Capital punishment, Thoughts?

[Bomb#20]

You think you can just blatantly replace "society" with "people on the outside" and then argue that I'm saying he's a threat to people on the outside, when I've already made it abundantly clear I'm talking about people on the inside and made a stink about you treating prisoners as not counting as part of society? And you accuse me of a strawman? Geez!

me: can everyone please stop repeating the ridiculous canard that a murderer is no longer a threat to society when he's in prison?

Can you stop repeating the ridiculous notion that violent offenders, being incarcerated in a high security prisons, are a threat to anyone on the outside, housewives doing their shopping, children at play, etc.

At this point, your responses have become so disconnected from the words you are responding to that it looks like it's time for us to agree to disagree.

[backs away slowly]

 

[Bomb#20]

Are you people seriously saying there is literally no way to improve the security of prisons that hold violent inmates, that every single method of minimizing risk has been exhausted already, other than murdering the inmates?

When you say "you people", whom are you referring to?

 

[DBT]

me: can everyone please stop repeating the ridiculous canard that a murderer is no longer a threat to society when he's in prison?

Can you stop repeating the ridiculous notion that violent offenders, being incarcerated in a high security prisons, are a threat to anyone on the outside, housewives doing their shopping, children at play, etc.

At this point, your responses have become so disconnected from the words you are responding to that it looks like it's time for us to agree to disagree.

[backs away slowly]

Whatever. I know what you said. Basically, ''you think you can just blatantly replace "society" with "people on the outside" and then argue that I'm saying he's a threat to people on the outside, when I've already made it abundantly clear I'm talking about people on the inside and made a stink about you treating prisoners as not counting as part of society'' is bullshit.

 

[PyramidHead]

Are you people seriously saying there is literally no way to improve the security of prisons that hold violent inmates, that every single method of minimizing risk has been exhausted already, other than murdering the inmates?

When you say "you people", whom are you referring to?

The contingent that justifies the premeditated killing of a restrained, unarmed inmate as 'self-defense' on the basis that it prevents possible harm to prison guards.

 

[Bomb#20]

The contingent that justifies the premeditated killing of a restrained, unarmed inmate as 'self-defense' on the basis that it prevents possible harm to prison guards.

So, nobody.

 

[PyramidHead]

Great, then we all agree there is no good reason to execute a prisoner.

 

[credoconsolans]

Uh, any time a prisoner is incarcerated he is still a danger to other prisoners and guards.

That danger doesn't go away with life imprisonment. To me, those workers count as general public.

As I've said several times now, prison guards know what they are getting into when they take the job, they are trained to deal with the risk, there are procedures in place. Nor are they in public while at work. Given that safety procedures are followed, there is little risk to the guards. Prisoners are not super human, they can be managed. They are not the Hannibal Lectors of Hollywood.

We can mitigate the danger all together by executing the most heinous of criminals. Just because the corrections people signed on for a dangerous job doesn't mean they're expendable.

What would you suggest? Kill all vioent inmates because they pose a risk to the Guards? That's what you appear to be implying.

Heinous criminals, remember who we're speaking of here.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh, any time a prisoner is incarcerated he is still a danger to other prisoners and guards.

That danger doesn't go away with life imprisonment. To me, those workers count as general public.

By the same logic, quarantined Ebola patients should have just been euthanized on the spot;

Since when is catching a disease a heinous crime?

How about everyone's safety? Prison guards, social servants and other prisoners do count.

If we're talking about everyone's safety, then the safety of the people that you want to kill counts too.

Did you lose sight of who commmitted a heinous crime?

I wonder too about the other ratio: how many innocent people you would kill over how many people you might save.

That's what long appeals process is for.

I tell you what; let's make the appeals process take at least 95 years for all capital cases. If the convict hasn't been proven not guilty after 95 years of appeals, then you can execute him.

At some point, the appeals run out and/or their guilt is easily proven. Then it can be 95 years or 9 years.

- - - Updated - - -

Great, then we all agree there is no good reason to execute a prisoner.

nope.

 

[bilby]

As I've said several times now, prison guards know what they are getting into when they take the job, they are trained to deal with the risk, there are procedures in place. Nor are they in public while at work. Given that safety procedures are followed, there is little risk to the guards. Prisoners are not super human, they can be managed. They are not the Hannibal Lectors of Hollywood.

We can mitigate the danger all together by executing the most heinous of criminals. Just because the corrections people signed on for a dangerous job doesn't mean they're expendable.

What would you suggest? Kill all vioent inmates because they pose a risk to the Guards? That's what you appear to be implying.

Heinous criminals, remember who we're speaking of here.

Those who commit what are arguably the most heinous crimes are not a significant risk to prison guards.

Would you exempt someone who rapes and murders under 5s from the death penalty on the grounds that prison guards are not at risk from such individuals?

If not, then your argument here is deeply flawed.

 

[credoconsolans]

We can mitigate the danger all together by executing the most heinous of criminals. Just because the corrections people signed on for a dangerous job doesn't mean they're expendable.

What would you suggest? Kill all vioent inmates because they pose a risk to the Guards? That's what you appear to be implying.

Heinous criminals, remember who we're speaking of here.

Those who commit what are arguably the most heinous crimes are not a significant risk to prison guards.

Link?

Would you exempt someone who rapes and murders under 5s from the death penalty on the grounds that prison guards are not at risk from such individuals?

If not, then your argument here is deeply flawed.

I don't understand your example. 5s?

 

[bilby]

We can mitigate the danger all together by executing the most heinous of criminals. Just because the corrections people signed on for a dangerous job doesn't mean they're expendable.

What would you suggest? Kill all vioent inmates because they pose a risk to the Guards? That's what you appear to be implying.

Heinous criminals, remember who we're speaking of here.

Those who commit what are arguably the most heinous crimes are not a significant risk to prison guards.

Link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Would you exempt someone who rapes and murders under 5s from the death penalty on the grounds that prison guards are not at risk from such individuals?

If not, then your argument here is deeply flawed.

I don't understand your example. 5s?

'under 5s' - people who have not yet attained their fifth birthday.

 

[credoconsolans]

We can mitigate the danger all together by executing the most heinous of criminals. Just because the corrections people signed on for a dangerous job doesn't mean they're expendable.

What would you suggest? Kill all vioent inmates because they pose a risk to the Guards? That's what you appear to be implying.

Heinous criminals, remember who we're speaking of here.

Those who commit what are arguably the most heinous crimes are not a significant risk to prison guards.

Link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Would you exempt someone who rapes and murders under 5s from the death penalty on the grounds that prison guards are not at risk from such individuals?

If not, then your argument here is deeply flawed.

I don't understand your example. 5s?

'under 5s' - people who have not yet attained their fifth birthday.

Guess we need to define 'heinous'.

As much as I despise rapists and pedophiles, I don't consider their crimes heinous. I would not sentence one to death.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What about people who cut you off in traffic?

 

[bilby]

We can mitigate the danger all together by executing the most heinous of criminals. Just because the corrections people signed on for a dangerous job doesn't mean they're expendable.

What would you suggest? Kill all vioent inmates because they pose a risk to the Guards? That's what you appear to be implying.

Heinous criminals, remember who we're speaking of here.

Those who commit what are arguably the most heinous crimes are not a significant risk to prison guards.

Link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Would you exempt someone who rapes and murders under 5s from the death penalty on the grounds that prison guards are not at risk from such individuals?

If not, then your argument here is deeply flawed.

I don't understand your example. 5s?

'under 5s' - people who have not yet attained their fifth birthday.

Guess we need to define 'heinous'.

As much as I despise rapists and pedophiles, I don't consider their crimes heinous. I would not sentence one to death.

Not even if they then killed their victims to conceal their crimes?

If raping and murdering a toddler isn't heinous, WTF is? It seems that you are arguing for the death penalty, but only for a class of criminals so small that it likely contains zero members; which is pretty much the same as arguing against the death penalty.

 

[DBT]

As I've said several times now, prison guards know what they are getting into when they take the job, they are trained to deal with the risk, there are procedures in place. Nor are they in public while at work. Given that safety procedures are followed, there is little risk to the guards. Prisoners are not super human, they can be managed. They are not the Hannibal Lectors of Hollywood.

We can mitigate the danger all together by executing the most heinous of criminals. Just because the corrections people signed on for a dangerous job doesn't mean they're expendable.

The prison system doesn't consider their guards to be expendable, they know the risks and take steps to compensate. Violent offenders are not superhuman. They can be managed. There are many dangerous occupations where the risks are known and managed. Police on the streets most probably have a harder time than prison guards.

Heinous criminals, remember who we're speaking of here.

So our society has a set of ethics in relation to killing human beings that is no better than that of the problem members themselves...the one's who happen to hold the belief that killing someone is the solution to their problems?

 

[Bomb#20]

Great, then we all agree there is no good reason to execute a prisoner.

If raping and murdering a toddler isn't heinous, WTF is? It seems that you are arguing for the death penalty, but only for a class of criminals so small that it likely contains zero members; which is pretty much the same as arguing against the death penalty.

You guys didn't read post #11?

I'm all for capital punishment.

Execute the heinous murderers. They have it coming and will never endanger anyone ever again. That's what executing them does.
...
Your loved one was raped, tortured and then killed brutally and slowly and oh, we're going to treat that crime no differently that if he stole your wallet at gunpoint.

 

[credoconsolans]

Not even if they then killed their victims to conceal their crimes?

If raping and murdering a toddler isn't heinous, WTF is? It seems that you are arguing for the death penalty, but only for a class of criminals so small that it likely contains zero members; which is pretty much the same as arguing against the death penalty.

Bring murder into it and then yeah, we start moving in the direction of heinous. But heinous has to come into it.

Shoot some other drunk in a bar? Not heinous.
Kill someone in a drug deal gone bad? Not heinous.
Kidnap a child, do horrible things to them and then cut off their head? Heinous.

Kidnap a woman [or man or child], torture her, then rape and murder her? Heinous.

 

[credoconsolans]

So our society has a set of ethics in relation to killing human beings that is no better than that of the problem members themselves...the one's who happen to hold the belief that killing someone is the solution to their problems?

BS. Our society doesn't go around arbitrarily raping and torturing and killing innocent people for no reason. If no one committed such crimes our society wouldn't respond with extreme measures. That does not make society the same as the perp. Not even close.

- - - Updated - - -

We can mitigate the danger all together by executing the most heinous of criminals. Just because the corrections people signed on for a dangerous job doesn't mean they're expendable.

The prison system doesn't consider their guards to be expendable, they know the risks and take steps to compensate. Violent offenders are not superhuman. They can be managed. There are many dangerous occupations where the risks are known and managed. Police on the streets most probably have a harder time than prison guards.

Yet murders still happen in prisons. Obviously 'managed' is relative.

 

[DBT]

BS. Our society doesn't go around arbitrarily raping and torturing and killing innocent people for no reason. If no one committed such crimes our society wouldn't respond with extreme measures. That does not make society the same as the perp. Not even close.

As someone said, there are weeds in every garden. The weeds are not separate from the garden, they grow in the same soil as the flowers.

You may say that gardener should uproot and burn the weeds, but that's a poor analogy because the 'weeds' in this instance are the same species as the 'flowers' - and it is the mark of the best of humanity not to resort to killing other human beings for retribution or expediency.

So, no, it's not BS.

Yet murders still happen in prisons. Obviously 'managed' is relative.

Obviously a better job of management could be done. That is another issue. You are supporting the act of killing for expediency. Not because of what a prisoner does while in prison, but because of what he might do. Which is not justice in any sense of the word.

 

[credoconsolans]

As someone said, there are weeds in every garden. The weeds are not separate from the garden, they grow in the same soil as the flowers.

You may say that gardener should uproot and burn the weeds, but that's a poor analogy because the 'weeds' in this instance are the same species as the 'flowers' - and it is the mark of the best of humanity not to resort to killing other human beings for retribution or expediency.

So, no, it's not BS.

Except most heinous murderers are not "flowers". They are indeed 'weeds' and thus will never BE flowers.

So, yeah it is BS.

Yet murders still happen in prisons. Obviously 'managed' is relative.

Obviously a better job of management could be done. That is another issue.

No, that is pretty much the issue. That is a great excuse for the family whose innocent loved one was murdered by a person already incarcerated so that nothing much can really be done anymore, "Sorry Ms. So-So about your husband's brutal murder. I see we have to implement better management techniques. Oh, well, live and learn..."

 

[Unbeatable]

I don't agree with the argument that punishment is the sort of thing that can even in principle be deserved. Since retributivism is gobbledygook to me, punishment can only be justified on irrational grounds, or consequentialist grounds. So when it comes to using the state to kill prisoners, I'm ambivalent, because I'm not certain of the ratio of positive to negative consequences.