Hopper
Banned
Cmon, Mo! Tellz us a tale or two, eh!? You're the onliest one who has the book, ya know?
My argument for the death penalty...
- Thread starter prodigy
- Start date
Cmon, Mo! Tellz us a tale or two, eh!? You're the onliest one who has the book, ya know?
Hopper
Banned
I admit, any book with the title "Stiffs," is worth goin out to steal. But I'm just too lazy right now, eh, Mo? Tellz us a tale!
Edit: Kay, I see now thatcha added a little addendum to your first post, eh, Mo? 40 heads, all in pans...I wanna see that my own damn self, now!
Edit: Kay, I see now thatcha added a little addendum to your first post, eh, Mo? 40 heads, all in pans...I wanna see that my own damn self, now!
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
Anyways, to kinda git back on topic a little bit, accordin to that there New Scientist article, if you're gittin ready to buy the farm, decapitation aint a bad way to go:
"Beheading, if somewhat gruesome, can be one of the quickest and least painful ways to die - so long as the executioner is skilled, his blade sharp, and the condemned sits still."
But, ya know what? It aint a good as Old Sparky, that's what:
"In accidental electrocutions, usually involving low, household current, the most common cause of death is arrhythmia, stopping the heart dead. Unconsciousness ensues after the standard 10 seconds. The electric chair was designed to produce instant loss of consciousness and painless death - a step up from traditional hangings - by conducting the current through the brain and the heart."
"Beheading, if somewhat gruesome, can be one of the quickest and least painful ways to die - so long as the executioner is skilled, his blade sharp, and the condemned sits still."
But, ya know what? It aint a good as Old Sparky, that's what:
"In accidental electrocutions, usually involving low, household current, the most common cause of death is arrhythmia, stopping the heart dead. Unconsciousness ensues after the standard 10 seconds. The electric chair was designed to produce instant loss of consciousness and painless death - a step up from traditional hangings - by conducting the current through the brain and the heart."
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
Probably not no more better than a firin squad, neither, they sez:
"If carried out properly, execution by firing squad is a "humane," relatively painless and extremely swift but fairly messy way to kill a human being. If the executioners aim at head, a single hit in the brain, especially at the brain stem, is usually immediately fatal. Since the bullets are faster than neural impulses, it is unlikely the convict will feel any pain. Likewise, a shot at heart is likely to kill the convict immediately.
"If carried out properly, execution by firing squad is a "humane," relatively painless and extremely swift but fairly messy way to kill a human being. If the executioners aim at head, a single hit in the brain, especially at the brain stem, is usually immediately fatal. Since the bullets are faster than neural impulses, it is unlikely the convict will feel any pain. Likewise, a shot at heart is likely to kill the convict immediately.
Were you looking for the silliest arguments at your diposal?
Unavoidable, at any rate. Executions can be avoided.
Usual disclaimer: IANAL, all interpretations are amatuer.
If through your negligence, you cause the death of a person in a car accident, you can be charged with manslaughter.
If through your negligence, you cause the death of a person in a hunting accident, you can be charged with manslaughter.
If through your negligence, you cause the death of an innocent person by successfully prosecuting them in a capital case, you can't be charged, and are very unlikely to be sanctioned at all, as long as you don't lie while in court.
If through your delberate actions, you cause the death of a person in a car accident, you can be charged with murder.
If through your delberate actions, you cause the death of a person in a hunting accident, you can be charged with murder.
If through your deliberate actions, you cause the death of an innocent person by successfully prosecuting them in a capital case, you can't be charged, and are very unlikely to be sanctioned at all, as long as you don't lie while in court.
So, the comparison of falsely executing people to people dying in accidents is not apt.
Unavoidable, at any rate. Executions can be avoided.
Usual disclaimer: IANAL, all interpretations are amatuer.
If through your negligence, you cause the death of a person in a car accident, you can be charged with manslaughter.
If through your negligence, you cause the death of a person in a hunting accident, you can be charged with manslaughter.
If through your negligence, you cause the death of an innocent person by successfully prosecuting them in a capital case, you can't be charged, and are very unlikely to be sanctioned at all, as long as you don't lie while in court.
If through your delberate actions, you cause the death of a person in a car accident, you can be charged with murder.
If through your delberate actions, you cause the death of a person in a hunting accident, you can be charged with murder.
If through your deliberate actions, you cause the death of an innocent person by successfully prosecuting them in a capital case, you can't be charged, and are very unlikely to be sanctioned at all, as long as you don't lie while in court.
So, the comparison of falsely executing people to people dying in accidents is not apt.
Fact-free assertions.
How does it differ from places where the supposed deterrent exists? If you compared similar locations with similar economic factors, and different capital punishment statutes, is there a difference in the murder rate?
Well, I'd like to see even an anecdote of someone who said, "If this state had the death penalty, I would never have committed this murder, because I thought I would be caught and that it was worth serving life in prison".
How does it differ from places where the supposed deterrent exists? If you compared similar locations with similar economic factors, and different capital punishment statutes, is there a difference in the murder rate?
Well, I'd like to see even an anecdote of someone who said, "If this state had the death penalty, I would never have committed this murder, because I thought I would be caught and that it was worth serving life in prison".
Hopper
Banned
Well, Eric, a few things:
1. The deliberate, intended results of an act are not considered "accidents"
2. Not all accidents are caused by the negligence of another party, and I wasn't limiting it to those kinds of accidents.
3. People who negligently injure others are not subject to criminal punishment. Like individuals, the State(s) has frequently paid compensation to persons wrongly convicted by gross negligence
4. Every possible danger can be "avoided." Crime can be completely eliminated easily, just abolish all laws.
Hopper
Banned
How would such an anecdote have any relevance to someone who never commited murder because he was deterred by the fear of punishment?
Hopper
Banned
Depending on what you mean by "deliberate actions" here, this is either a bogus comparison or just plain false.
Anyone who frames somebody, perjures themselves, or commits some other unlawful action which results in, or even contributes to, a wrongful conviction is subject to criminal punishment.
Anyone who acts deliberately in seeking a conviction (as all prosecutors do) but in good faith and without deception can not, and SHOULD not, be criminally punished. That is not a fair comparison to someone who has commited premeditated murder.
Very few things, indeed.
I agree. An execution is never an accident.
I don't recall saying which type of accidents you meant. I was only saying that in certain accidents, criminal culpability applies. This is not true for prosecutors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence
It is not limited to homicide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide
It does not prosecute prosecutors who act negligently.
The danger here is a fatal mistake by the state that seems to provide no benefit to the community, besides satisfying a sense of vengeance. Not all dangers are for equally trivial reasons.
I agree. An execution is never an accident.
I don't recall saying which type of accidents you meant. I was only saying that in certain accidents, criminal culpability applies. This is not true for prosecutors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence
It is not limited to homicide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide
It does not prosecute prosecutors who act negligently.
The danger here is a fatal mistake by the state that seems to provide no benefit to the community, besides satisfying a sense of vengeance. Not all dangers are for equally trivial reasons.
No one is arguing there should be no punishment, except as a straw man. The only relevant deterrence effect is the difference between life in prison or death.
Hopper
Banned
Eric, do you have a particular argument against capital punishment that you want to present? Is the possibility of error a big thing with you, or just a possible incidental consequence of the system, that you don't like? I mean, would you ever approve, in any circumstances, of an execution if you personally KNEW he was guilty?
I wonder if you'll provide some evidence for your claims?
Actually, I specifically mentioned lying in court (technically, if you are not under oath, you can't commit perjury) as the one item that would result in criminal action.
"Subject to" is a great weasel-phrase. Has any prosecutor been tried for pursuing a conviction after, for example, withholding excupatory evidence, who did not also lie in court? If it has never happened, or happens once every century, are you in effect "subject to" it, as opposed to in theory?
I agree, nor do I recall ever comparing it to premeditated murder.
Actually, I specifically mentioned lying in court (technically, if you are not under oath, you can't commit perjury) as the one item that would result in criminal action.
"Subject to" is a great weasel-phrase. Has any prosecutor been tried for pursuing a conviction after, for example, withholding excupatory evidence, who did not also lie in court? If it has never happened, or happens once every century, are you in effect "subject to" it, as opposed to in theory?
I agree, nor do I recall ever comparing it to premeditated murder.
Hopper
Banned
Your claim was that he "can't" be charged. My counter was simply that, yes, he can.
I don't care to research the statistics for convictions for perjury, obstructing justice, etc. But, obviously, the outrage over prosecutorial misconduct would be greater if a person was electrocuted as a result, as opposed to being wrongfully convicted of jaywalking and being ordered to pay a $25 fine.
I have no philosophical objection to capital punishment. My objections are practical.
1) It can't be ameliorated if the conviction is overturned.
2) It seems to offer no deterrent effect.
3) It is generally more costly that life imprisonment.
Based on that, I think that perhaps being reserved for a higher standard than the usual "reeasonable doubt" might be appropriate.
I wouldn't want you to break your fingers doing research on Google.
Then you're wrong. He may be charged (there is legal authority to do so), but he can't be (personal and political considerations prevent it).
In reality, once the execution has occurred, all investigations, appeals, etc. are rendered moot. Such misconduct simply does not have the opportunity to be exposed after the fact.
Then you're wrong. He may be charged (there is legal authority to do so), but he can't be (personal and political considerations prevent it).
In reality, once the execution has occurred, all investigations, appeals, etc. are rendered moot. Such misconduct simply does not have the opportunity to be exposed after the fact.
Hopper
Banned
OK, fine, no one can really argue with "philosophical" objections, I spoze. But, if you want to hear another viewpoint, from someone who "philosophically" supports capital punishment in appropriate cases, we can "debate" your concerns, one at a time, if you want.
Since we probably agree philosophically (I did note that reserving capital punishment for a higher standard of guilt would alleviate some of my concerns), I'm not sure how that constitutes another viewpoint. I venture that our disagreements are more practical than philosophical.
Hopper
Banned
Heh, this is an absurd claim. Although it certainly happens (i.e., personal and political consideration result in non-prosecution), it does not happen in every case, and "can't" prosecute is NOT synonymous with "won't" prosecute in any event.
Last edited: