The Death Penalty [Archive] - The Warring States of NPF

Krylo

01-06-2004, 04:42 PM

Well, as you'll all come to know, I tend to have two very different views on just about every subject, which is a side effect of my having both a very sadistic and cold-hearted side and a very compassionate side. So, I'll just go ahead and argue both views.

My Sadistic Cold-Hearted And Often Self-Righteous Side Says: They killed someone, they deserve to die. And they deserve to die in exactly the same way they killed that person. Lethal injection? Bah! If they drug someone behind a car for 10 miles, drag them behind a car for twenty! If they skinned someone alive, skin THEM alive. Let the punishment fit the crime... and there's no punishment that fits better than repeating the crime on the offender. Besides... who wants to kill someone in a sick way if they're going to die that way too?

On the other hand, My Compassionate (and sometimes wimpy) Side has this to say: That's all fine and good, but there's a lot of problems with killing people for murder. In the first place it's our legal system's job to REFORM. The whole legal system is built around the idea that people can change, if a murderer can't change, then our whole legal system is flawed at it's most integral core. If people can't change then we should execute every criminal, shouldn't we? But obviously, not everyone gets out of prison after stealing and does it again... or killing... if we can reform them, that's what we should do. Instead of killing them, we should change the prison system to put more emphasis on reformation, and less on punishment. Now, I know some of you are going to say that the death penalty is a deterrent, but then why are their still murders in Texas and other states that support it? Obviously it doesn't work, or we wouldn't ever have to use it. That entire idea is flawed, all it is, is vengence, and shouldn't the law be above such petty pursuits as revenge? And all that aside... how about the innocents? Go and look at lists of people that were put on death row and then released when the real killer was caught... or even killed and THEN the real killer was caught. If we execute even one innocent person, then we're just as much murderers as the people that we're executing for the crime, aren't we? If an innocent person is killed by us, how are we exempt? Think about that.

Yah, I think that about covers both sides. I tend to side with my compassionate side on this, because the only infalliable arguement for the death penalty is the revenge angle... and the idea that the law should be above revenge is a good one. And not even my sadistic side is willing to argue money issues when there are people's lives at stake. That's just sick. (He would argue enjoyment... but just ignore him.)

Martyr

01-06-2004, 04:45 PM

Look, I've no sympathy at all for the fools.
Not everybody who kills gets death and that's because not everybody who kills gets death.
Those who do deserve it more than others, so cut the "I'm so young" crap. Lots of kids die every day or week or whatever. So what if some of them happen to be a bad. I think I even care less about bad people.

And the paradox thing is juist a cop out. The death penalty is about cleansing the society of it's trash. If this was a more crual world, we could kill for petty crimes. Under those circumstances, all crime would grind to a dead halt. If we can start grinding rape and murder to a dead halt, even if we have mercy on some and lesser villains, then it ain't unethical, in my opinion.

According to the Bible, however, it isn't our right to judge. Right? Well, as far as I'm concerned, a white lie is as sinful as murder and the death penalty is as sinful as judging a SAT test score. So I'm discarding that evidence, especially since you can't preach to a non-Christian anyway. So find another argument.

What do you mean it's disgusting and inhuman anyway? Is it better to lock people up like animals or slaughter 'em? You tell me. I was thinking that we could cut costs by feeding prisoners the free meat off death row.

As far as innocents, well, that happens. Innocents will spend 50 years in jail too. Dunno if I'd rather die or spend 50 years in jail... Either way, I can't allow that to deter me. Not when so many innocents are dying or having their lives ruined outside of the court systems. The percentage of innocents on death row has to be small anyway. Isn't it?

Edit - Krylo brough up good points. Ironically, I never thought of this as a revenge issue. I still don't think that it is.
And the only reason death penalty is expensive is because there's so much legal crap that has to take place and death row inmates can be sitting in a cell for 12 to 15 years before they actually die. I'd rather hold a hanging outside the courthouse as soon as the conviction is finished.
I'd rather see this rule put in place and be the first innocent hanged for the damn cause.

FunnyLooking

01-06-2004, 04:49 PM

Geez, all these people posted right before me...

<As far as innocents, well, that happens.>

Whoa! Explain to me the advantage of Death Penalty over Life in prison though? Seriously, when you really look at it, Death Penalty is either impractical unless you take it to an inhumane extreme.

<For the record, though, the death penalty is infinitely wiser than keeping people in prison. Draining our tax dollars.>

Doesn't death penalty cost about 10 times as much as keeping someone in prison per person? It seems illogical, but it's true. Logic steps aside to reality. Heh.

<It's a disgusting inhumane practice. The Death Penalty is a paradox in itself anyway. Kill people who kill.>

Another way to look at it is extremely fair justice. I mean, do to you what you do to someone else. Eye for an eye, if you will. So it makes sense, it's just not practical, if you ask me.

<Also, many innocent people have been on death row.>

That's the most dangerous thing about the death penalty. They found out these people were innocent, but they already killed them. What's done is done.

Another problem with the death penalty is, in fact, racial prejudgice. Although I dont have the sources, a black person was insanely more likely to receive the death penalty for the same crime if committed by a white person.

The death penalty is impractical, dangerous, and costly. It's completely worthless and outdated.

Martyr

01-06-2004, 04:54 PM

Another problem with the death penalty is, in fact, racial prejudgice. Although I dont have the sources, a black person was insanely more likely to receive the death penalty for the same crime if committed by a white person.

Thats because the jails are overrun with black people. With the NAACP breathing down the courts back, the black people recycle faster than white people, and whites often get high jail times. The longer they stay in, the longer there's white people in jail helping to equalize the race count. Likewise with black people getting out or getting death.

That's what I heard anyway. I'm pretty sure my source was reliable. So I'm white and I'm pretty lawful.

Krylo

01-06-2004, 04:54 PM

The death penalty is about cleansing the society of it's trash.

How does it do that, exactly? You kill a murderer today, and a new one pops up tomorrow. You aren't cleansing anything... being a killer isn't a genetic disposition. Granted, being a socio/psychopath is, but we never kill them, do we? We just send them to mental facilities. All you're doing by killing people is the same exact thing that they did to get into prison in the first place.

Your entire arguement circles around the idea that life sucks and people die anyway. Given that logic, then what's the point of any criminal justice? People get killed and raped regardless of it, why bother trying to stop it? Or are you thinking, people die anyway, might as well help it along? Don't bring a horribly cynical and pessimistic view into an arguement like this, it's counter-productive, and it's a horribly weak arguement. Just because YOUR life sucks and you'd rather die than be locked up and try to appeal doesn't mean the rest of us would.

Under those circumstances, all crime would grind to a dead halt.

What's your basis for comparison? People are still murdered in states with the death penalty, knowing that they could be killed. People still killed each other in the old west, medieval europe, etc. when you would get the death penalty for far less. People killed people in babalonia where king Draco... or Dracon or whatever, made the first Draconian laws, which are infamous for how harsh they were. Murder was death, rape was removal of... organs. This was 100%, you got caught, it happened, there were no trials, just you're charged, there's a little evidence, and you die. People still killed each other. And people still stole even though getting caught meant they'd lose a hand, or an eye, or whatever other body part the law felt it was fair to take. And don't think that's because it wasn't known, that's the other thing draconian law was famous for. It was the first law in which the ruler made sure all the people knew it. It doesn't work as a deterrent, it hasn't for the the thousands of years that man has existed on this planet, and it's simply foolish to think that it's going to start now.

The Devil Himself

01-06-2004, 04:56 PM

According to the Bible, however, it isn't our right to judge. Right? Well, as far as I'm concerned, a white lie is as sinful as murder and the death penalty is as sinful as judging a SAT test score. So I'm discarding that evidence, especially since you can't preach to a non-Christian anyway. So find another argument.
Then what was the point of that paragraph? And can you explain your logic on a small lie being as "sinful" as murder? Bringing religion into non-religious debates never work.

What do you mean it's disgusting and inhuman anyway? Is it better to lock people up like animals or slaughter 'em? You tell me. I was thinking that we could cut costs by feeding prisoners the free meat off death row.
Which is exactly one of the major conflicts of the Death Penalty topic. The fate of a criminal's punishment lies in the opinion of a person--usually a judge. If the judge is right-wing, they'll usually sentence him to death. And of course, it's the opposite with left-wings usually.

As far as innocents, well, that happens. Innocents will spend 50 years in jail too. Dunno if I'd rather die or spend 50 years in jail... Either way, I can't allow that to deter me. Not when so many innocents are dying or having their lives ruined outside of the court systems. The percentage of innocents on death row has to be small anyway. Isn't it?
What exactly are you trying to say when you say, "As far as innocents, well, that happens"?

And If you were innocent, yet convicted of a crime punishable by death, would you rather die or spend 50 years in jail with hope that the real suspect is caught within that time period?

As for the percentages, there aren't much statistics available about those since everyone on death row is charged guilty.

Your argument to me seems more religious and sadistically based.

Dona Maria

01-06-2004, 04:57 PM

Actually krylo, I'm probably more cold-hearted than you on this one. You see, I think the death penalty is too easy for some people. One guy mass murders 20 people and you want to give him a painless little prick in the arm to kill him? How is that a punishment? He probably ACCEPTED death and therefor we were doing him a service.

What's my idea?

Well sir, I'm glad you asked (even if you didn't). You see, the main problem with the death penalty is that it's supposed to be a PENALTY but a corpse doesn't know its dead. Religious issues aside, once you kill someone, they decompose and they become crude organic matter, so how are you teaching them a leason? So! With that in mind I propose my "Simulated Death" program. If someone is convicted of a crime worthy of death, instead of having them sit on death row for several years eating up millions of tax-payer's dollars and waiting an appeal, they will immediatly be entered into my program. The first thing that happens is that their 7th vertebrea is severed so they loose all feeling and function of their body. Then, their eardrums are ruptured so they can't here anything. Next, a feeding tube is placed into their stomach and a catheter into...everything else. Then, their tounge and teeth are removed in the off chance that those might provide some type of stimulation. Now, they are suspended and locked in a dark room where they will never see another being or the light of day again.

Viola! Simulated Death. And I'm sure that it will be more of a deterrant if video cameras are in the rooms and the tapes are sent to highschools as a type of "shock" treatment. When people learn what happens to them if they break the law, I can be almost positive that no one would want to end up like that, therefor less death penalty-assured crimes.

Peace out.

Martyr

01-06-2004, 05:03 PM

How does it do that, exactly? You kill a murderer today, and a new one pops up tomorrow. You aren't cleansing anything... being a killer isn't a genetic disposition. Granted, being a socio/psychopath is, but we never kill them, do we? We just send them to mental facilities. All you're doing by killing people is the same exact thing that they did to get into prison in the first place.

Your entire arguement circles around the idea that life sucks and people die anyway. Given that logic, then what's the point of any criminal justice? People get killed and raped regardless of it, why bother trying to stop it? Or are you thinking, people die anyway, might as well help it along? Don't bring a horribly cynical and pessimistic view into an arguement like this, it's counter-productive, and it's a horribly weak arguement. Just because YOUR life sucks and you'd rather die than be locked up and try to appeal doesn't mean the rest of us would.

Not that people die and we should help it along. My argument circles around that we all die, and maybe I'd sacrifice an innocent or two to save more.
I think that this stuff is genetic. Somebody who kills in cold blood will be more likely to do it again. Definately if he gets away with it.
Personally, I have no idea where to begin reforming a person. I think that education is the key, and I think that people who are already in jail are already beyond that help.
Therefore, death, iun my opinion is better than letting somebody out later. I'm not in jail yet, for example. If I kill a man, it'll be self defense or an act of vengeance. What argument will I have if it's the latter? If I killed somebody, then it would show that I would do it again, yes?
Besides, I've never heard of a death row case where the person accused would be any better to society alive than dead. Considering the ciorcumstances.

As for what else it was you said, uh, I forgot it, hold on.
Oh, right. I guess I have no evidence. The fact that crime continues is probably more the fault of bad policing than the ineffectivity of death penalty as a deterrent. But, though your arguments are strong, I'd like to see the crime rates under those circumstance. Regardless of that it existed, I bet crime is worse in the US where you can get off punishment so easily.

Edit: And Devil, um, the religion comment was an attempt to halt the dude who spoke on info gained from some religion class. As far as me thinking religiously instead sadistically, uh... Why should I be sadistic when we're talking about the law?
There's always innocent casualties. There are probably more innocents harmed in this circumstance because we're dealing with people who want to harm innocents from the get-go. Innocents happen. That's the way it works. I don't have to explain any crap about not stopping for fear of sacrifice.

The Devil Himself

01-06-2004, 05:05 PM

If someone is convicted of a crime worthy of death...
Now, how would you decide that?

Not that people die and we should help it along. My argument circles around that we all die, and maybe I'd sacrifice an innocent or two to save more.
What if you were the innocent?

I think that this stuff is genetic. Somebody who kills in cold blood will be more likely to do it again. Definately if he gets away with it.
Personally, I have no idea where to begin reforming a person. I think that education is the key, and I think that people who are already in jail are already beyond that help.
Do you have any proof that rehabilitation doesn't work?

Therefore, death, iun my opinion is better than letting somebody out later. I'm not in jail yet, for example. If I kill a man, it'll be self defense or an act of vengeance. What argument will I have if it's the latter? If I killed somebody, then it would show that I would do it again, yes?
Besides, I've never heard of a death row case where the person accused would be any better to society alive than dead. Considering the ciorcumstances.
Most crimes usually punishable by death have a life sentence.
Also, just because you kill someone out of an act of vengeance and show you do it again, doesn't mean every convicted murderer would.

As for what else it was you said, uh, I forgot it, hold on.
Oh, right. I guess I have no evidence. The fact that crime continues is probably more the fault of bad policing than the ineffectivity of death penalty as a deterrent. But, though your arguments are strong, I'd like to see the crime rates under those circumstance. Regardless of that it existed, I bet crime is worse in the US where you can get off punishment so easily.
FBI Data says that murder rates are lower in states without the death penalty.

FunnyLooking

01-06-2004, 05:07 PM

Great idea DonaMaria, except for the fact that would probably make them MORE psychotic... and that sounds like what the government did in the game Hell: A Cyberpunk Thriller. Oh btw, great game.

<One guy mass murders 20 people and you want to give him a painless little prick in the arm to kill him?>

Does it really matter how you kill somebody? I mean, the only real difference is how disgusting we're willing to be, and I don't think a lot of people want to be that disgusting. Once they're dead, they're dead. It doesn't matter how much pain they were in, or how gruesome their death was, because they're dead.

Sure, hitching up a rapist's balls to a car battery seems like poetic justice, but... well... actually, sounds like a good idea to me. Death Penalty is a different issue though, because it costs too much and it's permanent.

<The fact that crime continues is probably more the fault of bad policing than the ineffectivity of death penalty as a deterrent.>

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure murder-crime is higher in places with the death penalty. Bah, don't take my word for it, somebody find some sources...

And Martyr, you say that jail for life is worse than death? I disagree entirely, but you think that's the case, then wouldn't jail for life work better as a deterrant?

Krylo

01-06-2004, 05:09 PM

Well... only half of me is cold-hearted, remember... and that half really likes that idea, and has thought of death as too easy quite a few times. The other half though, which, again, is the one I tend to side on in this issue, can't help but think of innocent people that are sentenced to such things. That is a lot worse than actually dying, regardless of if you think there's an after life, and just think of sentencing an innocent person to that... it'd be even worse, because you find out that they are innocent, and they're still alive in that place being punished in the worst imaginable way for something they didn't do. And you can't undo it, because you've severed their spine and removed body parts. Ouch. And, if you really think that would work as deterrent you've never seen a picture of a man hanging... or read about how they'd die... A lot of the time, their necks wouldn't break, and they'd hang and swing... slowly choking todeath, either on their own tongue, or the rope. Their eyes would bulge out, and they'd claw at the rope furtively (if their hands weren't tied, as often they weren't, because this was often mob justice), until they'd stop, all their pain and struggling finally brought to an end. And this was relatively humane. Shall I go on to describe what happened to people that were burned at the stake, or crucified for their crimes? Did you know that crucifixition, as the romans were so fond of, didn't kill in and of itself? No, you could live on a cross crucified for days as the crows pecked at your still living body, and the nails slowly tore through your flesh from your own weight. Not to mention the initial pain of the nails being driven through in the first place... and eventually you'd die of dehydration. And, I don't know if you've ever been dehydrated, but it comes with lots of vomiting, headaches, over all sickness, and just imagine retching and vomiting with nails driven through your arms and legs. These weren't private executions, these were out there for anyone to see, and they didn't deter people.

Dona Maria

01-06-2004, 05:15 PM

actually, describing pain and suffering to me does nothing to stop my blood lust. they killed, i will make them suffer. but to be honest, the romans didn't need too much in the way of evidence to condem someone to crusifiction. Usuing the same court system today will be fine in issuing simulated death.

The Devil Himself

01-06-2004, 05:19 PM

Edit: And Devil, um, the religion comment was an attempt to halt the dude who spoke on info gained from some religion class. As far as me thinking religiously instead sadistically, uh... Why should I be sadistic when we're talking about the law?
There's always innocent casualties. There are probably more innocents harmed in this circumstance because we're dealing with people who want to harm innocents from the get-go. Innocents happen. That's the way it works. I don't have to explain any crap about not stopping for fear of sacrifice.
Knowing this, you'd still support the Death Penalty? Honestly, I'd put convicted murderers in jail for some time until they're proven innocent instead of putting people suspected of something "worthy of the death sentence" and accidently killing innocents.

FunnyLooking

01-06-2004, 05:22 PM

Even though it's cliche`, think of the children. It'd be pretty unnerving to have public executions with such gruesome effects. Don't give that, "Oh, it'll teach the kids a lesson". We already have enough problems with psychological disorders, okay?

Besides, what the hell is the point in making it more disgusting anyway? You can't be in a situation worse than death. Not existing is the worst possible state for anything. Period.

Krylo

01-06-2004, 05:23 PM

The court system of today isn't perfect either, though... lots of innocents are punished all the time, and lots of guilty people are let go. Especially if they have money, or don't have money, respectively. The court system of today can be bought. Back then it couldn't. Now... the Romans didn't need much to condemn someone, but that doesn't hurt my arguement. I wasn't comparing simulated to them... what I was saying was that if you're thinking it's going to deter someone, then why didn't those activities. The romans not needing a lot of evidence would make it a greater deterrent, because it didn't matter how careful you were, if they had any reason to suspect you above someone else, you were getting crucified, and they'd probably toss anyone else they figured half guilty in there with you, or just toss them in the arena to make sure they got the killer. You didn't get off very easily, because they didn't care about punishing innocents along with it.

Anarchy_Balsac

01-06-2004, 05:31 PM

that's why while i believe in eye for an eye treatment, i also believe we need to reform our law enforcement. it would be just wrong to greusomely execute someone who's innocent. we need to force cops to get 100% cause before making an arrest, not probable cause. it's tough, yes but if we do this we get have an "eye for eye" death penalty and have nothing to worry about. probable cause as a means to gather evidence would be okay, but not to make an arrest. as long as that's the case i'm all for an "eye for eye" death penalty

FunnyLooking

01-06-2004, 05:50 PM

I dunno. Is it possible to get an actual 100%?

Not to mention that means a lot of people get off scott-free.

<as long as that's the case i'm all for an "eye for eye" death penalty>

But for death penalty is doesn't matter! The guy's dead, he can't learn from his mistakes or anything. Hooking a rapist's balls up to car battery might make him think twice before raping somebody else, but other people will go right on ahead. Criminals don't consider the consequences if they get caught, unless they've already gotten caught.

That's not to say some people aren't help-able. Just give them life in prison and keep them away from society. That's all that's necessary, that's all we should do.

Muffin Mage

01-06-2004, 05:50 PM

I like the idea that, once one goes beyond a certain level of criminal activity, Roman law kicks in. You do x, you are punished with y. If murder is the example, it doesn't matter if you accidently dropped a lug nut off a skyscraper or tore someone's innards out with a rusty spoon, you still get the death penalty. I'm also favorable to the idea of lashings for minor crimes, because you get the punishment and move on with your life. If they picked the wrong person, oh well, they get the guilty one and double it.

Krylo

01-06-2004, 06:03 PM

Yah, but that doesn't work with murder. You don't just kill someone, and then their innocent and they move on with their lives. You don't come back from that. You get the wrong person and kill them, I think that should warrant a hell of a lot more than an "Oh well". You've just killed an innocent person because you sentenced them to death for something they didn't do. Does that mean YOU should die?

I want someone to explain to me the difference between murder and sentencing the wrong person to the death penalty. Either way, an innocent person dies. Why is one more morally acceptable?

Anarchy_Balsac

01-06-2004, 06:06 PM

I dunno. Is it possible to get an actual 100%?

Not to mention that means a lot of people get off scott-free.

if i didn't know everything that i do about modern detective work and forenzic scientists i'd certainly agree. bu you'd be surprized what they can prove with enough work. now given it'll take 2 more years give or take to get an arrest warrant(with the exception of people caught red-handed by patrolling cops[patroll cars all have cameras inside to moniter the cops driving them]), i think it's a worthwhile tradeoff if it means innocent people don't get arrested

but the reason i support the "eye for eye" thing is because i think it's the only way we can be fair to the victims. it just sucks that you can be tortured to death knowing the worst the killer will ever suffer is a quick and painless death

FunnyLooking

01-06-2004, 06:14 PM

< it just sucks that you can be tortured to death knowing the worst the killer will ever suffer is a quick and painless death>

Oh, so this is more about revenge. Well, again I state that all the pain one can get is still not as bad as death. Besides, is the purpose of law to rehabilitate/isolate criminals, or to punish them?

<I want someone to explain to me the difference between murder and sentencing the wrong person to the death penalty.>

Well, one's an accident. Manslaughter isn't the same as Premeditated Murder. Of course, the risk with death penalty is far too high, and the benefits are slim to nil, so it's pretty worthless.

Krylo

01-06-2004, 06:18 PM

but the reason i support the "eye for eye" thing is because i think it's the only way we can be fair to the victims. it just sucks that you can be tortured to death knowing the worst the killer will ever suffer is a quick and painless death

So now we're back to petty revenge? Point out to me in a law book where it says that the purpose of the judicial system is to get revenge for victims. I can point out a lot where it says that the purpose of the judicial system is to reform offenders and turn them into contributing members of society.

if i didn't know everything that i do about modern detective work and forenzic scientists i'd certainly agree. bu you'd be surprized what they can prove with enough work. now given it'll take 2 more years give or take to get an arrest warrant(with the exception of people caught red-handed by patrolling cops[patroll cars all have cameras inside to moniter the cops driving them]), i think it's a worthwhile tradeoff if it means innocent people don't get arrested

Point 1: In 2 years most of your forensic information will have degraded to the point where it will be totally useless in proving anything.

Point 2: You can never prove anything 100% because there's always a chance that the forensic teams missed something. Something as small as a piece of hair or a certain kind of bug at the scene can lead to a totally different outcome after looking at all the evidence.

Point 3: That's 2 years that a murderer is left out on the street to kill people all that he likes. Regardless of if the suspect is him or not, you're not arresting anyone, so you certainly aren't arresting the right person.

Point 4: If it were possible to prove every case 100% then we wouldn't be having the discussion of innocent people on death row.

Point 5: Not all cop cars have those cameras, only most. And they can be disconnected.

And I still want to know how killing an innocent person in jail is better than killing an innocent person outside of jail. Either way someone dies. I still don't see how it's better just because it was an accident. I can see where the penalty would be less... but that doesn't make it ok. And I really see the death penalty more as criminal negligience, which is 3rd degree murder, not man slaughter. It's common knowledge that innocent people can, and will die, and they let it go on anyway.

FunnyLooking

01-06-2004, 06:26 PM

<I still don't see how it's better just because it was an accident. I can see where the penalty would be less... but that doesn't make it ok.>

Well, we didn't MEAN to kill the guy. But I still agree with you. The end result is Death Penalty causes more innocents to killed. There's so little benefit to it, it's just not worth it.

And I thought manslaughter and 3rd degree were the same thing. Huh. Well, anyway, the point still remains, whatever the point was.

(Am I the only to notice how this thread went from 0 to 3 pages in less than a day?)

Krylo

01-06-2004, 06:29 PM

Man slaughter is an accident that wasn't easily forseeable... like, if someone ran out in front of your car and you hit them. It was a complete accident, you didn't know driving your car that day would kill someone. 3rd Degree would be like using a rusty scalpel in an operation, you knew it would cause complications, and probably kill people, but you did it anyway. That's the difference.

Devon Lake

01-06-2004, 08:52 PM

I'd be all for capitol punishment if it were to be scientifically proven that a specific precedent for the death penalty correlates with a statistically significant drop in violent crimes; yet, this debate is seldom scientific.

You never see a doctoral thesis for criminology and statistics being used to pro or con for capitol punishment; what you see is a bunch of screaming angry people, some holding signs that say "Kill the bastards", and some holding signs that say "Two wrongs don't make a right,� Average people really don't know jack about highly complex subjects such as economics and criminology, at least not enough to have any valuable input outside their personal desires. It'd be great if we could have our public technocrats just tally things up for us and get academia and peer reviewed science journals to just tell us the actual consequences of implementing capital punishment, because hell if the average voter is going to sift through a 1000 page research summary to get the facts when chances are they�ll never meet a murderer or a murder victim.

That being said, I ultimately deplore death. I'd prefer to just send all violent criminals off to psych hospitals to have them rehabilitated until there's good evidence that they'll be functional members of society once they come out. To hell with the simple vengeance of locking someone up in some sodomy cell; vengeance is for rabid militants and fanatics. Someone who is criminal is dysfunctional; their thinking is unacceptable, and thus they are sick. They should be treated for having sick minds rather than being punished.

Getting out shouldn't be as simple as 20 years of time out and a claim of remorse before being booted out into this strange society they�ve been locked away from for two decades. Only when a patient has demonstrated enough progress so that they might be trusted should they be let out, and even then they ought to start out with just getting day passes at first. Then, if you see more progress, give them weekends off, and then let them out and give them a weekly follow up, and then bi-weekly, monthly, etc.

Now if you get recidivism or otherwise it seems the patient will never function in society, then they should just be hospitalized forever with other undesirables who need to be segregated from society. And none of this should be a means of punishment; patients ought to get respectable accommodations and have decent lives made available for them. I�m sure you could find some useful work for them to, which they might actually be inclined to do if they can keep a tad of their wage and actually save up to buy stuff they life for their accommodations just like any other person. Helping people is usually a lot more constructive than abusing them (And if you don�t think 20 years of time out is abusive, imagine if it were a criminal inflicting it on you.) If you treat people like monsters, they�ll act that way.

Anyhow, that would be the ideal. But I'm pretty sure that actually punishing people once in a while would serve some sort of deterrence. It really comes down to the "agrigate good" outweighing the "aggregate bad". If it turned out that giving every 20th murderer the death penalty would lead to 7 less murders the following year, you�re more or less obligated to make that sacrifice to save those lives. Although the actual math and statistics and ethics of weighing all the numbers would certainly be a pain.

Anarchy_Balsac

01-07-2004, 12:50 AM

So now we're back to petty revenge? Point out to me in a law book where it says that the purpose of the judicial system is to get revenge for victims. I can point out a lot where it says that the purpose of the judicial system is to reform offenders and turn them into contributing members of society.

or justice as i would call it. you have to make people pay for their crimes, it just isn't right that a sadistic bastard would get off easy

Point 1: In 2 years most of your forensic information will have degraded to the point where it will be totally useless in proving anything.

while it's true that such evidence generally degenerates over time, it very rarely hapens that quickly. it usually takes around 20-30 years or more

Point 2: You can never prove anything 100% because there's always a chance that the forensic teams missed something. Something as small as a piece of hair or a certain kind of bug at the scene can lead to a totally different outcome after looking at all the evidence.

that's why we need to train them how to investigate a crime scene better. they usually don't miss anything though unless their hot on the trail of a suspect and in a hurry. but that just goes with aneed to reform law enforcement

Point 3: That's 2 years that a murderer is left out on the street to kill people all that he likes. Regardless of if the suspect is him or not, you're not arresting anyone, so you certainly aren't arresting the right person.

a serial killer like that would likely be caught red handed long before those 2 years are up. at any rate i'd rather take that chance than see an innocent person arrested

Point 4: If it were possible to prove every case 100% then we wouldn't be having the discussion of innocent people on death row.

it's not tht they can't, it's that they don't. cops often make assumptions and neglect to double check things when making arrests, which is usually how a false arrest happens

Point 5: Not all cop cars have those cameras, only most. And they can be disconnected.

then they should, and cops who disconnect them should be fired. that's not to say it'll happen, but it should

Krylo

01-07-2004, 01:02 AM

while it's true that such evidence generally degenerates over time, it very rarely hapens that quickly. it usually takes around 20-30 years or more

Guess again, most forsenic evidence needs to be collected and stored very carefully, especially genetic material, or it will degenerate to the point of uselessness. That's the real reason that forensics teams tend to hurry... that and someone walking past the crime scene can fuck stuff up by getting their genetic material in there (a piece of hair or whatever) that the team can find and misconstrue as having to do with the actual crime. They hurry because if they don't hurry their results become skewed.

that's why we need to train them how to investigate a crime scene better. they usually don't miss anything though unless their hot on the trail of a suspect and in a hurry. but that just goes with aneed to reform law enforcement

I could take some hair from a barbershop, kill someone and then drop a bunch of random people's hair around the crime scene, wear gloves while doing it, and, if the person I'm killing happens to scratch me, wash their hands off. The forensic team wouldn't know if it was me or someone at that barbershop. They'd probably presume some totally innocent person did it. Forensic evidence is not perfect. It's very very very good, but easy to foul up. If it takes a few days for them to find a body... then you have no idea whether people have been walking past it, getting their genetic material in it, whether that stick in it is because some local kids decided to play with it, or if it's something the killer did. You don't even know if the local kids are the killer because you have a bunch of evidence from a bunch of false sources flying around.

a serial killer like that would likely be caught red handed long before those 2 years are up. at any rate i'd rather take that chance than see an innocent person arrested

Maybe it's just me... but I think I'd rather spend a few years in prison than get killed by someone who the police didn't arrest because they couldn't make a 100% conclusive case. A better solution might be to just leave cases open even after someone has been convicted, and then continuing to investigate until they were absolutely sure that there's nothing they missed. This wouldn't be 100%, because that's just not possible. Remember that not only can a crime scene be contaminated, but that humans are falliable. A forensics investigator isn't a robot... and most aren't even as good as Grisham on CSI. They're going to fuck up from time to time.

it's not tht they can't, it's that they don't. cops often make assumptions and neglect to double check things when making arrests, which is usually how a false arrest happens

See above.

GatoFiero

01-07-2004, 01:14 AM

The money argument: It costs the same amount of money to kill a convicted felon as it does to incarcerate a convicted felon for life. This argument is nullified.

Revenge argument: The death penalty brings closer to the families of victims. This is a true and valid argument.

Prevention argument: Studies show (as a side note these study use data collected over a span of 30 years to ensure accuracy) that the death penalty either has no preventative power or so little preventative power that it makes no difference. This is proven through use of comparing death penalty level crime rates in states with the death penalty to the rates in states without the death penalty. This is a valid argument with valid and well documented data to back it up.

The 2nd prevention argument: If the goal of the punishment is preventing that crime from ever happening again, then this can equally be accomplished by either the death penalty or life sentences.

The imperfection argument: The court system is not perfect and innocent people do get sent to jail. Innocent people have been sent to death row. In the words of one of my favorite authors when refering to death as punishment, "Think carefully about what your going to do, because what you do is done and it can't be undone."

Those are all the arguments I can think of off the top of my head. As a side note, I believe that being put in jail for you entire life is a fate worse than death. Death is fast and painless (by united states legal standards) whereas life imprisonment can last a very long time with the medical technology we have today. I also heard a good suggestion from my philosophy teacher that we could use life sentence prisoners as organ donors. They would receive human treatment and get the best medical care, and when someone needs a lung, it�s right there waiting, if someone needs a heart, same thing, it�s right there waiting.

Anarchy_Balsac

01-07-2004, 01:22 AM

Guess again, most forsenic evidence needs to be collected and stored very carefully, especially genetic material, or it will degenerate to the point of uselessness. That's the real reason that forensics teams tend to hurry... that and someone walking past the crime scene can fuck stuff up by getting their genetic material in there (a piece of hair or whatever) that the team can find and misconstrue as having to do with the actual crime. They hurry because if they don't hurry their results become skewed.

forensics is more than just genetcs, genetics just puts you at the crime scene at one point or another. and it's true they have to hurry to the crime scene, but that's more to do with interference with evidence than degeneration of it.

I could take some hair from a barbershop, kill someone and then drop a bunch of random people's hair around the crime scene, wear gloves while doing it, and, if the person I'm killing happens to scratch me, wash their hands off. The forensic team wouldn't know if it was me or someone at that barbershop. They'd probably presume some totally innocent person did it. Forensic evidence is not perfect. It's very very very good, but easy to foul up. If it takes a few days for them to find a body... then you have no idea whether people have been walking past it, getting their genetic material in it, whether that stick in it is because some local kids decided to play with it, or if it's something the killer did. You don't even know if the local kids are the killer because you have a bunch of evidence from a bunch of false sources flying around.

microscopic peaces of your clothing(containing oil from your skin, thus dna evidence) and skin wither and fall to the ground constantly. it's one of many reasons your clothes deterriorate over time. everything you do has a very minute influence on the invirnment around it. you just can't completelycover it up

Maybe it's just me... but I think I'd rather spend a few years in prison than get killed by someone who the police didn't arrest because they couldn't make a 100% conclusive case. A better solution might be to just leave cases open even after someone has been convicted, and then continuing to investigate until they were absolutely sure that there's nothing they missed. This wouldn't be 100%, because that's just not possible. Remember that not only can a crime scene be contaminated, but that humans are falliable. A forensics investigator isn't a robot... and most aren't even as good as Grisham on CSI. They're going to fuck up from time to time.

that's where you and i differ. i think being falsely arrested is a fate worse than death. maybe it's dissent on my part, or maybe it's just because i absolutely hate being falsely accused. and i know it they can make mistakes, but they can check and recheck to make sure they don't just as well

Devon Lake

01-07-2004, 12:11 PM

Anarchy_Balsac:

Honestly, you make no sense. If everyone were to be proven guilty before they got arrested, you'd actually need to hold a trial before you even make the arrest. Now, you can't hold a trial for someone who hasn't been arrested and charged with anything, therefore, no one would ever get arrested for anything, ever. As for "getting caught red handed", that certainly wouldn�t be 100% proof of guilt in most circumstances. Nearly any "getting caught red handed" scenario would more or less be circumstantial evidence and thus would not be proof of guilt. You may see me standing over someone stabbed to death with a bloody knife in my hand after following a trail of screams, but it could just as easily have been that I was pulling the knife out AFTER the murder to help. A cop would actually have to be a personal eye witness to any crime to charge anyone, and rarely is a murder committed right out in broad day light when a cop happens to be loitering around.

I mean, you act like when you're charged you�re guilty until proven innocent. What is it about merely being charged that is so damned wrong? It in no way is a claim that you have committed a crime; being charged is merely the opening of an investigation to determine whether you have committed a crime or not. To resist such an entirely necessary investigation, when there's probably cause and you're innocent anyway and thus have nothing to fear, is a complete and utter disregard for all civic virtue. Suck it up, it's your duty to society to go and watch yourself get declared innocent if your ever get charged for a crime you didn't commit.

As for "justice", justice isn't petty vengeance; it's doing the right thing. Wronging someone because they've wronged someone else isn't going to make the world any better of a place. It's entirely unconstructive, and frankly I wouldn't want to sacrifice my social productivity so that a few hate mongers can get their jollies killing convicts.

Imagine a scenario whereas a father is beating his son in retaliation for the child beating his brother (And this beating is entirely disproportionate to the previous one.). Imagine if I were to then beat the tar out of this fellow afterwards because I considered such a beating of a helpless child wrong. So, what have I accomplished in this circumstance? The father obviously thought he was justified in his child abuse, and it's pretty unlikely the bastard is going to think otherwise just because some "asshole" gave them a thrashing. What has happened is that he has been put in searing pain is probably pretty damned angry. Is making a person angry and miserable really so lofty an objective? Chances are he's just going to be made more unpleasant and stress out his family, friends, and coworkers with a viciously of grumpy mood. He may beat his kid even worse, now in intense anger, just out of spite for the beating he took, or probably try to get revenge back at me. And isn't that a just world?

Justice is supposed to cause LESS problems, not more.

Mikorlias Zard

01-07-2004, 01:35 PM

Why would anyone prefer death to being falsely accused of something? Why would anyone prefer death to anything???

I am very, very much against the death penalty, and I'm glad I live in a country where it doesn't exist, namely the UK (England, though I'm part Welsh).

I don't believe in 'murderers' and 'innocents'. Everyone's a human being, some us have killed people, some haven't. A human being who has murdered someone has a life and family too. They aren't random non-humans placed on this world by a malevolent higher power for the sole purpose of causing as much death and pain of possible. They may well have done some really good things in their lives too, and may still do in the future. Of course, the court system is there to punish people for wrong-doings, not reward them for good-doings, one of societies flaws IMHO. It's so easy to brand someone as a 'murderer' and condemn them to whatever their fate may be, without taking into account the good that is inside them, all of the other things in their lives that don't involve killing and slaughtering. Some people may seem completely morally bankrupt, but they aren't. Everyone 'murderer' or 'innocent' has a mixture of good and evil inside them. A mixture of dark and hateful desires and benevolent and compassionate feelings towards their fellow men/women, different people just have different quantities of each. To kill someone is to kill both sides, and I personally feel that that is unacceptable.

Add to that the fact that capitol punishment is little more of a deterrent than life imprisonment, if at all, and that it provides no room for rehabilitation or reform (which is an aim of punishment) and is no better than any other type of killing (from a moral perspective) then I'm afraid that capitol punishment doesn't look too good in my mind.

Oh yeah, and the money arguement. Is capitol punishment cheaper than life imprisonment? I don't know. I don't have the economic figures. But I personally don't put my own money over the lives of human beings, and I don't see that the government should either. Hit men (or women) kill for money. Isn't the desire to use capitol punishment as it is 'cheaper' any different to that mentality?

Mikorlias Zard

FunnyLooking

01-07-2004, 02:59 PM

<i think being falsely arrested is a fate worse than death>

Uhm... what? I don't understand this logic at all. If you're falsely arrested, you're still alive and can be proven innocent and be free in society. Maybe you mean falsely convicted?

<The money argument: It costs the same amount of money to kill a convicted felon as it does to incarcerate a convicted felon for life. This argument is nullified.>

All right, whoa. We need figures on this. No one, including myself, has given any reliable figures, and this is quantitative so it should be easy.

Anyway, we're (the people against death) aren't necessarily saying that these people don't deserve death, we don't believe it's productive.

<'murderer' or 'innocent' has a mixture of good and evil inside them. A mixture of dark and hateful desires and benevolent and compassionate feelings towards their fellow men/women>

But that point only goes so far. Hitler loved his step-niece very much (or one of his almost-relatives), but he's still Hitler. To murder someone, is a crime which deserves some severe consequences.

Devon Lake

01-07-2004, 03:39 PM

But that point only goes so far. Hitler loved his step-niece very much (or one of his almost-relatives), but he's still Hitler. To murder someone, is a crime which deserves some severe consequences.

Well, Hitler's a pretty extreme example. Honestly, I don't see the harm going medeival/goblins in hell on his ass would do if it would provide even a HINT of deterence to those like him. When it comes to killers with death counts in the millions, the possibility of scaring them enough to spare a single life is reason enough to make examples out of them.

Muffin Mage

01-07-2004, 04:09 PM

Here's a question for all you anti-death people:

Let's say that Billy steals $500 from George. He then goes out and spends that $500 on drugs, or deposits it in his Swiss bank account. If he were arrested, which would make more sense: incarcerating him for seven years, or fining him $500, or chopping his hand off?

GatoFiero

01-07-2004, 06:04 PM

"We find no consistent evidence that the availability of capital punishment, the number of executions, the amount of television coverage they receive....is associated signigicantly with rates for total and different types of fellony murder. These findings are consistent with the vast majority of studies of capital punishment."

-Hans Zeisel, "The Deterent Effect of the Death Penalty: Fact and Faith," in The Death Penalty in America, 3d ed., ed. Hugo Adam Bedau (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 133

Average cost per execution in the U. S.: $2-3 million
Average cost per life incarceration in the US.: $1.9 million

-New York State Defenders Association (1982) Capital Losses: The Price of the Death Penalty for New York State, Albany, NY: author; Margot Garey (1985), "The Cost of Taking a Life: Dollars and Sense of the Death Penalty", University of California Davis Law Review 18: 1221-1273; Robert L. Spangenberg and Elizabeth Walsh (1989), "Capital Punishment of Life Imprisonment? Some Cost Considerations." Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 23:45-58; Richard C. Dieter (1992), Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty, Washington, DC: Death Penalty Information Center;

Mashirosen

01-07-2004, 06:17 PM

Please don't bring up Hitler in discussions not directly about WW2 or its related issues. It's tacky at best and at worst trivializes the evil he did. This isn't a warning, but if I see it again, the unofficial "Godwin's Law rule" will get a thread closed by default.

Back on topic, it seems kind of callous to me that in Texas, certain regulations prevent a condemned prisoner from getting cigarettes or alcohol with his or her last meal. I don't know why these regulations are in place -- maybe there's a sensible reason for them -- but who are we to deny these people anything on that day of all days, whether their guilt is 100% certain or not? The condemned should be shown the most compassion and mercy possible under the circumstances.

Squishy Cheeks

01-07-2004, 06:30 PM

My thought on it is that the death penalty should either be done away with, or made so it actually is a deterrent i.e. make it so much worse than painless death. I think we need painful death penalty again.

IHateMakingNames

01-07-2004, 06:33 PM

GatoFiero

01-07-2004, 06:59 PM

I don't see why the death penalty would cost so much... They could easily just take the criminal out back and shot them.

My guess is that all the paperwork and legal crap needed to do the death part itself is most of the cost...

The appeals process is extremely long and expensive. The reason there are so many chances for appeal is because the court wants to be as sure as possible that they're killing the right criminal.

FunnyLooking

01-07-2004, 07:15 PM

<Let's say that Billy steals $500 from George. He then goes out and spends that $500 on drugs, or deposits it in his Swiss bank account. If he were arrested, which would make more sense: incarcerating him for seven years, or fining him $500, or chopping his hand off?>

Well, uhh... thinking about this logically... a fine would probably be the worst of all of them, seeing how that's a pathetic deterrant (Oh, you stole some money? All you have to do is give it back, if you're caught). We want to make sure he doesn't go right back into society to steal again, so prison does seem logical in that case.

Plus, chopping his hand off would probably make him MORE desperate for cash seeing how that would limit his job oppurtunities.

<Please don't bring up Hitler in discussions not directly about WW2 or its related issues.>

Uhh... okee-dokee, will do.

Oh, and kudos to GatoFiero for the cost figures.

Devon Lake

01-07-2004, 08:39 PM

I don't think a fine would be so bad a punishment, but 500 dollars? Why of all figures would you choose "Just giving the stuff back? I mean, by that reasoning I might as well steal everything I get my hands on and consider it on loan until the cops figure out it's stolen.

Anyhow, the justice system does cost a good deal of money, and I honestly think it would be best paid for by fines. I just had an idea, what if criminals were punished by their tax rates going up a few percents? We tax working, buying things, booze, smokes, out of all the things we OUGHT to tax, why did no one think of criminal behavior? So much money is poured into keeping us safe, and it ought to be the people who do the opposite who pay for it.

Anarchy_Balsac

01-08-2004, 02:10 AM

Honestly, you make no sense. If everyone were to be proven guilty before they got arrested, you'd actually need to hold a trial before you even make the arrest. Now, you can't hold a trial for someone who hasn't been arrested and charged with anything, therefore, no one would ever get arrested for anything, ever.

you can hold them somewhere other than jail or put an ankel bracelt on them. not exactly ideal either but much better than putting them in the slammer when they may be innocent

As for "getting caught red handed", that certainly wouldn’t be 100% proof of guilt in most circumstances. Nearly any "getting caught red handed" scenario would more or less be circumstantial evidence and thus would not be proof of guilt. You may see me standing over someone stabbed to death with a bloody knife in my hand after following a trail of screams, but it could just as easily have been that I was pulling the knife out AFTER the murder to help. A cop would actually have to be a personal eye witness to any crime to charge anyone, and rarely is a murder committed right out in broad day light when a cop happens to be loitering around.

i was talking about cops with moniter cameras. and the bloody knife scenerio isn't catching someone red handed, they'd have to catch you doing the stabbing

I mean, you act like when you're charged you’re guilty until proven innocent. What is it about merely being charged that is so damned wrong? It in no way is a claim that you have committed a crime; being charged is merely the opening of an investigation to determine whether you have committed a crime or not. To resist such an entirely necessary investigation, when there's probably cause and you're innocent anyway and thus have nothing to fear, is a complete and utter disregard for all civic virtue. Suck it up, it's your duty to society to go and watch yourself get declared innocent if your ever get charged for a crime you didn't commit.

well they fact that you're held in jail when you may be innocent doesn't help. but i meant charged and convicted not just charged

As for "justice", justice isn't petty vengeance; it's doing the right thing. Wronging someone because they've wronged someone else isn't going to make the world any better of a place. It's entirely unconstructive, and frankly I wouldn't want to sacrifice my social productivity so that a few hate mongers can get their jollies killing convicts.

but in some cases "eye for eye" is much more humane. what's worse? 10 years in prison or having to invite people into your home to steal because you were a burgler? admittedly this wouldn't be the case for murder but i only see it as being fair to the victim/s

Imagine a scenario whereas a father is beating his son in retaliation for the child beating his brother (And this beating is entirely disproportionate to the previous one.). Imagine if I were to then beat the tar out of this fellow afterwards because I considered such a beating of a helpless child wrong. So, what have I accomplished in this circumstance?

i'm not talking about crimes of compassion like that, and as it is you usually get let off easy if it's proven that the case was such. 1 guy got 3 years for killing someone, but he did it because the guy raped his daughter. but anyway i'm talking about cases where innocent people are picked on

Well, uhh... thinking about this logically... a fine would probably be the worst of all of them, seeing how that's a pathetic deterrant (Oh, you stole some money? All you have to do is give it back, if you're caught). We want to make sure he doesn't go right back into society to steal again, so prison does seem logical in that case.

or preferrably just fine him $1000 and give it to the one he stole from, his thinking is "you steal money you lose that much" not "you steal money you give it back". that's better than sending him to prison, especially for a mere $500 bucks

Devon Lake

01-08-2004, 11:57 AM

you can hold them somewhere other than jail or put an ankel bracelt on them. not exactly ideal either but much better than putting them in the slammer when they may be innocent.

And how exactly are you going to hold a trial for them without them being �falsely charged�? Besides, in most cases where the accused is detained, it�s because there�s reason to believe they�d otherwise run away. If I�ve just hacked my family to bits and been called to court, chances are if I�m not locked up, I�m not going to show up. Chances are I�ll saw my leg off and flee to a country with no extradition treaty.

i was talking about cops with moniter cameras. and the bloody knife scenerio isn't catching someone red handed, they'd have to catch you doing the stabbing

That�s simply unfeasible. Crimes aren�t committed in the plain view of cops and their video cameras for obvious reasons. You�d need a cop for every person just following them around with a camcorder if you ever wanted to catch anyone for anything. Hell, what happens if these morons dumb enough to commit crimes in broad daylight with a cop and his video camera around happens to have a ski mask on? And of course, if we�re letting go everyone who�s merely standing over a corpse with a bloody knife in their hand rather than bringing them in to the police station I�m sure you�ll find the population of Tahiti or something skyrocket from immigration.

well they fact that you're held in jail when you may be innocent doesn't help. but i meant charged and convicted not just charged

Being held in jail is a mere precaution, and a rather reasonable one if you�ve got a couple of battered abused women tied up in your basement. You may prefer to actually lose your life rather than to spend a single night in a cell after being charged (Which is really quite terrifying; if such a minor toe stubbing as a couple of nights in a cell is enough to make you wish for the end of your days instead then I can�t imagine how horrible your struggle against suicide must be and you have my utmost sympathies.) As for getting convicted, the legal system does as much as it possibly can. Under, �beyond a reasonable doubt� already gets a rather great deal of criminals charged. The number of murders and convicted murderer�s is GROSELY disproportional.

Proving guilt �Beyond any doubt at all�, you might get one murderer in a thousand; only the ones dumb enough to actually put a bullet through someone in broad daylight with a cop and camcorder around without wearing a mask, and probably half of them could probably use insanity as defense given how stupid they�d have to be. Thus, the justice system would fail to work; you�d have utter anarchy in the streets because it would be so obscenely easy to get away with crime. I mean, if there�s only a 1 in 1000 chance of being caught for murder, I can get away with 100 murders and there�s only a 10% chance I�ll get caught, so what�s to stop me? To even approach feasibility you�d need to blow just about all your work force and GDP on justice system (Which, not having an economy to pay for it would collapse in months.). In any case, a police state where the police have no power is just funny way of saying �anarchy�.

but in some cases "eye for eye" is much more humane. what's worse? 10 years in prison or having to invite people into your home to steal because you were a burgler? admittedly this wouldn't be the case for murder but i only see it as being fair to the victim/s

I don�t think so. Rich affluent people tend not to be burglars. Most burglars aren�t materialistically well off; that�s why they steal. Why, most burglars don�t even keep the nice shit they steal, they sell it second hand for money, usually to pay for narcotics. So my house gets broken into and my seven video game consoles get stolen; I�m supposed to be happy because I can walk home with some criminals soiled clothing and cardboard box of empty chip bags?

An eye for an eye is impractical for the same reason as �do unto others as you would have them do unto you� is sited as being impractical (Though in the case of the golden rule it�s often taken out of context but I�ll spare you that tangent.) How are you to punish a child molester? Let the child molest them? Really, that would probably wind up looking exactly the same as the other way around; the molester would be giddy, and kid scared for life. What do you do with rapists? Rape them? I�ll bet a good number of them would take pleasure in that punishment; you�d be doing them a favor.

What about shoplifting? Say I steal a $140 coat and sell it to a pawn shop and get caught. What happens? Do I let him steal one of my coats? The guy owns a coat shop, what use would my coat be to him? Do I merely pay back the $140? That�s just paying me the purchase the coat, and really of very little benefit to the shop keep. If the cost for a single cost from the manufacturer was $120, he�d merely make his 20$ profit for the sale, while the theft would have cost him about six times as much besides causing a horrible pain in the ass for him in dealing with inventory and accounting. If the crook were to return the coat and pay a mere 140$, one crook would need to be caught for every crook that got away to pay off the cost lost to the retailer, and no one is going to shoplift where they estimate that the chances of getting caught are 50%; So, by that policy the shopkeepers would always loose money from shoplifting and the shoplifters would profit handsomely in material wealth. Assuming can make $70 selling these coats hot, as long as I�m caught no more than often than one third of the time I could make a feasible living of shoplifting.

I don�t think you�d get 10 year for stealing anyway, unless it�s grand larceny or something. Fines for stealing should be enough to at least compensate retailers for the damage and frustration they receive from shoplifters.

i'm not talking about crimes of compassion like that, and as it is you usually get let off easy if it's proven that the case was such. 1 guy got 3 years for killing someone, but he did it because the guy raped his daughter. but anyway i'm talking about cases where innocent people are picked on

That wasn�t the point at all. The point was someone doing something bad was given a beating and it did absolutely nothing valuable whatsoever and merely caused more problems.

FunnyLooking

01-08-2004, 03:17 PM

<Proving guilt �Beyond any doubt at all�, you might get one murderer in a thousand>

Not really. You'd never catch ANY murderers, because it's always possible that he didn't kill him (regardless if it's on tape or anything). It's possible that a fairy came down and took over his soul/body, or edited the video camera to make it look like it was that guy. It's highly improbable, yeah, but it's still possible. That's why we use "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", so we don't have to deal with the possibilities of fairies. Because, reasonably, fairies don't do that.

I mean, if we're using beyond any doubt at all, complete 100%, then even admitting that you're guilty wouldn't be enough.

<well they fact that you're held in jail when you may be innocent doesn't help. but i meant charged and convicted not just charged>

If you're convicted then you've been proved to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt, (disregarding the possibility of fairies). If it's been proven fairly, and our court systems are honestly pretty fair, that you committed a crime, then you'll suffer the consequences. If we find out you're innocent, then hell, we'll let you go. If we kill you and then find out you're innocent, then hell, there's not much we can do about it, can we?

<What do you do with rapists? Rape them?>

Well, not necessarily. I think that's taking Eye for an Eye too literally. For rapists you would hit them in the balls a bunch of times or something, I dunno. But it's still not productive and bordering on Cruel & Unusual Punishment.

Anarchy_Balsac

01-09-2004, 01:34 AM

And how exactly are you going to hold a trial for them without them being “falsely charged”?

what the fuck?

Besides, in most cases where the accused is detained, it’s because there’s reason to believe they’d otherwise run away. If I’ve just hacked my family to bits and been called to court, chances are if I’m not locked up, I’m not going to show up. Chances are I’ll saw my leg off and flee to a country with no extradition treaty.

hence the ankle braclet or at least holding them somewhere other than in jail

That’s simply unfeasible. Crimes aren’t committed in the plain view of cops and their video cameras for obvious reasons. You’d need a cop for every person just following them around with a camcorder if you ever wanted to catch anyone for anything. Hell, what happens if these morons dumb enough to commit crimes in broad daylight with a cop and his video camera around happens to have a ski mask on? And of course, if we’re letting go everyone who’s merely standing over a corpse with a bloody knife in their hand rather than bringing them in to the police station I’m sure you’ll find the population of Tahiti or something skyrocket from immigration.

i was talking about little things that don't warrant a huge investigation like speeding and the like

Proving guilt “Beyond any doubt at all”, you might get one murderer in a thousand; only the ones dumb enough to actually put a bullet through someone in broad daylight with a cop and camcorder around without wearing a mask, and probably half of them could probably use insanity as defense given how stupid they’d have to be. Thus, the justice system would fail to work; you’d have utter anarchy in the streets because it would be so obscenely easy to get away with crime. I mean, if there’s only a 1 in 1000 chance of being caught for murder, I can get away with 100 murders and there’s only a 10% chance I’ll get caught, so what’s to stop me? To even approach feasibility you’d need to blow just about all your work force and GDP on justice system (Which, not having an economy to pay for it would collapse in months.). In any case, a police state where the police have no power is just funny way of saying “anarchy”.

yes it is possible:

microscopic peaces of your clothing(containing oil from your skin, thus dna evidence) and skin wither and fall to the ground constantly. it's one of many reasons your clothes deterriorate over time. everything you do has a very minute influence on the invirnment around it. you just can't completelycover it up

hence it IS possible. it would require a lot of work, but it's possible. about the only thing they can't prove is how many breaths you took, and for all i know they just may be able to prove that as well. forensic science is extremly advanced and can in fact prove anything given the time

I don’t think so. Rich affluent people tend not to be burglars. Most burglars aren’t materialistically well off; that’s why they steal. Why, most burglars don’t even keep the nice shit they steal, they sell it second hand for money, usually to pay for narcotics. So my house gets broken into and my seven video game consoles get stolen; I’m supposed to be happy because I can walk home with some criminals soiled clothing and cardboard box of empty chip bags?

if they can't give things back they can be forced to work for it and the proceeds go to the person they robbed

What do you do with rapists? Rape them? I’ll bet a good number of them would take pleasure in that punishment; you’d be doing them a favor.

it wouldn't be rape if they took pleasure in it, there a drastic measures you can go to so as to ensure they wouldn't, but i'd be breaking the rules to explain them

What about shoplifting? Say I steal a $140 coat and sell it to a pawn shop and get caught. What happens? Do I let him steal one of my coats?

would you honestly rather go to jail? hell if i were caught doing something like that and had to give up a coat or face jail time i'd give up the damn coat

I don’t think you’d get 10 year for stealing anyway, unless it’s grand larceny or something. Fines for stealing should be enough to at least compensate retailers for the damage and frustration they receive from shoplifters.

i was talking about burglery, not petty theft

Devon Lake

01-09-2004, 09:46 AM

what the fuck?

*Sigh* When you hold a trial, you need to hold it FOR something. Thus, someone is charged with a crime and the trial is used to determine beyond a reasonable doubt if that person committed the crime they were charged with or not. Now, people are going to have to be charged with crimes they didn�t commit, because before the trial you�re not sure whether the person has committed the crime or not (Thus the point of a trial.) and you can�t discriminate and only charge guilty people.

hence the ankle braclet or at least holding them somewhere other than in jail

And how is this ankle bracelet supposed to work if I cut my foot off as I said? They going to track down my lobbed off appendage and put that on trial? Between the punishment for murder and adjusting to a prosthetic foot, I�d have to pick the foot. As for being held somewhere else, generally people will consider anywhere they�re being held jail. Hotels are nice, but I wouldn�t want to be forced to stay in one over the course of a lengthy trial; I mean jumping on the bed, watching TV, using the pool, those will only hold you so long. That�s why jury duty sucks you see. If being in a prison during a trial is to much for you, chances are even if you�re in an Arabian pleasure palace straight out of 1001 Nights you�re still going to be miffed about having your freedom of mobility and such taken away.

i was talking about little things that don't warrant a huge investigation like speeding and the like

I see, so on a discussion regarding crimes serious enough for some people to call for capitol punishment you decided to bring up such piddly offences as speeding tickets, not tell anyone, and expect us all to know what you�re talking about? Sounds to me like you�ve merely stumbled into the �No True Scotsman� logical fallacy. In any case, it would cost a shit load of money if every speeder we wanted to catch needed to be caught on tape; too much considering that traffic tickets are rarely challenged in court.

hence it IS possible. it would require a lot of work, but it's possible. about the only thing they can't prove is how many breaths you took, and for all i know they just may be able to prove that as well. forensic science is extremly advanced and can in fact prove anything given the time

First of all, that�s hardly being caught red handed. Second of all, DNA would only ever be circumstantial evidence in most cases. Third, not everyone�s DNA is on file. Fourth, most given crime scenes would be contaminated by the DNA of people entirely unrelated to the incident because the funny thing is that people are everywhere. Fifth, if people charged with serious crimes are held in jail, they may very well go about destroying the actually damning evidence. Seventh, what does finding a few of my dead skin cells and hairs on a corpse really prove? Eighth, if I�m found standing over a butchered corpse with blood everywhere and that�s not enough for me to be charged with anything, what the hell good is DNA evidence going to do? Ninth, a moment ago you were just saying that all crimes should be caught on police video recorders as indisputable proof, so again you�ve committed the �No True Scotsman fallacy�.

You can have all the evidence in the world (As Funny Looking pointed out.) and it could still never prove 100% that you committed a given crime. Besides that, the �lot of work� you�re talking about is what makes it unfeasible because it would require so much work as for society to collapse under the exertion.

[/quote] if they can't give things back they can be forced to work for it and the proceeds go to the person they robbed[/quote]

As I said, most robbers aren�t materially well off; in many cases, they�re probably unemployed. If you force them to pay up for their crimes, you know what they�re going to do? Steal some more! You could give the person a job, but considering all the law abiding people out of work, it�s a tad unfair to be giving our jobs out to the robbers. Sure, robbers are often made to pay back their victims in addition to fines and jail, but in a lot of cases it�s just not feasible.

[/quote] it wouldn't be rape if they took pleasure in it, there a drastic measures you can go to so as to ensure they wouldn't, but i'd be breaking the rules to explain them[/quote]

Well ya, that�s the point, you couldn�t rape them back because anything you could give them wouldn�t bring rape. Say you just picked up a victim impact statement and tired to inflict that back on the criminal. If some teenage girl has suffered the indignity of having her virginity stolen from her, been brutally raped and psychologically scared for life by a big horrible brute, how do you pay that back? I don�t think a pain like that could be compared to any physical pain, and how can you inflict shame on someone who gets their jollies from rape? What are you going to do, have an animal rape them? First of all, again I�ll bet some rapists would enjoy it, and second of all that would be punishing the animal. Go medieval on their anus? Physical torture really isn�t rape.

would you honestly rather go to jail? hell if i were caught doing something like that and had to give up a coat or face jail time i'd give up the damn coat

Holy crap, are you even listening to what I�m saying? That entire paragraph was from the point of view of the retailer, not the shop lifter. I wasn�t concerned with the loss of the robber, I was concerned with the horrible loss of the shopkeeper in implementing your eye for an eye policy.

i was talking about burglery, not petty theft

In that case it�s an even worse idea. You think a burglar having a bit of his shit stolen is really going to deter him? For that to be any sort of loss, he�d have to be caught more than half the time.

Anarchy_Balsac

01-09-2004, 12:41 PM

*Sigh* When you hold a trial, you need to hold it FOR something. Thus, someone is charged with a crime and the trial is used to determine beyond a reasonable doubt if that person committed the crime they were charged with or not. Now, people are going to have to be charged with crimes they didn’t commit, because before the trial you’re not sure whether the person has committed the crime or not (Thus the point of a trial.) and you can’t discriminate and only charge guilty people.

so you're saying we have to know beforehand and charge alittle of both?

And how is this ankle bracelet supposed to work if I cut my foot off as I said? They going to track down my lobbed off appendage and put that on trial? Between the punishment for murder and adjusting to a prosthetic foot, I’d have to pick the foot. As for being held somewhere else, generally people will consider anywhere they’re being held jail. Hotels are nice, but I wouldn’t want to be forced to stay in one over the course of a lengthy trial; I mean jumping on the bed, watching TV, using the pool, those will only hold you so long. That’s why jury duty sucks you see. If being in a prison during a trial is to much for you, chances are even if you’re in an Arabian pleasure palace straight out of 1001 Nights you’re still going to be miffed about having your freedom of mobility and such taken away.

no but if you did that then holding you in jail would be reasonable since you commited a crime in doing so. also is it just me or shouldn't you cut off the ankle braclet instead of you're foot? :confused:

I see, so on a discussion regarding crimes serious enough for some people to call for capitol punishment you decided to bring up such piddly offences as speeding tickets, not tell anyone, and expect us all to know what you’re talking about? Sounds to me like you’ve merely stumbled into the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy. In any case, it would cost a shit load of money if every speeder we wanted to catch needed to be caught on tape; too much considering that traffic tickets are rarely challenged in court.

i had to cover all my bases so someone wouldn't say, "yeah well how are we going to enforce speed limit laws then?" didn't i?

Second of all, DNA would only ever be circumstantial evidence in most cases. Third, not everyone’s DNA is on file.

second, forensics isn't just DNA and they can determine how old the (skin tissue, blood, whatever) is to place you at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime. combined with other forensic evidence it wouldn't be circumstantial. third by the time their on trail you would have to take their DNA

Fourth, most given crime scenes would be contaminated by the DNA of people entirely unrelated to the incident because the funny thing is that people are everywhere.

DNA doesn't contaminate anything, and it doesn't erase other DNA. it's just more for detectives to wade through, nothing else

Fifth, if people charged with serious crimes are held in jail, they may very well go about destroying the actually damning evidence.

okay like said before you can't completely destroy evidence but scenes crime scenes are investigated directly after the crime happens it's pretty irrelevant if they do go back and try to dispose of it since the police would have already seen whatever evidence their going to destroy anyway

Seventh, what does finding a few of my dead skin cells and hairs on a corpse really prove?

that you were either in physical contact with or standing over the person at some point, but forensics is more than just DNA

You can have all the evidence in the world (As Funny Looking pointed out.) and it could still never prove 100% that you committed a given crime. Besides that, the “lot of work” you’re talking about is what makes it unfeasible because it would require so much work as for society to collapse under the exertion.

okay once again:

microscopic peaces of your clothing(containing oil from your skin, thus dna evidence) and skin wither and fall to the ground constantly. it's one of many reasons your clothes deterriorate over time. everything you do has a very minute influence on the invirnment around it. you just can't completelycover it up

hence it IS possible. it would require a lot of work, but it's possible. about the only thing they can't prove is how many breaths you took, and for all i know they just may be able to prove that as well. forensic science is extremly advanced and can in fact prove anything given the time

As I said, most robbers aren’t materially well off; in many cases, they’re probably unemployed. If you force them to pay up for their crimes, you know what they’re going to do? Steal some more! You could give the person a job, but considering all the law abiding people out of work, it’s a tad unfair to be giving our jobs out to the robbers. Sure, robbers are often made to pay back their victims in addition to fines and jail, but in a lot of cases it’s just not feasible.

if they won't stop and you can't correct them because they just steal more to make up their loss then prison time is more than ok. but i'd much rather give them a chance first and only resort to locking them up when they decide never to learn from their mistakes

Go medieval on their anus? Physical torture really isn’t rape.

on the contrary rape is considered by many to be a form of physical torture

Holy crap, are you even listening to what I’m saying? That entire paragraph was from the point of view of the retailer, not the shop lifter. I wasn’t concerned with the loss of the robber, I was concerned with the horrible loss of the shopkeeper in implementing your eye for an eye policy.

so what do you do? take 30 cents from someone who stole a $140 coat, put that person in jail? either way i see that as wrong when, the 30 cent thing being obvious as to why. but why lock someone up when you can just tell him to give back what he stole plus the equivilant of his own belongings. and if he can't he cn do commutiy service until it's paid off

In that case it’s an even worse idea. You think a burglar having a bit of his shit stolen is really going to deter him? For that to be any sort of loss, he’d have to be caught more than half the time.

let's put it this way, every time he' caught he has to give back what he stole and then he has to invite people into his house to steal everything from it. so id he does it again he'll lose all his belongings again. not point in stealing if he can't keep anything, even if it is less than half he time he's caught he won't keep any of it, because those times that he is caught he loses it all

Raerlynn

01-09-2004, 03:29 PM

Let me throw my hat in this ring by saying:

I approve the death penalty. Simple and clean. We need to come up with a more...practical...method of performing it. That being said, as far as eye for an eye, bah. Penalties need to simply be a bit more severe than being socially ostracized for a period of time. An old Arabian penalty for theft was the loss of a hand. I think that would be a deterrent to prevent thieves.

FunnyLooking

01-09-2004, 05:06 PM

<An old Arabian penalty for theft was the loss of a hand. I think that would be a deterrent to prevent thieves.>

It sure would, but it's an incentive for crime (can't get jobs), cruel and unusual, a permanent disfigurement (if they better themselves it doesn't matter), and doesn't solve nearly anything.

<hence it IS possible. it would require a lot of work, but it's possible.>

Did you not read my post before? It's NOT possible because there is always a possibility that either: something human went wrong, magic happened, or the circumstances happened in a certain way. Practicality states that 100% ignores very small possibilities. Just because something is incredibly unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible. That's why we use Reasonable Doubt.

According to 100%, declaring yourself guilty isn't enough proof.

Or what about cases that are just tough to call? If I try to wrestle a gun away from person A so they don't kill person B, but end up doing it anyway. There is no way to know 100% who was trying to kill who.

<second, forensics isn't just DNA and they can determine how old the (skin tissue, blood, whatever) is to place you at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime>

So, if you happen to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime, that's 100%? That's not even close.

<so you're saying we have to know beforehand and charge alittle of both?>

She's suggesting that we DON'T know beforehand (because you CAN'T know beforehand) and accuse people to find out if they did do it. You're suggesting we know beforehand, then accuse them, THEN convict them.

Devon Lake

01-09-2004, 05:10 PM

so you're saying we have to know beforehand and charge alittle of both?

I wish I could just say �no� and then quote myself and say, �That�s what I said�. Yet, that would be lazy. I said that beforehand we only need reasonable and probably grounds, in other words, a logical belief that this person may have committed a given crime. That�s what you need to make a charge. Determining certainty of whether a person has committed a crime comes out at trial, but, the person is still innocent until proven guilty.

no but if you did that then holding you in jail would be reasonable since you commited a crime in doing so. also is it just me or shouldn't you cut off the ankle braclet instead of you're foot?

Again, how would they find the guy if he doesn�t have the ankle bracelet on?

i had to cover all my bases so someone wouldn't say, "yeah well how are we going to enforce speed limit laws then?" didn't i?

I see, and it was our duty to infer with our psychic powers that you were talking about traffic crime and nothing on topic?

second, forensics isn't just DNA and they can determine how old the (skin tissue, blood, whatever) is to place you at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime. combined with other forensic evidence it wouldn't be circumstantial. third by the time their on trail you would have to take their DNA

Skin and blood and sweat are just the raw materials used to gather DNA. Blood type and that sort of thing can only show that half the population didn�t commit the crime or something. As for bullet wound analysis and look and splatter and that sort of thing, that more gives you an idea of HOW the crime was committed, which is useful to know, but it�s not usually going to pinpoint the killer. In any case, there is no way to get a date from dead flakes of skin. A dead flake of skin is a wad of decomposing proteins, not a Swiss timepiece. And DNA only proves who the DNA came from, other forensic evidence won�t help it prove much more than that.

DNA doesn't contaminate anything, and it doesn't erase other DNA. it's just more for detectives to wade through, nothing else

Ok, fun fact time! That little ever so thin (If you�re not a slob) layer of grey crap in your house, the stuff we all know and love as dust, is actually composed mostly of dead human skin cells with a bit of bug poop. You�d die of old age before you sifted through all the microscopic flakes of it on a single high shelf. I suppose you could try people for things six generations after they�ve happened, but they�d already be dead, and nothing productive would come of it. In any case, how are they supposed to conclude, from all the individual samples of DNA, whose the killer? If you find the DNA of 100 different people at a murder scene, that just gives you 100 different suspects, and that�s a whole lot to go through. That�s why contamination is bad.

okay like said before you can't completely destroy evidence but scenes crime scenes are investigated directly after the crime happens it's pretty irrelevant if they do go back and try to dispose of it since the police would have already seen whatever evidence their going to destroy anyway

I see. So me getting a chance to burn bloodied clothes and bury bodies mean nothing to you? You can�t undo a chemical change; fire could solve a good lot of your evidence woes. In any case, a lot of damning evidence isn�t at the scene of the crimes. Say one were to make a video of their brutal rape and bring it home. Such tapes are pretty damning evidence, as was the case with Paul Bernardo, and fuck if I�m going to see Bernardo go free because people thought staying in jail when he�s accused of being a serial killer/rapist would be overkill.

that you were either in physical contact with or standing over the person at some point, but forensics is more than just DNA

Contact and looming over some guy aren�t evidence of murder. Furthermore, forensics still won�t help in a lot of cases. It can show I was around, it can show how the crime was committed, but there�s not a whole lot there that can be used to establish much guilt. Again, if I just shoot you and file the gun barrel or burn it and swim out into the sea at a portion of the coast in the middle of nowhere and dive down and bury it under a rock and a lot of sand, how are you going to prove 100% that I did anything?

okay once again.

You obviously didn�t read what Funny Looking said, so I�ll paraphrase it somehow. Even if someone were caught on tape committing a rape, peed on the carpet afterwards, and cut off all his victims hair for a trophy which was later captured by police, and a vaginal swab was taken of the victim, that wouldn�t be �100%� proof. I mean, he didn�t do it! It was his long lost twin brother who erased and evidence of ever existing! Or wait, someone set him up; it was really a women with a strap on dressed as him that did the rape who happened to be a the Physician at the local Sperm Bank and managed to force masturbate the accused and sneak the goo into the victom afterwards! The urine was also planted, and so was the victims hair. So there you go, you can never prove anything beyond all doubt, no matter how hard you try and how fantastic the forensics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac
hence it IS possible. it would require a lot of work, but it's possible. about the only thing they can't prove is how many breaths you took, and for all i know they just may be able to prove that as well. forensic science is extremly advanced and can in fact prove anything given the time

Quote:
[\quote]

Ugh, I don�t think that saying �Okay once again� and posting the VERY PARAGRAPH I WAS RESPONDING TO is much of an argument. Let me simplify what you just did.

You: X is true!
Me: No, your argument has flaws Y, Z.
You: Oh ya, well X is true!

Not much of a defense is it?

[quote] if they won't stop and you can't correct them because they just steal more to make up their loss then prison time is more than ok. but i'd much rather give them a chance first and only resort to locking them up when they decide never to learn from their mistakes

They already had the chance when they decided to be a criminal in the first place. In any case, I doubt a lot of robbers could pay the fines anyway, so you�d really just be making their probably already situation, the cause of their crime, even worse.

on the contrary rape is considered by many to be a form of physical torture

Oh sure it�s physical torture, but the physical pain of being porked alone really isn�t why rape is despicable. Chances are your average beating would be more painful physically. Rape is despicable and hated because it�s emotional torture, because it causes shame and an emotional scare of abuse that can never go away. I�d like to see you find a method to repay that.

so what do you do? take 30 cents from someone who stole a $140 coat, put that person in jail? either way i see that as wrong when, the 30 cent thing being obvious as to why. but why lock someone up when you can just tell him to give back what he stole plus the equivilant of his own belongings. and if he can't he cn do commutiy service until it's paid off[quote]

I have no idea where you got the thirty cents thing from. It sounds to me like you�re arguing against things I never even said. The reason why we �lock someone up when you can just tell him to give back what he stole plus the equivilant of his own belongings� is because as I illustrated in that very paragraph you obviously didn�t read, AGAIN, it would be entirely unfeasible because the shopkeepers could never recoup how much they�d loose from people who got away, and shop keeping would still be profitable to criminals. Hell, the criminal would make more money for the coat than the retailer because he wouldn�t have to pay the wholesale fee. The shop lifter caught as a whole should have to pay enough to make up for all the losses of the shopkeeper plus 25% for inconveniences, and another fee towards the state to pay for all legal costs of prosecuting them with another 25% inconvenience fee.

[quote] let's put it this way, every time he' caught he has to give back what he stole and then he has to invite people into his house to steal everything from it. so id he does it again he'll lose all his belongings again. not point in stealing if he can't keep anything, even if it is less than half he time he's caught he won't keep any of it, because those times that he is caught he loses it all

Won�t help if he sells the stuff he steals to pay for crack and whores. Besides, what if the guy realizes he�ll be convicted and smashes all his good shit up to piss off his victims? The fact that victims are stealing from their burglars also means that many families will be compensated far better than others. An affluent family that had all it�s best stuff stolen might end up only being compensated by some losers slimy porn rags, a soiled mattress, a light bulb and a pile of garbage while a family that had much less nice stuff stolen gets to steal from some eccentric billionaire�s palace. I must admit though, I sort of like this plan now sheerly for the comic novelty of it; you�d get people trying to trick other people into robbing their house so that they could rob THEIR house. That�d make a great cartoon� Are you going to use that gag, because if not it�s mine!

Anarchy_Balsac

01-09-2004, 11:54 PM

I wish I could just say “no” and then quote myself and say, “That’s what I said”. Yet, that would be lazy. I said that beforehand we only need reasonable and probably grounds, in other words, a logical belief that this person may have committed a given crime. That’s what you need to make a charge. Determining certainty of whether a person has committed a crime comes out at trial, but, the person is still innocent until proven guilty.

for search warrants yes, not for throwing someone in the slammer

Again, how would they find the guy if he doesn’t have the ankle bracelet on?

how did they find him in the first place? there's a reason it's called the long arm of the law

I see, and it was our duty to infer with our psychic powers that you were talking about traffic crime and nothing on topic?

well i wouldn't possibly expect murder to be caught like that as such so it's not much of a stretch

Skin and blood and sweat are just the raw materials used to gather DNA. Blood type and that sort of thing can only show that half the population didn’t commit the crime or something. As for bullet wound analysis and look and splatter and that sort of thing, that more gives you an idea of HOW the crime was committed, which is useful to know, but it’s not usually going to pinpoint the killer. In any case, there is no way to get a date from dead flakes of skin. A dead flake of skin is a wad of decomposing proteins, not a Swiss timepiece. And DNA only proves who the DNA came from, other forensic evidence won’t help it prove much more than that.

like everything it deteriorates over time(or rather decays is more like it), they can determine the time by how much decay it has

Ok, fun fact time! That little ever so thin (If you’re not a slob) layer of grey crap in your house, the stuff we all know and love as dust, is actually composed mostly of dead human skin cells with a bit of bug poop. You’d die of old age before you sifted through all the microscopic flakes of it on a single high shelf. I suppose you could try people for things six generations after they’ve happened, but they’d already be dead, and nothing productive would come of it. In any case, how are they supposed to conclude, from all the individual samples of DNA, whose the killer? If you find the DNA of 100 different people at a murder scene, that just gives you 100 different suspects, and that’s a whole lot to go through. That’s why contamination is bad.

no it's much more effecient than that. they basically gather a bunch and use a computer to sift through, maybe not so much 10 years ago but today they can certainly do it

I see. So me getting a chance to burn bloodied clothes and bury bodies mean nothing to you? You can’t undo a chemical change; fire could solve a good lot of your evidence woes. In any case, a lot of damning evidence isn’t at the scene of the crimes. Say one were to make a video of their brutal rape and bring it home. Such tapes are pretty damning evidence, as was the case with Paul Bernardo, and fuck if I’m going to see Bernardo go free because people thought staying in jail when he’s accused of being a serial killer/rapist would be overkill.

but scenes crime scenes are investigated directly after the crime happens it's pretty irrelevant if they do go back and try to dispose of it since the police would have already seen whatever evidence their going to destroy anyway

go ahead, try and dispose of evidence that's already in the hands of the cops

Contact and looming over some guy aren’t evidence of murder. Furthermore, forensics still won’t help in a lot of cases. It can show I was around, it can show how the crime was committed, but there’s not a whole lot there that can be used to establish much guilt. Again, if I just shoot you and file the gun barrel or burn it and swim out into the sea at a portion of the coast in the middle of nowhere and dive down and bury it under a rock and a lot of sand, how are you going to prove 100% that I did anything?

with forensic science of course done at the scene of the crime, as explained already

You obviously didn’t read what Funny Looking said, so I’ll paraphrase it somehow. Even if someone were caught on tape committing a rape, peed on the carpet afterwards, and cut off all his victims hair for a trophy which was later captured by police, and a vaginal swab was taken of the victim, that wouldn’t be “100%” proof. I mean, he didn’t do it! It was his long lost twin brother who erased and evidence of ever existing! Or wait, someone set him up; it was really a women with a strap on dressed as him that did the rape who happened to be a the Physician at the local Sperm Bank and managed to force masturbate the accused and sneak the goo into the victom afterwards! The urine was also planted, and so was the victims hair. So there you go, you can never prove anything beyond all doubt, no matter how hard you try and how fantastic the forensics.

and somehow spread out that "dust"(mentioned about) that at the scene of the crime? even though the forensics disprove it? the indenticle twin thing twin thing does make it rough, but there are ways around it(type of clothing fragment, dead skin from scars the other doesn't have, etc.)

Ugh, I don’t think that saying “Okay once again” and posting the VERY PARAGRAPH I WAS RESPONDING TO is much of an argument. Let me simplify what you just did.

You: X is true!
Me: No, your argument has flaws Y, Z.
You: Oh ya, well X is true!

Not much of a defense is it?.

okay how exactly is saying:

"You can have all the evidence in the world (As Funny Looking pointed out.) and it could still never prove 100% that you committed a given crime. Besides that, the “lot of work” you’re talking about is what makes it unfeasible because it would require so much work as for society to collapse under the exertion."

saying no it has flaws Y and Z? i stated that it's very advanced(hence efficient and AND can prove everything needed) and you denied it

They already had the chance when they decided to be a criminal in the first place. In any case, I doubt a lot of robbers could pay the fines anyway, so you’d really just be making their probably already situation, the cause of their crime, even worse

if they steal enough that they can't work for it then prison time is appropriat. but if they can work for it it's an excellent alternative

Oh sure it’s physical torture, but the physical pain of being porked alone really isn’t why rape is despicable. Chances are your average beating would be more painful physically. Rape is despicable and hated because it’s emotional torture, because it causes shame and an emotional scare of abuse that can never go away. I’d like to see you find a method to repay that.

i can only imagine a drill in that manner would cause extreme emotional torture

I have no idea where you got the thirty cents thing from. It sounds to me like you’re arguing against things I never even said.

actually you did say it:

That entire paragraph was from the point of view of the retailer

so it sounded like you're saying we should take the theif's equivelant of the coat

AGAIN, it would be entirely unfeasible because the shopkeepers could never recoup how much they’d loose from people who got away, and shop keeping would still be profitable to criminals. Hell, the criminal would make more money for the coat than the retailer because he wouldn’t have to pay the wholesale fee. The shop lifter caught as a whole should have to pay enough to make up for all the losses of the shopkeeper plus 25% for inconveniences, and another fee towards the state to pay for all legal costs of prosecuting them with another 25% inconvenience fee.

that's not far from what i'm saying should happen anyway, i fail to see a real point in that

Won’t help if he sells the stuff he steals to pay for crack and whores. Besides, what if the guy realizes he’ll be convicted and smashes all his good shit up to piss off his victims? The fact that victims are stealing from their burglars also means that many families will be compensated far better than others. An affluent family that had all it’s best stuff stolen might end up only being compensated by some losers slimy porn rags, a soiled mattress, a light bulb and a pile of garbage while a family that had much less nice stuff stolen gets to steal from some eccentric billionaire’s palace. I must admit though, I sort of like this plan now sheerly for the comic novelty of it; you’d get people trying to trick other people into robbing their house so that they could rob THEIR house. That’d make a great cartoon… Are you going to use that gag, because if not it’s mine!

well obviously he's not complying if he's doing that, in which case locking him up would be okay

Krylo

01-10-2004, 12:08 AM

Alright... I'm sick of watching you two butt heads with neither making headway, so I'm going to try and explain this.

Anarchy: You can NOT prove anything 100% Forensic scientists are not robots. They make mistakes. DNA degradation/decay is not an exact science. Depending on situations it may decay far faster or far slower than normal, and all it proves either way is that you were there. Bits of fiber from your clothing also only proves that you touched the victim, not that you drove a knife into him. There's a reason that there aren't many convictions without either eye witnesses or a murder weapon... if they don't find the murder weapon with the killer's DNA/Fingerprints etc. on it, everything they find at the crime scene is circumstantial. Just because someone was there when a person died doesn't mean that they killed them. Or they'd have to find the victim's blood on the clothing of the person who killed them... which the killer, if he's smart, would just burn. ALSO the cops NEVER get to a crime scene as soon as the crime happens, and the killer is there WHILE the crime is happening. If I were to kill someone, and then torch the room before leaving, it's pretty safe to assume I'd be destroying the evidence before the cops could get there unless they're psychic and have super powers.

That's flaw Y in your arguement.

Now besides all that, let's say you COULD prove something 100% (which you can't as seen above, but just for arguement's sake). The amount of time it would take to sift through evidence, and you'd be leaving the killer out on the run would be ridiculous. In the time that you're investigating one murder s/he would kill 2 or 3 other people. And that's assuming you pump a lot of money into forsenics labs, which would, as Devon said, cause a huge drain which would make all sorts of problems for the economy. Not every police station has access to good forensics technology (most don't actually), and there's a reason for that. That reason being that they can't afford it because the money to buy that, and keep the education system running, and keep road work going, and keep the sewers working, and make sure there are police offers to use it, just doesn't exist.

That's flaw Z.

There... now if Anarchy STILL doesn't understand the logical fallacies in his arguement, I suggest we stop trying to convince him otherwise. It's going nowhere.

FunnyLooking

01-10-2004, 12:12 AM

<saying no it has flaws Y and Z? i stated that it's very advanced(hence efficient and AND can prove everything needed) and you denied it>

This is where I just get the feeling you're ignoring me. Not to mention youi just said "Everything needed" and because 100% means we need everything, are you saying they can prove everything related? The point was that there's at least a glimmer of chance that something else happened, no matter what the case is. The chances are totally unreasonable however, which is why we use REASONABLE doubt. If there was NO doubt, then you have to cover completely unreasonable possibilities.

What if a person was convinced he did a crime he didn't? He pleads guilty when he actually isn't. That means pleading guilty can't prove 100%.

<go ahead, try and dispose of evidence that's already in the hands of the cops>

They destroy the evidence AT the scene of the crime, obviously, during the crime. I mean, if the cops are standing right there at the crime, that's plausible, but crimes aren't committed in plain view of the cops.

<no it's much more effecient than that. they basically gather a bunch and use a computer to sift through, maybe not so much 10 years ago but today they can certainly do it>

You seem to put pretty much all your reliance on Forensics. While admittedly I don't know the details, explain to me if we could prove people were guilty 100% then why don't we do it? I mean, let's be realistic here. If someone killed a guy, we'd try to get forensics to prove him guilty. Yet guilty people still go free, and innocents still get punished. If we could declare guilt without a trial, I'm sure we would do it, but we can't.

Ahhh geez... Krylo goes and posts a better argument. No fair...

Ein

01-10-2004, 02:18 AM

Hey, too make this a better discussion (it's already a damned good one for the most part by the way) could you guys start possibley posting articles that referance the sciency stuff you are saying? It would be helpful. Also, to remain semi-on topic, I more or less agree with the death penelty. Though some minor changes would be nice.

Mashirosen

01-10-2004, 04:06 AM

(Slightly O/T: for those interested in the facts about forensic science, including the terrible fragility of forensic evidence, I really recommend Death's Acre (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399151346/ref=pd_sim_books_1/103-0211164-2837454?v=glance&s=books) by William M. Bass, the forensic anthropologist who founded the Body Farm (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/bill_bass/index.html?sect=21). It's definitely not for the squeamish, but it's fascinating stuff if you can handle it. I can't but I read it anyway.)

Anarchy_Balsac

01-10-2004, 05:05 AM

krylo, you can only destroy the material. trying to destroy forensic detail just leads to evidence of such and doesn't completely diminish it

now while i DO agree it would take much longer to prove things like that(nowhere near a lifetime though), i also think it's worth it as it would mean no innocents getting arrested. as for why we don't, it probably has to do with the length of time thing more or less. and the fact that very few prisoners are innocent to begin with, but with that said imagine even if it were just one, that the prisoner is you.

Devon Lake

01-10-2004, 10:26 AM

Anarchy: Before I got on, let me explain exactly what an argument is. To quote Monty Python, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition. For this to be any sort of a true debate worthy of a discussion topic it is your duty to outline the thesis and to use reasons and facts to defend that position. Meanwhile, we are disputing these reasons and facts to dismiss the validity of your thesis. That being said, a discussion is not taking place here.

for search warrants yes, not for throwing someone in the slammer

See, we�ve all been very patient in trying to explain to you why it is that someone is in fact charged before it is determined they are guilty. This is changing the subject in addition to begging the question. You haven�t dealt with the arguments for only charging guilty people; you�ve simply stated a part of your thesis irrelevant to this point once again. Thus, you not having dealt with out objections, the point is ours.

how did they find him in the first place? there's a reason it's called the long arm of the law

Here we have a perfect example of contradiction, distraction, and even a priori reasoning. Your original thesis was that someone suspected of being very dangerous doesn�t need to be imprisoned because you can slap a bracelet on them. You haven�t dealt objection of the usefulness of the bracelet, you�ve merely stated that the person can be caught again anyway, which contradicts your proposition that an ankle bracelet would be a useful alternative to being imprisoned because now you�re claiming they�d be caught anyway. So, now you�re committing the �No True Scotsman� fallacy once again by changing your thesis ad hoc.

Then you�re a priori belief that the criminal would be caught anyway. You haven�t given any reasons for believing they would be, you just spouted a clich�. By that reasoning I could just say, �The power of the law is powerless to stop them!�. But instead I�ll point out that being caught and charged and being caught on the lam are entirely different contexts. Being caught and charged the police would have witnessed reasonable and probably grounds to give reason to pick them up while on the lam the individual would most likely not do anything that would draw the attention of the police to him as such.

Thus, for committing a whopping four logical fallacies in a single sentence, you have lost the point and it is ours.

well i wouldn't possibly expect murder to be caught like that as such so it's not much of a stretch

This is again avoiding my objection, namely, that we don�t know what your thesis is unless you tell us (Remember sixth grade essays?) and so the point stands that you merely changed your thesis ad hoc. The key words in your sentence above are �I� and �expect�. Your expectations are inner states which we do not have access to and could not because as I said, we aren�t mind readers. The point stands and another point is ours.

like everything it deteriorates over time(or rather decays is more like it), they can determine the time by how much decay it has

Well, no logical fallacies here, just bad information. The decay of matter is not clockwork, it is dependent on innumerable immeasurable variables (See chaos theory) including temperature, humidity, cell biology, microscopic organisms in the room, and a good number of other factors. Not even atomic decay is dependable enough to be setting watches by. If I leave an apple core at a crime scene, two weeks later you cannot tell when that apple was bitten into because you do not know with much accuracy how the apple decayed. Being warped by decay the dental imprint would be ruined, the saliva dried up, and the tiny cells deteriorated into nothingness but random proteins. Now then skin tissue and hair are biodegradable just like apples, and because they�re many thousands of times smaller, their half-life�s are very, very short so that if forensic doesn�t work fast, damning evidence will be lost.

Point, us.

no it's much more effecient than that. they basically gather a bunch and use a computer to sift through, maybe not so much 10 years ago but today they can certainly do it

Now, I don�t remember the medical establishment being replaced by machines and gene testing being as easy as sweeping dust into a bin and flicking a switch to see the DNA, but I�ll just go ahead and assume you�re flat out wrong because I know from experience it takes weeks to see the gene guys and it really wouldn�t if it was advanced enough to take skin cells dead for and decaying for weeks, sweep them into a bin and to hand them over. You can go find evidence of this far-fetched supposed technology, but until then the point is ours.

go ahead, try and dispose of evidence that's already in the hands of the cops

You entirely ignored my objection, namely evidence not at the seen of the crime such as in the infamous Bernardo case. Furthermore, you�re contradicting yourself. You say often how it would take a very long time to do a thorough forensics sweep, and now you�re saying it would all be done before someone charged could get a chance to damage it, especially hidden things in the crime scene? Furthermore it�s really just begging the question to merely insist again that everything will be found rather to argue true points. We win again.

with forensic science of course done at the scene of the crime, as explained already

This is the worse case of begging the question I have ever seen. I bring up an objection, and you merely state what I was objecting to, �that forensics will prove everything�. It�s the pinnacle of bad arguing to simply restate your evidences after it�s they�ve been disputed. Our point.

and somehow spread out that "dust"(mentioned about) that at the scene of the crime? even though the forensics disprove it? the indenticle twin thing twin thing does make it rough, but there are ways around it(type of clothing fragment, dead skin from scars the other doesn't have, etc.)

Ahahaha, it�s funny that you would actually consider something so far fetched. As stated above many times and as was ignored many times, finding some person�s dust in a good 100 people�s dust won�t help anything. If the accused and victim were friends, then his dust would be there to. You can�t tell which pair of pants a thread came from, there�s no barcode on threads you see. Besides that, with the urine and semen, and even HIS dust, the accused still has the most DNA there. As for the twin, he was being claimed to have erased all existence of himself, so they�d have no record of any identifying features. Furthermore, skin tissue is skin tissue and scar tissue is scar tissue, pretty much the same where ever it came from so that you can�t tell it came from any special identifying feature; that�s why skin grafts work. Besides that, you�re still more or less missing what we�re getting at; that no situation can ever be 100%. Say the fellow claims people from 1000 years in the future came back and used their advanced technology to change the forensic data to make it look like he committed the crime and he really didn�t. The technology you imagine forensics to have may be nice, but not 1000 years in the future nice. Our point.

saying no it has flaws Y and Z? i stated that it's very advanced(hence efficient and AND can prove everything needed) and you denied it

I see, so you�re just considering a priori that forensics is perfect eh? That�s not arguing, that�s being stubborn. I gave you a fool nine objections, simply saying, �Nah, forensics is perfect isn�t arguing,� it�s going, �NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!� We�ve also presented many scenarios by which furthermore it could never ever be proven 100%. I�d honestly like to see how you�d disprove the claim of fairies Funny Looking made. But no, you just decided to ignore us, beg the question, and say you�re right without consideration to our objections. The point is ours.

if they steal enough that they can't work for it then prison time is appropriat. but if they can work for it it's an excellent alternative

That�s economic discrimination; punishing some criminals because their material situation is worse off. This would be the ethical fallacy of prejudice. P, us.

i can only imagine a drill in that manner would cause extreme emotional torture

Not really. You�d be hurt, and perhaps psychologically scared, but it�s not emotional torture. It doesn�t bring the sort of shame and anguish of a young women having her virginity stolen from her or a married women being forced into another man�s submission. You lose.

Devon Lake

01-10-2004, 10:29 AM

(Continued from above because this is such a ridiculously lengthy post.)

so it sounded like you're saying we should take the theif's equivelant of the coat

� How does explaining that I was trying to garner sympathy for the retailer rather than crook have ANYTHING to do with 30 cents? I mean, what sort of logic is this you�re using? I mean, I thought medieval theology was bad, but MAN. See, my concern was that under your plan, SHOPLIFTERS WOULD NOT BE COMPENSATED ENOUGH; 30 CENTS IS NOT ADEQUATE COMPENSATION, AND HOW YOU COULD EVER IMAGINE HOW THAT�S WHAT I SAID FROM ANYTHING I SAID IS INSANE!... Your reasoning is simply insane so I get the point by default.

that's not far from what i'm saying should happen anyway, i fail to see a real point in that.

Not really, you�re suggesting giving a coat retailer a coat for one stolen, which he would have nothing to do with because it�s not the same brand as he gets his inventory from. Otherwise you�ve said that a thief must return the goods and pay the value of the goods. That�s not compensating the retailers if few criminals are caught (They won�t make up the losses in the value of one coat) or they many criminals are caught so that the retailer profits from the shoplifting, which of course is just plain wacky and another great cartoon idea. I�m saying the fine should be proportional to the percentage of total shoplifting losses based on how many criminals are caught. In any case, if you are suggesting that I was agreeing with you, then by saying �I fail to see a real point in that� then you�re giving up the argument and giving me the point.

[/quote] well obviously he's not complying if he's doing that, in which case locking him up would be okay[/quote]

Yay, more ignoring; this time ignoring the stuff about the money disparities in specific burglars and specific households. For that you loose again.

Therefore, you having lost on every single point and having no feet to stand on, I declare this argument having won by us and my work here is done.