saying 'If it were possible . . . '

Besides, there's a huge glaring flaw in your scenario: if it's possible to foresee that someone will escape and kill a member of a specific family (or indeed, kill anyone at all)

Well it isn't possible, so your assertion is meaningless.

... you can just prevent their escape to begin with.

Well DUH! - prisons usually do try to prevent their inmates from escaping! But shit happens?

You don't need to kill them for that. Unless you seriously expect prisons to be so utterly and completely incompetent that we might as well get rid of them entirely.

See above, where I said 'But shit happens'!

"Uh oh, the prisoner has escaped."

"The one we foresaw would do exactly that followed by murdering some very specific individual?"

"That's the one."

"Didn't we foresee how he would escape!?"

"You'd think so, given this foresight was apparently accurate enough to specify exactly who he's going to kill even though they've never met or have any link whatsoever. But no, the vision/foresight/whatever was remarkably vague on that point."

"If only we just paid special attention to this prisoner and increase security!"

"Well, that would've been pointless, obviously, since it was already foreseen."

"Oh that makes... wait, what about that guy on some internet forum who kept saying this particular foresight meant we ought to kill the prisoner to prevent the foresight/vision from coming true?"

"Yeah, we should've listened to him."

"No, no... if preventing the prisoner's escape by taking sensible security measures was impossible because he was fated to escape... would it not be impossible to kill him anyway since that would be messing with fate?"

"...dude, I'm a prison guard, not a philosopher."

"Well, are we at least going to warn the person he's fated to kill? Maybe move them out of the country?"

"What? No, it's too late now."

"But there's got to be at least a 1000 miles between them still!"

"Dude, it's fated."

Fanciful and meaningless purple prose worthy of being ignored.

 

[dystopian]

Unless you can provide the evidence or a scenario where those two means of evidence cannot conclusively provide the 100% proof needed, thereby persuading me that I'm wrong, then we'll obviously have to disagree.

You're reversing the burden of proof. Which is hugely ironic given the subject matter.

*You* are going to have to prove that those two means of evidence *can* in fact prove beyond even the remotest doubt that someone is guilty.

Well it isn't at all unknown for an escapee - or even a parolee - to commit their crimes again, so I don't really know where you're coming from.

It's also not unknown for them to NOT commit their crimes again, so I really don't know where *you* are coming from. You're proposing killing people on the off chance that they might escape (a slim chance at best) and the off chance on top of that they might commit their crime again. If we're going to start killing people on remote possibilities then we might as well start doing the same with car owners, since the chances of them killing someone in a car crash are far far higher than a murderer escaping and killing again.

Obviously not, but what DOES happen is.

Nope, not a priori.

Well I know that!! It's why I made a point of saying 'If it were possible . . . '

You should've come up with a less plot-hole filled scenario then.

Well it isn't possible, so your assertion is meaningless.

Okay, but then that also means your original argument is meaningless. Are you okay with that?

Fanciful and meaningless purple prose worthy of being ignored.

If you think that's either fanciful or "purple prose", then I really have to wonder what kind of thrash you're used to reading. Also, if one genuinely thinks something is to be ignored, one would actually just ignore it instead of declaring that it's worthy of being ignored.

 

[Cerberus]

You're reversing the burden of proof. Which is hugely ironic given the subject matter.

*You* are going to have to prove that those two means of evidence *can* in fact prove beyond even the remotest doubt that someone is guilty.

Well it isn't at all unknown for an escapee - or even a parolee - to commit their crimes again, so I don't really know where you're coming from.

It's also not unknown for them to NOT commit their crimes again, so I really don't know where *you* are coming from. You're proposing killing people on the off chance that they might escape (a slim chance at best) and the off chance on top of that they might commit their crime again. If we're going to start killing people on remote possibilities then we might as well start doing the same with car owners, since the chances of them killing someone in a car crash are far far higher than a murderer escaping and killing again.

Obviously not, but what DOES happen is.

Nope, not a priori.

Well I know that!! It's why I made a point of saying 'If it were possible . . . '

You should've come up with a less plot-hole filled scenario then.

Well it isn't possible, so your assertion is meaningless.

Okay, but then that also means your original argument is meaningless. Are you okay with that?

Fanciful and meaningless purple prose worthy of being ignored.

If you think that's either fanciful or "purple prose", then I really have to wonder what kind of thrash you're used to reading. Also, if one genuinely thinks something is to be ignored, one would actually just ignore it instead of declaring that it's worthy of being ignored.

But putting all that aside for a moment, how would you feel if your child were to be murdered or violated by an escaped or paroled prisoner?

 

[credoconsolans]

Which has fuck-all to do with what we're talking about.

Here's another one: self-defense

Which also, has fuck-all with what we're talking about.

Two ways society protects itself by killing people. And we find we're OK with it. That IS what we're talking about, right?

Sorry, you said "If you knew a thing or two about basic inmate/guard psychology and the way prisons are run..." And I do.

No, you just think you do because you know a guy. Which is about as convincing as someone claiming to understand brain surgery because they know a surgeon.

Really? You're comparing brain surgery and guarding prisoners? Really?

I actually know someone who works in the system and you don't. So my POV has some more real life experience. So you shouldn't be trying to discount what I say.

First off, when did you establish I don't know someone who works in the system? I could know a dozen such people and you wouldn't have any way of knowing. Not that it matters whether I or you do; see point three below.

If you did, you would have said so by now. You haven't.

Secondly, *your* point of view does *not* have more real life experience; the point of view of the person you know does.

Which he shared.

Thirdly, you're still trying to push anecdotal evidence, which doesn't impress anyone.

But still someone relating their real-life experiences, which you don't have.

Yeah it does. Basically, prisoners are a danger to their guards. Period.

Except for the part where EVERY job has an element of danger. The link you provided does nothing to suggest that being a prison guard is inherently more dangerous than other jobs

Every job? Really? Being a kindergarten teacher has the same level of danger as a prison guard?

Don't deflect. That wasn't the argument.

You made a pro-death penalty argument on the basis of prisoners being a danger to prison guards. You don't get to claim I'm "deflecting" when I point out that being a prison guard is statistically a lot safer than a fuck-tonne of other jobs. Any argument that is based on the dangers of a job falls apart when it's shown that said job is not, in fact, all that dangerous. You're asking us to be okay with killing people on the off-chance that they MIGHT hurt a prison guard: which wouldn't be a morally agreeable thing even if the chances of them doing so were almost a certainty; but in fact the chances of it happening are so low as to be statistically trivial. How about we *not* kill people on the basis of danger posed to prison guards when being a prison guard is about as likely to get you killed as being a fucking insurance agent?

Except if you read those statistics I posted, the chances are not the same. Duh.

Now, now, don't be mad because I blew your argument out of the water, just admit you were wrong.

You couldn't provide what I actually *asked* for; how exactly did you 'blow' *anything* out of the water? You presented something that in no shape or form represent even remotely what I asked for; and which isn't even an example of what you think it is.

Just admit you're wrong, trying to argue your way out of your statement won't work.

And I've just given you examples where a murdered woman's life is worth about 5 years in prison, compared to fraud and escape attempts which brought about a 125 year sentence.

No, you didn't. You gave an example where someone was given a life sentence for murder, which you've somehow mentally reduced to five years on the sole basis of the murderer being eligible for parole after serving five years of said sentence. I already explained to you that being eligible for parole is not the fucking same as getting it.

He was eligible for parole in 5 years. FIVE. Why are other murderers not eligible for parole in 27 years or 45 years?

Chances are really good, he's going to get that parole in 5 years because of how leniently they're treating his crime.

Even if he does actually get it, how does this demonstrate that not having the death penalty means society doesn't treat murder as more heinous as property crime?

Excuse me? Five years for murder? HELLO!!!!

You just presented a comparison of a society *WITH* the deathpenalty not doing so. So... how exactly would repealing the death penalty change anything? You're shooting yourself in the foot with this argument.

Huh? What are you talking about? I'm FOR the death penalty. This guy would not get out in five years. He would never get out. Big enough difference for you?

Nonsense. Prisons not being about punishment doesn't imply we should therefore put them up in a luxury hotel. Although I imagine you would characterize European prisons as exactly that.

So you're FOR putting murderers up at fancy hotels?

So, I explicitly tell you that "prisons not being about punish doesn't imply we should therefore put them up in a luxury hotel.... and you somehow interpret this to mean that I'm for putting them up at fancy hotels?

How did your brain actually learn human language? I'm seriously curious.

So, not a luxury hotel? How about a Motel 6? In tents so they're like, camping, like everyone else how HASN'T done a heinous crime does for pleasure? Do you even read what you're writing?

 

[dystopian]

Two ways society protects itself by killing people. And we find we're OK with it. That IS what we're talking about, right?

Two ways quite different from the death penalty.

Really? You're comparing brain surgery and guarding prisoners? Really?

No, I'm comparing the claim that you understand one of those because you know a guy with understanding the other because you know a guy.

But still someone relating their real-life experiences, which you don't have.

Apart from all the personal accounts by prison guards I've read, of course. How exactly those personal accounts, which certainly number greater than 1, are outweighed by your "this guy I know" story is beyond me.

Every job? Really? Being a kindergarten teacher has the same level of danger as a prison guard?

What part of me saying that every job has *a* element of danger leads you to conclude that I was saying that being a kindergarten teacher is just as dangerous as being a prison guard? Indeed, I directly linked to a report on fatalities among a variety of jobs in the US; so why would you seriously ask me such a rhetorical question when by linking the report I've already answered that question in the negative? The point I made wasn't that being a prison guard and kindergarten teacher are equally dangerous; it was that there are plenty of jobs in the US more dangerous than prison guards, including many jobs you wouldn't traditionally think of as dangerous.

Except if you read those statistics I posted, the chances are not the same. Duh.

Except the statistics you posted actually *proved* what I was saying. No really. The link you provided gave an annual fatality rating for prison staff that is WELL BELOW that of many other jobs that are not traditionally regarded as unsafe. Do you not actually understand the statistics you linked when compared to the same statistics for other jobs?

Just admit you're wrong, trying to argue your way out of your statement won't work.

It does if you neither understood what evidence was asked of you nor managed to ensure that the evidence you actually provided was convincing. Why should I admit that I'm wrong when I'm not?

He was eligible for parole in 5 years. FIVE. Why are other murderers not eligible for parole in 27 years or 45 years?

Why don't you ask the judge? The man appealed, which presumably led to a lower sentence which automatically results in eligibility for parole after a specified time has been served. The rules governing this process are different for each state. It has nothing to do with 'leniency' and everything with procedure. Take it up with the state laws. However, as I already explained and can't believe I have to explain again: your argument is irrelevant. Eligibility for parole is not the same as parole.

Excuse me? Five years for murder? HELLO!!!!

You're engaging in an emotional argument and are mixing things up here. He still got a life sentence even if he was paroled after only five years. The sentence he received shows that society does in fact treat his crime as more heinous than simple property damage as he wouldn't otherwise be given a life sentence. The fact that he'd (hypothetically) be released on parole after five years is simply a procedural matter which itself has no bearing on what we're talking about other than it triggers some misguided sense of injustice in you.

Huh? What are you talking about? I'm FOR the death penalty. This guy would not get out in five years. He would never get out. Big enough difference for you?

Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? You're arguing for the deathpenalty on the basis that not having it is like us treating murder as equally heinous as property crime. However, to support this argument you provide an example from a country that DOES have the deathpenalty: but according to the example you provide and your own logic this example in fact proves that jurisdictions *with* the death penalty are just as capable of not treating murder as more heinous than property crime. As such, your argument defeats itself.

So, not a luxury hotel? How about a Motel 6? In tents so they're like, camping, like everyone else how HASN'T done a heinous crime does for pleasure? Do you even read what you're writing?

Do you?

 

[dystopian]

But putting all that aside for a moment, how would you feel if your child were to be murdered or violated by an escaped or paroled prisoner?

First, I think it's interesting how you flat out ignore all the arguments against what you were saying... so that you can come up with a half-assed "but what if it's someone you KNOW!?" argument.

Secondly, I imagine I'd feel pretty confused since I don't have any children.

 

[Cerberus]

But putting all that aside for a moment, how would you feel if your child were to be murdered or violated by an escaped or paroled prisoner?

First, I think it's interesting how you flat out ignore all the arguments against what you were saying... so that you can come up with a half-assed "but what if it's someone you KNOW!?" argument.

And a perfectly reasonable argument it is too? It's the kind of killer question which makes the liberal suddenly stop and actually think!

Secondly, I imagine I'd feel pretty confused since I don't have any children.

Now that declaration alone speaks volumes.

 

[dystopian]

And a perfectly reasonable argument it is too? It's the kind of killer question which makes the liberal suddenly stop and actually think!

It is not a reasonable argument, no. It is a cheap appeal to emotion, designed to override reason by triggering instinctual responses. Of course, it fails to actually accomplish this goal if the other person is even remotely capable of controlling their own emotions in favor of the more rational position, or simply lacks the instincts you're trying to trigger. Even should it somehow manage to trigger the desired response in someone, it does nothing to actually logically prove or disprove any position. So no, not a reasonable argument in the context of a rational debate. It's the mental equivalent of punching someone in the face in order to get a response from them beyond the casual contempt they show your opinion by disagreeing with it.

Now that declaration alone speaks volumes.

Does it? There's billions of people on the planet who don't have any children, for all sorts of reasons. My declaration speaks to nothing other than the fact that I don't have children. Your own declaration in response, however, does suggest a thing or two about the way your mind operates.

 

[4321lynx]

It is not a reasonable argument, no. It is a cheap appeal to emotion, designed to override reason by triggering instinctual responses. Of course, it fails to actually accomplish this goal if the other person is even remotely capable of controlling their own emotions in favor of the more rational position, or simply lacks the instincts you're trying to trigger. Even should it somehow manage to trigger the desired response in someone, it does nothing to actually logically prove or disprove any position. So no, not a reasonable argument in the context of a rational debate. It's the mental equivalent of punching someone in the face in order to get a response from them beyond the casual contempt they show your opinion by disagreeing with it.

Now that declaration alone speaks volumes.

Does it? There's billions of people on the planet who don't have any children, for all sorts of reasons. My declaration speaks to nothing other than the fact that I don't have children. Your own declaration in response, however, does suggest a thing or two about the way your mind operates.

Your posts, yours and Cerberus', speak volumes about each of you; incomplete perhaps, but still vo-o-olumes.

 

[fromderinside]

Your posts, yours and Cerberus', speak volumes about each of you; incomplete perhaps, but still vo-o-olumes.

Would it be fair to say either "what's love, or, what's sex got to do with it? We are dealing within a religious/moral enclosure here rather than a rational one. Apparently we're wired to take belief over evidence. That's probably because we haven't be able to treat evidence systematically until the last few thousand years. Which says billions of amino acids about everything we're talking about.

 

[dystopian]

Your posts, yours and Cerberus', speak volumes about each of you; incomplete perhaps, but still vo-o-olumes.

Perhaps. I'd be curious to hear what you think it says about me; assuming it would actually be an objective analysis instead of passive aggressive projecting.

 

[credoconsolans]

Two ways quite different from the death penalty.

Not the way I see it. IMO, all three are self defense.

Really? You're comparing brain surgery and guarding prisoners? Really?

No, I'm comparing the claim that you understand one of those because you know a guy with understanding the other because you know a guy.

Because understanding brain surgery is soooooooooooooooo much the same as understanding guarding prisoners.

But still someone relating their real-life experiences, which you don't have.

Apart from all the personal accounts by prison guards I've read, of course. How exactly those personal accounts, which certainly number greater than 1, are outweighed by your "this guy I know" story is beyond me.

You're reading 3rd, 4th and 5th hand accounts. I'm getting it directly from the 1st person.

Every job? Really? Being a kindergarten teacher has the same level of danger as a prison guard?

What part of me saying that every job has *a* element of danger leads you to conclude that I was saying that being a kindergarten teacher is just as dangerous as being a prison guard?

Because that's what you implied. So I just pointed out how ridiculous that comparison was.

Except if you read those statistics I posted, the chances are not the same. Duh.

Except the statistics you posted actually *proved* what I was saying. No really. The link you provided gave an annual fatality rating for prison staff that is WELL BELOW that of many other jobs that are not traditionally regarded as unsafe. Do you not actually understand the statistics you linked when compared to the same statistics for other jobs?

I think you skipped over the first section which distinctly shows prison guards have a much higher risk than other jobs.

He was eligible for parole in 5 years. FIVE. Why are other murderers not eligible for parole in 27 years or 45 years?

Why don't you ask the judge?

Why should I have to? Heinous crime treated the same as a property crime seems pretty clear cut to me.

Excuse me? Five years for murder? HELLO!!!!

You're engaging in an emotional argument and are mixing things up here.

A fact stated is not an 'emotional' argument.

He still got a life sentence even if he was paroled after only five years.

So how exactly is being able to get out in 5 years a terrible 'life sentence'?

Huh? What are you talking about? I'm FOR the death penalty. This guy would not get out in five years. He would never get out. Big enough difference for you?

Not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? You're arguing for the deathpenalty on the basis that not having it is like us treating murder as equally heinous as property crime. However, to support this argument you provide an example from a country that DOES have the deathpenalty: but according to the example you provide and your own logic this example in fact proves that jurisdictions *with* the death penalty are just as capable of not treating murder as more heinous than property crime. As such, your argument defeats itself.

Resorting to name-calling means you're losing the argument and so are resorting to attacking the other person. Try reading it again.

So, not a luxury hotel? How about a Motel 6? In tents so they're like, camping, like everyone else how HASN'T done a heinous crime does for pleasure? Do you even read what you're writing?

Do you?

You didn't answer the question.

 

[dystopian]

Not the way I see it. IMO, all three are self defense.

Except for how they're not. One of them is warfare; which *can* be self-defense but certainly doesn't have to be. One of them is actual self-defense; which duh, of course is going to be self-defense. As for the deathpenalty, that very clearly is *not* self defense since self-defense requires the presence of an immediate threat from which one is defending oneself. There is no immediate threat involved with a murderer who has been imprisoned; therefore it can not be defined as self-defense.

Because understanding brain surgery is soooooooooooooooo much the same as understanding guarding prisoners.

Do you even realize you're insulting your friend here?

Beyond that, I don't think you understand the consequences of what you're trying to argue here.

Either being a prison guard is a complex enough job that one can not simply claim to understand/grasp it because you know a prison guard.

Or it's not complex enough for that; which means it doesn't fucking matter whether you know a prison guard and I don't since we are equally capable of understanding the job without such testimony.

You're reading 3rd, 4th and 5th hand accounts. I'm getting it directly from the 1st person.

Do you not... understand the meaning of these terms? If I read an account written by a prison guard... I'm reading a 1st person account; the only difference between me reading a prison guard's own account and you hearing you prison guard's friend account is that the person who'se account I'm exposing myself to has actually had the time to properly formulate his thoughts.

Because that's what you implied.

No, I did not.

I think you skipped over the first section which distinctly shows prison guards have a much higher risk than other jobs.

No, it doesn't. What it shows is that prison guard is a job that has a higher risk for non-fatal injuries than average. Prison guard is still a safer job than many other jobs even if we look only at non-fatal injuries (we've already established it's safer than many other jobs when looking at fatalities).

Why should I have to?

Oh, so you didn't genuinely want to know the answer to an actual question.

A fact stated is not an 'emotional' argument.

I don't know, when you end sentences with no less than four exclamation marks, that sure seems like an emotional outburst to me. And of course you weren't stating a fact; you were conflating a life sentence with early eligibility for parole after five years with a five year sentence. So what you actually did was state the opposite of a fact.

So how exactly is being able to get out in 5 years a terrible 'life sentence'?

You are once again confusing matters. The judge handed down a life sentence; the fact that the system is designed in such a way to make prisoners eligible for parole after a set period of time if they behave themselves and the parole board believes it reasonable to grant said parole does nothing to demonstrate anything about whether or not society does not consider the crime itself more heinous than property crime. The fact remains he was sentenced to life. The issue you have isn't with the sentence he received, it's with the parole system that you think is unfair (and which, I might add, you have repeatedly demonstrated to not understand the mechanics of)

Resorting to name-calling means you're losing the argument

A claim which, ironically, is usually thrown around by people who can't manage to actually address their opponent's arguments and who try to tell themselves that the casual contempt expressed for them by their opponent is not the result of their own arguments being weak and easily defeated but rather because the opponent is losing. In reality of course, the use of name-calling does not really mean someone is losing an argument. If someone keeps insisting that 2+2 equals 3, then the fact that I call him an idiot has absolutely no bearing on the the validity of my arguments that 2+2 equals 4. Just because the idiot in question would rather think I'm the one who'se wrong doesn't mean I actually am, nor does it mean that he isn't an idiot.

You didn't answer the question.

I am disinclined to indulge your strawmen fantasies.

 

[4321lynx]

Your posts, yours and Cerberus', speak volumes about each of you; incomplete perhaps, but still vo-o-olumes.

Perhaps. I'd be curious to hear what you think it says about me; assuming it would actually be an objective analysis instead of passive aggressive projecting.

Sorry. You could not afford my extortionate fee for my expert opinion and I suspect you would not value it, sufficiently enough to satisfy my unreasonable ego, if I made you a present of it,