Very, very interesting read on a particular case of death penalty. It's one case, but as you'll see while reading, it applies to numerous case in Texas in fact as the same "actors" appear in numerous trial ending with the death penalty.
Trial by fire - 17 pages (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=1)
Interesting fact by a Texas prosecutor: going for death penalty costs 3x more than keeping the man in jail for 40 years.
This is one of the most maddening cases I've ever read about. I could never understand how so many people involved in death penalty cases seem to be unafraid to make a wrong decision. Maybe losing ability to think critically and analytically is a necessary requirement to be able to deal with such matters in the first place.
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2009, 05:29:29 PM
This is one of the most maddening cases I've ever read about. I could never understand how so many people involved in death penalty cases seem to be unafraid to make a wrong decision. Maybe losing ability to think critically and analytically is a necessary requirement to be able to deal with such matters in the first place.
Well they are Texans.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2009, 05:32:29 PM
Well they are Texans.
While Texas deservedly has a bad rap for this, it's hardly the exception. Pretty much any wrongful conviction case uncovers shocking arrogance and willful ignorance on the part of most, if not all, people involved in prosecuting the poor guy.
This came up before when the Willis case (which is mentioned) was thrown out. The new prosecutor to his credit refused to retry after conducting an independent review of Vasquez's work. It was a bad joke - Vasquez had "investigated" over 1000 fires and ALWAYS found arson. It was like the Soviet justice system brought to heartland USA. Yet Willis only secured release because of major unrelated errors in his original trial. Willingham was not so lucky.
There is a confluence of problems that come together that create these kinds of cases including:
1) Trial court judges that don't take their gatekeeping functions seriously. In addition to the junk arson science evidence there was also the parade of highly prejudical ersatz "psychiatric" experts.
2) Breakdown of appellate review as a meaningful check with the TCA acting as a rubber stamp.
3) Second rate and poorly motivated public defenders.
4) Partisan and charged judicial elections which feed into 1 & 2.
Guller is right that these problems are hardly unique to Texas, but it does seem to be true that they have reached particular extremes there, to the point of discrediting the entire system of capital punishment nationwide.
As I searched Google News on this after getting righteously indignant, I came upon this: http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/opinion/local_story_241210447.html It's a rebuttal from the prosecutor, who is now a judge. He says that even without the arson testimony, he's confident that Willingham would still be convicted of murder. I don't know which possibility scares me more, that Jackson is delusional, or that he isn't.
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2009, 05:52:51 PM
I don't know which possibility scares me more, that Jackson is delusional, or that he isn't.
The most scary part is that he is now on the bench.
Read (or at least skimmed) through all of it.
A lot of it I frankly was not concerned about. The lack of motive, the protestations of innocence, his behaviour the day of. Human motivation and reaction is so tremendously variable that its pointless to draw firm conclusions from it (although it can be helpful).
But what is significant is the forensic evidence. I don't know a lot about arson investigation in partiicular, but I know in other areas there have been quite a few cases where it has been learned subsequently that a prosecution expert has been making conclusions unsupported by the current scientific concensus. I've heard some experts speak, and they've confirmed that some of what was previously thought was never as conclusive as we thought it was at the time.
GArbon said something that struck me though.
Quote from: GarbonI could never understand how so many people involved in death penalty cases seem to be unafraid to make a wrong decision.
In an effort to understand and exlpain (but not excuse), what seems to happen is this: so much of the justice system revolves around the initial trial. That's when the initial truth-finding is supposed to take place.
Now the prosecutor at the initial trial relied on some bogus psychiatric evidence, but he did have an expert stating conclusively that this was arson.
And dealing with experts is tricky as a lawyer. You want to be critical of their evidence and not accept it without analysis, but they're the expert and you, well, are not. And at the time it didn't seem like there was anything in the early 90s to call into question that expert evidence.
Then after the trial, there are few opportunities to review the case again. You get bogged down in procedural irregularities, not
de novo considerations. You hear so many false protestations of innocence that I ignore them. Show me hard evidence, or else you're wasting my time.
And it looks like the hard evidence only showed up extremely late in the day for Mr. Wallingham. :(
As horrible as this case is, it doesn't compare to me being confused with garbon.
Okay, I just finished reading it and while it was long it was worth it. That story is fucking sick.
WTF? I am not D4Gully. One night of poor sex does not a match make.
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2009, 06:46:45 PM
And dealing with experts is tricky as a lawyer. You want to be critical of their evidence and not accept it without analysis, but they're the expert and you, well, are not. And at the time it didn't seem like there was anything in the early 90s to call into question that expert evidence.
Assessing the quality and reliability of experts is a basic part of a lawyer's job. One obvious red flag is a guy who is always giving the same opinions over and over again in every case. If it is an area that lawyer is unfamiliar with then it is not uncommon to talk to more than one person or get a second or third opinion.
This guy apparently gave expert testimony in between 1200 and 1500 cases and could not recall ever coming to the conclusion that no arson was involved. It is pretty obvious that his job was to rubber stamp the conclusion of a police investigation with the illusion of scientific expertise. There was at least one local prosecutor who refused to go along with this charade, but others were happy to continue business as usual. I think it speaks to a dysfunctional culture of criminal justice in the context of state where the criminal justice system is highly politicized.
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2009, 05:36:56 PM
While Texas deservedly has a bad rap for this, it's hardly the exception.
Lots of convictions make the elected judiciary look good and keeps them in office.
After all we would not want un-elected God Emperors legislating from the bench of anything.
Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2009, 05:52:51 PM
As I searched Google News on this after getting righteously indignant, I came upon this: http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/opinion/local_story_241210447.html It's a rebuttal from the prosecutor, who is now a judge. He says that even without the arson testimony, he's confident that Willingham would still be convicted of murder. I don't know which possibility scares me more, that Jackson is delusional, or that he isn't.
Remember that prosecutor in the Duke University rape case? Just kept pushing a losing cause, had to know things were wrong, but he couldn't let go as he had his mind on political aspirations, apparently. Until the whole thing fell down around him and he would up in disgrace. This kind of thing happens often enough, the arrogance and pigheadedness.
Did anyone see the AC360 tonight? Willingham's defense attorney was arguing (and in extremely obnoxious and rude tone) that his defendant was guilty, and that's what he always thought. With defense lawyers like that, who needs prosecutors? WTF is going on in Texas?
Quote from: DGuller on October 15, 2009, 11:10:53 PM
Did anyone see the AC360 tonight? Willingham's defense attorney was arguing (and in extremely obnoxious and rude tone) that his defendant was guilty, and that's what he always thought. With defense lawyers like that, who needs prosecutors? WTF is going on in Texas?
I saw that. His basic argument was that he and a buddy poured lighter fluid on a patch of carpet and set it alight. The pattern looked like that on the carpet of Willingham's house. He also said the expert witnesses couldn't state what the cause of the fire was and were motivated by anti-death penalty sentiment.
Quote from: citizen k on October 15, 2009, 11:55:08 PM
I saw that. His basic argument was that he and a buddy poured lighter fluid on a patch of carpet and set it alight. The pattern looked like that on the carpet of Willingham's house. He also said the expert witnesses couldn't state what the cause of the fire was and were motivated by anti-death penalty sentiment.
Only in Texas would the lawyer claim to be more of an expert than his expert witness. :rolleyes:
Can anyone post a link to the video?
Among the saddest stories I've read recently. While I understand the article may be slanted, but the "killer" sounded like a reasonably decent guy who became....weirdly saintly in prison. I guess that can put things in perspective sometimes.
Here's the link to the article with the link. The lawyer should be disbarred just for humiliating his whole field with his completely childish behavior and manner, if nothing else.
http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/9480/todd-willinghams-defense-lawyer-embarrasses-texas-justice-system-on-national-tv-juror-has-doubts
I'd rather have Marty as my lawyer.
Quote from: DGuller on October 16, 2009, 02:24:28 AM
Here's the link ...
Thanks. I've been checking the CNN website to see if I could find at least a transcript without any luck.
God help you if you are tried in Texas, I guess. :(
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 08:49:39 AM
God help you if you are tried in Texas, I guess. :(
There was an article on Languish before about someone being convicted of murder based on crappy arson "science". It seems like the science of arson investigation wasn't much of a science at all for a long time, while it was presented as such at trial.
Which is a bit worrisome - people get on the stand and testify as if they are *certain* of the answer to some "expert" question - but how often is anything EVER certain when it comes to science? Especially with this arson stuff.
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 08:49:39 AM
God help you if you are tried in Texas, I guess. :(
We have a long and proud tradition of hanging judges and drunkard lawyers.
But seriously the vast majority of them are just fine but the way the judges and other judicial officals are selected (by vote by an apathetic public) creates tons of problems.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 08:54:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 08:49:39 AM
God help you if you are tried in Texas, I guess. :(
There was an article on Languish before about someone being convicted of murder based on crappy arson "science". It seems like the science of arson investigation wasn't much of a science at all for a long time, while it was presented as such at trial.
That case is very, very sad, and becoming a major thorn in Rick Perry's side--as it should be.
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 08:59:05 AM
That case is very, very sad, and becoming a major thorn in Rick Perry's side--as it should be.
I am already celebrating Senator Hutchison's inevitable triumph.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 08:54:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 08:49:39 AM
God help you if you are tried in Texas, I guess. :(
There was an article on Languish before about someone being convicted of murder based on crappy arson "science". It seems like the science of arson investigation wasn't much of a science at all for a long time, while it was presented as such at trial.
Which is a bit worrisome - people get on the stand and testify as if they are *certain* of the answer to some "expert" question - but how often is anything EVER certain when it comes to science? Especially with this arson stuff.
There is a procedure developing to challenge the admissibility of so-called "expert" evidence for
exactly this reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
Yes, this is a US standard, but Canada has to an extent imported it.
The problem: "expert" evidence is highly persuasive to "non-experts" (hey, which of you on the jury or sitting in the judges' bench claims to know better than a *scientist*, with the white lab coat and all?), while at the same time real science is often hedged with qualifications and doubt, particularly on the cutting edge; so "science-y" pseudo-science is very often highly persuasive (is seemingly simple and claims a single result unhedged with doubts) - often more so, to the layperson, than *real* science.
Just picture it on the stand. One "expert" is saying he's sure the guy did it, and has an impressive report to prove it. The other"expert" has doubts; his report looks just as impressive as the first guy's but he is rarely absolutely certain of anything ...
What I still don't get is why this is all the more tragic because it is a DP case.
The guy being tossed in prison for the rest of his life as a result of shitty representation, procedures, and bad arson "science" is just as horrible, yet nobody cares, even though it probably happens a LOT more than someone being put to death who should not be.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:07:10 AM
What I still don't get is why this is all the more tragic because it is a DP case.
The guy being tossed in prison for the rest of his life as a result of shitty representation, procedures, and bad arson "science" is just as horrible, yet nobody cares, even though it probably happens a LOT more than someone being put to death who should not be.
It's a question of endings. The case of the guy tossed in prision for life is pretty well as horrible, when he dies in prision. Up to that time, there is always the chance that someone will get interested in his case, demonstrate his innocence, and get him released. Presumably if his imprisionment was the result of culpable negligence by the athourities, he could even be compensated (to the extent you can do that with money) for his damages.
When the guy is dead no such restitution is possible.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 08:54:06 AM
Which is a bit worrisome - people get on the stand and testify as if they are *certain* of the answer to some "expert" question - but how often is anything EVER certain when it comes to science? Especially with this arson stuff.
That's a problem, but the problem in these cases went much deeper than that. It wasn't that exaggerated claims were being made about the reliability or certainty of a scientific method; what appears to have happened is that no scientific inquiry was made at all - rather the examiner came in with a pre-ordained conclusion and simply assembled various random "facts" that could be used to support that conclusion and packaged them together in an "expert report."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2009, 09:23:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 08:54:06 AM
Which is a bit worrisome - people get on the stand and testify as if they are *certain* of the answer to some "expert" question - but how often is anything EVER certain when it comes to science? Especially with this arson stuff.
That's a problem, but the problem in these cases went much deeper than that. It wasn't that exaggerated claims were being made about the reliability or certainty of a scientific method; what appears to have happened is that no scientific inquiry was made at all - rather the examiner came in with a pre-ordained conclusion and simply assembled various random "facts" that could be used to support that conclusion and packaged them together in an "expert report."
Seems to me the proper response these days would be a Daubert challenge. Though I have no idea if this procedure is available under Texas criminal law.
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 09:12:11 AM
It's a question of endings. The case of the guy tossed in prision for life is pretty well as horrible, when he dies in prision. Up to that time, there is always the chance that someone will get interested in his case, demonstrate his innocence, and get him released. Presumably if his imprisionment was the result of culpable negligence by the athourities, he could even be compensated (to the extent you can do that with money) for his damages.
When the guy is dead no such restitution is possible.
Exactly. :yes:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2009, 09:23:32 AM
That's a problem, but the problem in these cases went much deeper than that. It wasn't that exaggerated claims were being made about the reliability or certainty of a scientific method; what appears to have happened is that no scientific inquiry was made at all - rather the examiner came in with a pre-ordained conclusion and simply assembled various random "facts" that could be used to support that conclusion and packaged them together in an "expert report."
IMO the Willingham case is a resounding example of why we need to abolish capital punishment in the United States.
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 09:12:11 AM
It's a question of endings. The case of the guy tossed in prision for life is pretty well as horrible, when he dies in prision. Up to that time, there is always the chance that someone will get interested in his case, demonstrate his innocence, and get him released. Presumably if his imprisionment was the result of culpable negligence by the athourities, he could even be compensated (to the extent you can do that with money) for his damages.
When the guy is dead no such restitution is possible.
Exactly. :yes:
Meh, no such restitution is possible if in fact he is tossed in jail for life and nobody ever does get him out. And that is much more likely to happen absent a DP.
The problem is identical. As long as it is the case that some people will never be vindicated, then there is no difference because some individual has a *chance* of being vindicated, since we know that some people will not.
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 09:29:27 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 16, 2009, 09:23:32 AM
That's a problem, but the problem in these cases went much deeper than that. It wasn't that exaggerated claims were being made about the reliability or certainty of a scientific method; what appears to have happened is that no scientific inquiry was made at all - rather the examiner came in with a pre-ordained conclusion and simply assembled various random "facts" that could be used to support that conclusion and packaged them together in an "expert report."
IMO the Willingham case is a resounding example of why we need to abolish capital punishment in the United States.
And imprisonment in general.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:37:43 AM
And imprisonment in general.
:lol: Dude, I actually was not joking.
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 09:38:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:37:43 AM
And imprisonment in general.
:lol: Dude, I actually was not joking.
I know - neither am I. If the fact that some people will be executed who should not be means that we should get rid of execution, then the fact that some people will be put into prison and never be vindicated should then follow by that same logic, that we should abolish imprisonment.
Why is it unacceptable to every once in a great while execute an innocent man, but it is acceptable that much more often we put someone into prison who will never be vindicated or compenstated who was innocent as well?
Why the double standard?
Voir dire in the case is starting to look shaky...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/15/willingham.juror/index.html
Every sample voir dire questionnaire I've come across phrases questions as "have you, any member of your immediate family, or a close friend." I realize Fogg may not have qualified as a close friend, but her father being a fire marshal and bringing conclusions home with him definitely would have had me exercising a peremptory challenge.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:37:22 AM
Meh, no such restitution is possible if in fact he is tossed in jail for life and nobody ever does get him out. And that is much more likely to happen absent a DP.
The problem is identical. As long as it is the case that some people will never be vindicated, then there is no difference because some individual has a *chance* of being vindicated, since we know that some people will not.
It's a question of timing. You cannot know that there will be no justice in the future; you can know that there will be no justice after the guy is dead. So naturally the latter attracts more attention, since the injustice is made permanent at the moment of execution rather than in some indefinite future.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:37:22 AM
Meh, no such restitution is possible if in fact he is tossed in jail for life and nobody ever does get him out. And that is much more likely to happen absent a DP.
:mellow:
But if someone is executed then there is *zero chance* of them being vindicated, and there is a world of difference in my mind between zero chance of vindication and even a vanishingly small chance of vindication. I think alot of people think this same way, too, or else nobody would ever play the lottery. ^_^
I also have a philosophical problem with the DP because I am uncomfortable with a state executing its own citizens in a controlled situation like this (as opposed to cops shooting someone who is themselves trying to shoot them or some other innocent person), but I guess that's beside this particular point.
I've got an open question, considering the response to death penalty challenges: do you guys believe the death penalty should be held to a higher standard of certainty than "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
No, there is ZERO chance that everyone who is wrongfully put in jail will be released.
If we accept that there is a set of people who are in prison who ought not to be, then it is absolutely true that some subset of those people will NEVER be released. So for those people (granted, we don't know exactly which of them) there is a ZERO percent chance that they will be released, just like the guy who is put to death.
We all agree with this - we agree that out of n innocents in jail, the number who will be exonnerated is y, where y<n. Therefore, for some people it is certainly the case that there is no chance they will be released.
So the problem is the same. The only difference is that once we execute some particular person, THAT person can never be exonerated - but it doesn't change the fact that we know there are people who should not be in prison and will never be exonerated. We don't know which of them this is true for, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it is certainly the case that for some they are not going to be set free.
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 09:42:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:37:22 AM
Meh, no such restitution is possible if in fact he is tossed in jail for life and nobody ever does get him out. And that is much more likely to happen absent a DP.
The problem is identical. As long as it is the case that some people will never be vindicated, then there is no difference because some individual has a *chance* of being vindicated, since we know that some people will not.
It's a question of timing. You cannot know that there will be no justice in the future; you can know that there will be no justice after the guy is dead. So naturally the latter attracts more attention, since the injustice is made permanent at the moment of execution rather than in some indefinite future.
Right- this is the problem of looking at the issue from the particular rather than the general. I think looking at it from the general case is much more useful. DP is not unique in the problem of the innocent being unjustly convicted and punished without there ever being any exoneration.
Personally, agreed. Which is why I'm against the death penalty. No matter where you shift the burden of proof, there's a chance an innocent man will be left with zero chance of exoneration.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 09:53:41 AM
Personally, agreed. Which is why I'm against the death penalty. No matter where you shift the burden of proof, there's a chance an innocent man will be left with zero chance of exoneration.
So are you opposed to imprisonment on that same basis?
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:49:01 AM
No, there is ZERO chance that everyone who is wrongfully put in jail will be released.
If we accept that there is a set of people who are in prison who ought not to be, then it is absolutely true that some subset of those people will NEVER be released. So for those people (granted, we don't know exactly which of them) there is a ZERO percent chance that they will be released, just like the guy who is put to death.
We all agree with this - we agree that out of n innocents in jail, the number who will be exonnerated is y, where y<n. Therefore, for some people it is certainly the case that there is no chance they will be released.
So the problem is the same. The only difference is that once we execute some particular person, THAT person can never be exonerated - but it doesn't change the fact that we know there are people who should not be in prison and will never be exonerated. We don't know which of them this is true for, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it is certainly the case that for some they are not going to be set free.
What you are saying is logically sound and I (think I) agree with it. It's hard for me to even attempt to refute it though, because I don't understand the underlying rationale. "It's okay to execute people because some people in prison--who are destined to *not* share that fate--do not deserve to be there" ? Is that essentially it? Forgive me if it is not but I am trying to follow your line of thinking here. It's hard for me to see how the first part of that statement connects to the second. I am not trying to construct a strawman, just understand what you are basing what I assume is your pro-death penalty stance on.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:54:56 AM
So are you opposed to imprisonment on that same basis?
It's an acceptable risk in cases of imprisonment, because while we're limiting the inmate's right to liberty, the state still has a burden to uphold his life and health. Life, however, is paramount, and shouldn't be placed on the line when there's any chance of the court convicting an innocent man.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:49:01 AM
No, there is ZERO chance that everyone who is wrongfully put in jail will be released.
Indeed it is very difficult to get someone released from jail on actual innocence grounds, even assuming that sufficient evidence can be found to allow for such an application to be made.
My stance is this.
We have decided that the state, under certain circumstances, has the right to deny someone various rights. In regards to criminal behavior, this commonly includes the right to basic freedom. We toss people in jail, sometimes for life, and we do so despite the fact that we know that some (hopefully very small) percentage of people we do that to we will be making a mistake, and for those people, many of them that mistake will never be rectified. They may spend their entire lives in jail, or eventually get out with a criminal record that will follow them forever, and this will be grossly unjust. But we are ok with that. We aren't happy with it, and we expend great effort to make sure it almost never happens, but we accept that sadly it is not completely avoidable.
I don't see how taking away someones right to life is any different. Is someone right to life somehow more sacred than their right to freedom? I don't think it is.
So the objection based on this chimera that someone put in jail for life *might* get set free, *might* get justice, is a false one. Some particular person might, but we know that there is a non-zero set of people who certainly will NOT ever be exonerated. Therefore, for them, the chance is in fact zero, just like for the guy who is executed.
I am actually not really pro-DP. I am not against it, really - I could live with or without it. I just don't think that the argument against it based on the idea that we will execute innocent people is logical unless you can reconcile it with the fact that we are willing to imprison innocent people.
I think the much better arguments against are:
1. It is too damn expensive, too much trouble, and is doesn't really deter anyway, or
2. Morally it is wrong to kill - that in fact the right to life IS more sacrosanct than the right to freedom, and the act of homicide, even when state-sanctioned, is to be avoided at any and all costs. That the act of killing is more damaging to society than it is helpful.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 09:59:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:54:56 AM
So are you opposed to imprisonment on that same basis?
It's an acceptable risk in cases of imprisonment, because while we're limiting the inmate's right to liberty, the state still has a burden to uphold his life and health. Life, however, is paramount, and shouldn't be placed on the line when there's any chance of the court convicting an innocent man.
A fair argument. I am not sure I agree with it, but at least it is consistent and logical, once you accept your basic premise.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 10:13:02 AM
1. It is too damn expensive, too much trouble, and is doesn't really deter anyway, or
2. Morally it is wrong to kill - that in fact the right to life IS more sacrosanct than the right to freedom, and the act of homicide, even when state-sanctioned, is to be avoided at any and all costs. That the act of killing is more damaging to society than it is helpful.
I was actually getting ready to make a post where I tried to defend my anti-death penalty stance and I was going to use similar positions. I thought about making this post earlier but didn't want you to think I was trying to deflect the issue.
I mean, it's not like I heard about the Willingham case and was like "OMG NOW I am opposed to the death penalty!" I've been opposed to it for like 10 years. It's one of the positions I still hold on to from when I was actually quite liberal, rather than the libertine I am now which I sometimes try to pass off as classical libertarianism. :cool:
I guess maybe the better statement is "this is ONE OF THE REASONS I am opposed to the death penalty". The main reason is that I am extremely wary of the state reserving the right to kill its own citizens, regardless of how badly they might have behaved. I don't think, say, a serial killer DESERVES to live--so I don't think all humans have the inherent right to life. If I thought that, I think I would also have to be a a pacifist unless I took the position that all Americans have the right to life (but non-Americans do not), in which case I think I would have to be a fascist. I also absolutely disagree with the notion that the death penalty is a deterrent, simply because it defies common sense. I mean, honestly how many people do you visualize having flash-forwards of the pending justice process in their heads as they choke someone to death? Either they think they will get away with the crime (or else they would not commit it), or such thoughts do not even cross their rage-filled/drug addled/mentally unstable minds in the heat of the moment.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 16, 2009, 09:45:50 AM
I've got an open question, considering the response to death penalty challenges: do you guys believe the death penalty should be held to a higher standard of certainty than "beyond a reasonable doubt?"
No, I do not.
The verdict and the sentence are 2 different things imho.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:49:01 AM
No, there is ZERO chance that everyone who is wrongfully put in jail will be released.
True but not relevant.
QuoteIf we accept that there is a set of people who are in prison who ought not to be, then it is absolutely true that some subset of those people will NEVER be released. So for those people (granted, we don't know exactly which of them) there is a ZERO percent chance that they will be released, just like the guy who is put to death.
Untrue, but not relevant. The fact that injustice may occur does not mean that we should avoid injustice where it is possible. You are looking at entirely the wrong cause to justify your pre-selected pro-death-penalty stance, IMO.
QuoteWe all agree with this - we agree that out of n innocents in jail, the number who will be exonnerated is y, where y<n. Therefore, for some people it is certainly the case that there is no chance they will be released.
We do not agree on this, of course, because it is faulty logic. y<=n That is a key difference in logic, though not relevant to the DP debate.
QuoteSo the problem is the same. The only difference is that once we execute some particular person, THAT person can never be exonerated - but it doesn't change the fact that we know there are people who should not be in prison and will never be exonerated. We don't know which of them this is true for, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it is certainly the case that for some they are not going to be set free.
Your certainty is misplaced and illogical. The death logic is precise. Imprecision/= precision.
JESUS CHRIST. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5cFKpjRnXE&feature=player_embedded#)
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS FUCK!?!!?!
I don't think simple disbarment is enough for him and the judge. Is there some way they could serve jail time? The motherfucker deserves to rot.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 10:13:02 AM
My stance is this.
We have decided that the state, under certain circumstances, has the right to deny someone various rights.
We have done no such thing. We have granted the state a limited
power to restrict rights.
QuoteIn regards to criminal behavior, this commonly includes the right to basic freedom. We toss people in jail, sometimes for life, and we do so despite the fact that we know that some (hopefully very small) percentage of people we do that to we will be making a mistake, and for those people, many of them that mistake will never be rectified. They may spend their entire lives in jail, or eventually get out with a criminal record that will follow them forever, and this will be grossly unjust. But we are ok with that. We aren't happy with it, and we expend great effort to make sure it almost never happens, but we accept that sadly it is not completely avoidable.
We do not know that mistakes will never be rectified. We know it is unlikely, but we do not know it to be impossible.
QuoteI don't see how taking away someones right to life is any different. Is someone right to life somehow more sacred than their right to freedom? I don't think it is.
The difference is that the state caanot correct any miscarriage of justice if the innocent has been executed. I don't consider this a particularly persuasive argument against the DP, but at least it is logically coherent, unlike the "I know for sure that some innocents cannot be exonerated, though I don't know why."
QuoteSo the objection based on this chimera that someone put in jail for life *might* get set free, *might* get justice, is a false one. Some particular person might, but we know that there is a non-zero set of people who certainly will NOT ever be exonerated. Therefore, for them, the chance is in fact zero, just like for the guy who is executed.
Faulty logic repeated.
The argument to counter the "innodents may die" anti-DP argument is that dead murders cannot murder again. Live, imprisoned, murderers can (and have) escaped from prison and murdered again. Either decision on the DP will result in the death of innocents. A person's stance, if the protection of innocents is the primary goal, must weight the likelihood of executing the innocent against the likelihood that not executing the guilty will result in the death of innocents.
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 10:25:30 AM
I mean, honestly how many people do you visualize having flash-forwards of the pending justice process in their heads as they choke someone to death? Either they think they will get away with the crime (or else they would not commit it), or such thoughts do not even cross their rage-filled/drug addled/mentally unstable minds in the heat of the moment.
True, but might the threat of the death penalty not have some utility power after the crime has been commited? That is, it may have some value in bludgeoning suspects into a confession, or into pleading guilty, in order that they may avoid the death penalty.
Quote from: Kleves on October 16, 2009, 02:05:38 PM
True, but might the threat of the death penalty not have some utility power after the crime has been commited? That is, it may have some value in bludgeoning suspects into a confession, or into pleading guilty, in order that they may avoid the death penalty.
Good point. Hmmm... well what if we abolished it, but just didn't tell anyone? Then we could still use it as a threat in that manner. :smarty:
Quote from: Kleves on October 16, 2009, 02:05:38 PM
True, but might the threat of the death penalty not have some utility power after the crime has been commited? That is, it may have some value in bludgeoning suspects into a confession, or into pleading guilty, in order that they may avoid the death penalty.
Not really. You can already achieve that much with any kind of sentencing. I.e. the crime is worth 10 years in jail, you offer 5 and a possibility of parole in 3 years for good conduct. If the crime is worth 20 years, you offer 10, if it's life imprisonment without possibility of parole you offer 25 years and parole at 2/3, etc.
Basically, if the guy knows you can't prove his guiltyness, he won't confess no matter how sweet is the deal. Such plea are usually made during or just before the trial, when the guy knows there are evidences against him and he's already been charged and he risks some jail time.
That's what I think, but we have BB here that can confirm the process, unless he doesn't want to reveal some trade secret of his ;) :D
No real trade secrets to worry about, but I'm not sure what you're wondering about...
It must be scary for anyone who has an accidental fire in their homes. How many more people did they convict of arson because of bogus science? They should do a review of all the arson cases. That Vasquez guy claimed to have investigated over a thousand cases. How many more wrongful convinctions are there?
On the death penalty, I start from the premise that murder (defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of life; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of our existence does continue after death.
Governments (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its citizens; therefore a government that elects to kill one of its citizens is breaking its moral contract with the rest of society. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by the death penalty.
So, I oppose the death penalty, and am grateful that my country has abolished it.
However, I also believe that life sentences should mean exactly that. A murderer should be imprisoned for the rest of their life with no possibility of parole, preferably being forced to perform an action of benefit to society while imprisoned. Since we do not know if anything of ourselves continues after death, punishment is for this world, not the next; I would make murderers (and rapists) suffer for every day of their remaining lifespan.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 16, 2009, 09:17:05 PM
On the death penalty, I start from the premise that murder (defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of life; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of our existence does continue after death.
Governments (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its citizens; therefore a government that elects to kill one of its citizens is breaking its moral contract with the rest of society. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by the death penalty.
So, I oppose the death penalty, and am grateful that my country has abolished it.
I love arguments that start with a definition completely at odds with the normally-accepted definition.
I start from the premise that murder (defined as as allowing Agelastus to post) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of languish; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of the forum will always continue after Agelastus posts.
Moderators (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its posters; therefore a forum government that elects to allow Agelastus to post is breaking its moral contract with the rest of the forum. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by allowing Agelastus to even register.
So, I oppose the ability of Agelastus to register, and am sorry that my forum has not abolished it.
See how this works? I just define murder as something, then state that murder is morally wrong, and then state that authorities who commit comit this immoral act are criminals. The fact that my definition is fucked up is completely ignored. Anyone can play this game (except those with any sense of intellectual honesty).
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2009, 02:21:14 PM
Not really. You can already achieve that much with any kind of sentencing. I.e. the crime is worth 10 years in jail, you offer 5 and a possibility of parole in 3 years for good conduct. If the crime is worth 20 years, you offer 10, if it's life imprisonment without possibility of parole you offer 25 years and parole at 2/3, etc.
The death penalty is imposed only in the most serious of crimes, where life without parole is usually the other option. Your scenarios are only workable if the U.S. is willing to let convicted murderers out of prison early. We're not willing to do this (sometimes even when they're innocent).
There is only one reason to oppose the death penalty: Moral cowardice.
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2009, 10:54:44 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 16, 2009, 09:17:05 PM
On the death penalty, I start from the premise that murder (defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of life; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of our existence does continue after death.
Governments (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its citizens; therefore a government that elects to kill one of its citizens is breaking its moral contract with the rest of society. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by the death penalty.
So, I oppose the death penalty, and am grateful that my country has abolished it.
I love arguments that start with a definition completely at odds with the normally-accepted definition.
I start from the premise that murder (defined as as allowing Agelastus to post) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of languish; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of the forum will always continue after Agelastus posts.
Moderators (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its posters; therefore a forum government that elects to allow Agelastus to post is breaking its moral contract with the rest of the forum. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by allowing Agelastus to even register.
So, I oppose the ability of Agelastus to register, and am sorry that my forum has not abolished it.
See how this works? I just define murder as something, then state that murder is morally wrong, and then state that authorities who commit comit this immoral act are criminals. The fact that my definition is fucked up is completely ignored. Anyone can play this game (except those with any sense of intellectual honesty).
:huh:
What is fucked up is your way of arguing. That in the Unites States a premeditated state-sanctioned killing is not considered murder is so for no other reason than that that is the way the law is written. He is clearly talking about how it should be, and not how it is. When you say his definition is contrary to the commonly accepted one you say "this is how it is". That is no more than simple appeal to authority. And that is a game anyone can play, whenever anyone say anything contrary to what is commonly accepted. Except, of course, those with any sense of intellectual honesty.
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2009, 10:54:44 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 16, 2009, 09:17:05 PM
On the death penalty, I start from the premise that murder (defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of life; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of our existence does continue after death.
Governments (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its citizens; therefore a government that elects to kill one of its citizens is breaking its moral contract with the rest of society. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by the death penalty.
So, I oppose the death penalty, and am grateful that my country has abolished it.
I love arguments that start with a definition completely at odds with the normally-accepted definition.
I start from the premise that murder (defined as as allowing Agelastus to post) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of languish; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of the forum will always continue after Agelastus posts.
Moderators (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its posters; therefore a forum government that elects to allow Agelastus to post is breaking its moral contract with the rest of the forum. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by allowing Agelastus to even register.
So, I oppose the ability of Agelastus to register, and am sorry that my forum has not abolished it.
See how this works? I just define murder as something, then state that murder is morally wrong, and then state that authorities who commit comit this immoral act are criminals. The fact that my definition is fucked up is completely ignored. Anyone can play this game (except those with any sense of intellectual honesty).
You are really starting to get unoriginal in the bollocks you post.
Although I will admit that that definition should have been written as "the deliberate taking of human life in any circumstance other than self defence". I blame the time of night for that omission, and apologise for it profusely. To be absolutely clear on my position, I should also have added the qualifier that assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness is also not murder, which I inexplicably forgot in my post above. Despite my personal discomfort with the idea, it does involve a person's free choice, so I would be somewhat hypocritical to oppose it.
Presumably, given your rather poor attempt to ridicule my position, you believe murder to be morally correct? THAT would surprise me immensely, given your normally quite sane positions compared to some members of this board, but it is one of the things that could be intuited from your half-assed response.
I am unaware of any definitive proof that some form of our existence continues after death; I would be greatly interested if you have such proof as it is a matter of obvious concern to most people in this world? If you do not have any proof, then I find your objection to my contention that punishment should be for this world, not the next, spurious in the extreme.
Your attacking my intellectual honesty for expressing my own personal opinion on the subject of the death penalty is also pretty low. I expected better of you Grumbler. Although your previously expressed opinion that somebody was "happy to die" should have warned me of the possibility, I suppose.
Agelastus, there is a flaw in your argument, although I think it's not one quite so dramatic as Grumbler's making it out to be- the government does have the authority to take lives for military and law enforcement purposes. If that were not the case, we'd have a huge standing army suddenly out of work.
Quote from: miglia on October 17, 2009, 06:07:32 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2009, 10:54:44 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 16, 2009, 09:17:05 PM
On the death penalty, I start from the premise that murder (defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of life; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of our existence does continue after death.
Governments (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its citizens; therefore a government that elects to kill one of its citizens is breaking its moral contract with the rest of society. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by the death penalty.
So, I oppose the death penalty, and am grateful that my country has abolished it.
I love arguments that start with a definition completely at odds with the normally-accepted definition.
I start from the premise that murder (defined as as allowing Agelastus to post) is morally wrong. Fundamentally, this moral wrongness is due to the fragility and uniqueness of languish; no matter what we may hope, no-one has provided proof that some form of the forum will always continue after Agelastus posts.
Moderators (and the laws they create) exist to protect the life and wellbeing of all its posters; therefore a forum government that elects to allow Agelastus to post is breaking its moral contract with the rest of the forum. It is committing murder. It is hard to imagine a more certain case of cold blooded murder than that provided by allowing Agelastus to even register.
So, I oppose the ability of Agelastus to register, and am sorry that my forum has not abolished it.
See how this works? I just define murder as something, then state that murder is morally wrong, and then state that authorities who commit comit this immoral act are criminals. The fact that my definition is fucked up is completely ignored. Anyone can play this game (except those with any sense of intellectual honesty).
:huh:
What is fucked up is your way of arguing. That in the Unites States a premeditated state-sanctioned killing is not considered murder is so for no other reason than that that is the way the law is written. He is clearly talking about how it should be, and not how it is. When you say his definition is contrary to the commonly accepted one you say "this is how it is". That is no more than simple appeal to authority. And that is a game anyone can play, whenever anyone say anything contrary to what is commonly accepted. Except, of course, those with any sense of intellectual honesty.
That makes sense since Murder is a legal term. Perhaps you are looking for a word like "homicide"
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 17, 2009, 06:18:41 PM
Agelastus, there is a flaw in your argument, although I think it's not one quite so dramatic as Grumbler's making it out to be- the government does have the authority to take lives for military and law enforcement purposes. If that were not the case, we'd have a huge standing army suddenly out of work.
May I point out that that is mostly covered by the "self defence" portion of my definition. The military is used to protect the country (although definitions of what constitutes legitimate protection can be somewhat fluid) and the only police officers who would fall foul of my definition that I can think of are the members of Latin American deathsquads, whose activities I am convinced all Languishites would revile.
Military personnel deliberately killing unarmed civilians are court-martialled - that's murder; military personnel who shoot at people who are armed and capable of shooting back - that's not murder. Police officers who kill in circumstances other than self-defence are generally not swept under the carpet these days either.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 17, 2009, 06:41:52 PM
May I point out that that is mostly covered by the "self defence" portion of my definition. The military is used to protect the country (although definitions of what constitutes legitimate protection can be somewhat fluid) and the only police officers who would fall foul of my definition that I can think of are the members of Latin American deathsquads, whose activities I am convinced all Languishites would revile.
Military personnel deliberately killing unarmed civilians are court-martialled - that's murder; military personnel who shoot at people who are armed and capable of shooting back - that's not murder. Police officers who kill in circumstances other than self-defence are generally not swept under the carpet these days either.
Police and soldiers will open up fire to protect
others as well, even when those officers are not targeted directly. The reason is that the
government has given instructions that individuals in certain situations are so great a threat that they forfeit their basic right to life. The death penalty's use is not as a deterrent (no authoritative, conclusive studies support that assumption), but as a societal protection against individuals who have become so great a threat that they could not function in either general society or the specialized inmate society of the penal system.
QuoteThat makes sense since Murder is a legal term. Perhaps you are looking for a word like "homicide"
I know that. You're missing the point.
mur·der (mûr'dər)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
What decides what is lawful killing and what is not lawful killing? The law decides that. The law is different in different places and has been different in different times. The legal definition of murder can be anything. A dictator's killings are not murder as long as they are legal by his own law.
If you are talking from the perspective of morals, and how you personally feel on the matter, i.e. how it SHOULD BE, and not from the perspective of what the law currently IS, then it makes perfect sense to come up with your own definition of murder.
What Grumbler is saying is that Angelastus' definition of murder is different from the definition in the law, and therefore Angelastus is intellectually dishonest. Do you find that intellectually honest?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 17, 2009, 06:53:41 PM
Police and soldiers will open up fire to protect others as well, even when those officers are not targeted directly. The reason is that the government has given instructions that individuals in certain situations are so great a threat that they forfeit their basic right to life. The death penalty's use is not as a deterrent (no authoritative, conclusive studies support that assumption), but as a societal protection against individuals who have become so great a threat that they could not function in either general society or the specialized inmate society of the penal system.
Police and soldiers opening fire to protect others are still covered in a rather broad sense by "self defence". After all, a credible threat to another in most cases can also be a credible threat to you (snipers, admittedly, skirt this definition somewhat.) The key word, of course is "defence".
I would also point out that the "government" is not normally directly involved with situations where officers have to choose whether to shoot or not. The government has given them a weapon to use in protection of themselves and others, as you have pointed out. It has not said, "In circumstance A, kill him. In circumstance B, let him live, in circumstance C you decide" to a police officer.
It has, of course, said this to the courts, with laws regarding which crimes justify the death penalty. Which is where the argument between death penalty advocates and those opposed to capital punishment rests.
Now, I could write a twenty thousand word or more essay on all the specific circumstances that would justify the taking of a life by a soldier or police officer, or I could just sum it up with a phrase such as "self defence", since that would cover the majority of cases.
Presumably like yourself, I also get frustrated when people quote the deterrent value of the death penalty asd a justification for it given the lack of evidence for this assumption, but I dispute your assertion that "societal protection" requires the killing of certain members of that society. It requires the
punishing of certain members of society, and such punishments should include incarceration for life for the protection of society, if neccessary. The list of available punishments should not include the taking of an individual's life.
All I can add to that is my own view that Grumbler included in his ridicule - that punishment is a matter for this world; if I had faith in an afterlife, I might not be so vehemently opposed to the death penalty, I freely admit.
I am ashamed to admit it, but Miglia is defending my position more ably than I am. :Embarrass:
Quote from: miglia on October 17, 2009, 07:04:15 PM
QuoteThat makes sense since Murder is a legal term. Perhaps you are looking for a word like "homicide"
I know that. You're missing the point.
mur·der (mûr'dər)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
What decides what is lawful killing and what is not lawful killing? The law decides that. The law is different in different places and has been different in different times. The legal definition of murder can be anything. A dictator's killings are not murder as long as they are legal by his own law.
If you are talking from the perspective of morals, and how you personally feel on the matter, i.e. how it SHOULD BE, and not from the perspective of what the law currently IS, then it makes perfect sense to come up with your own definition of murder.
What Grumbler is saying is that Angelastus' definition of murder is different from the definition in the law, and therefore Angelastus is intellectually dishonest. Do you find that intellectually honest?
That would be an exercise in pointlessness. If anyone can define a legal term any way they want it loses all meaning. Laws are nifty in that we have an agreed upon definition of stuff. Otherwise we have all sorts of silly stuff such as Murder including the killing of My WoW character.
QuoteThat would be an exercise in pointlessness. If anyone can define a legal term any way they want it loses all meaning. Laws are nifty in that we have an agreed upon definition of stuff. Otherwise we have all sorts of silly stuff such as Murder including the killing of My WoW character.
:bleeding: I give up. There is no other way for me to explain it.
As for the discussion on the death penalty, I suppose everything has been said so many times and there is very little to be done about the fact that America as the only civilized country in the world resorts to practices elsewhere only found in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. But I suppose that's what you get from irrationality and bronze-age morals. The same american right who on one hand say that the government can not be trusted with their money is suddenly just fine with giving the government power over life and death. So much for limited government.
Quote from: miglia on October 17, 2009, 07:40:15 PM
QuoteThat would be an exercise in pointlessness. If anyone can define a legal term any way they want it loses all meaning. Laws are nifty in that we have an agreed upon definition of stuff. Otherwise we have all sorts of silly stuff such as Murder including the killing of My WoW character.
:bleeding: I give up. There is no other way for me to explain it.
As for the discussion on the death penalty, I suppose everything has been said so many times and there is very little to be done about the fact that America as the only civilized country in the world resorts to practices elsewhere only found in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. But I suppose that's what you get from irrationality and bronze-age morals. The same american right who on one hand say that the government can not be trusted with their money is suddenly just fine with giving the government power over life and death. So much for limited government.
You guys give up to easy. I fail to see what this has to do with irrationality or Bronze age morals.
:huh:
I know you people aren't know for their intellectual brilliance but think really hard Pole.
I can't even understand what you're saying.
This is why if I edit a post it is only for textual reasons, not to introduce a major change.
Raz, assuming you did not see the original post, Miglia originally posted the second paragraph as his own contribution to the death penalty issue, rather than as a continuation of your discussion of my position. Then he saw your last post, and added the quote and the first line. Thus, I think this is the confusion, as the first part of the post as it appears now is unrelated to the second part...even though you can no longer tell this without having seen the original post.
Oh right, yes maybe I should have made the transition more clear when I edited or simply just made another post (though etiquette differs and many forums do not even allow you to post again if your post is the last post, you can only edit it)
Quote from: Agelastus on October 17, 2009, 07:22:54 PM
Police and soldiers opening fire to protect others are still covered in a rather broad sense by "self defence". After all, a credible threat to another in most cases can also be a credible threat to you (snipers, admittedly, skirt this definition somewhat.) The key word, of course is "defence".
Understood. However, execution is also "defense" from the psychological threat of allowing a given criminal to mingle in society.
QuoteI would also point out that the "government" is not normally directly involved with situations where officers have to choose whether to shoot or not. The government has given them a weapon to use in protection of themselves and others, as you have pointed out. It has not said, "In circumstance A, kill him. In circumstance B, let him live, in circumstance C you decide" to a police officer.
The government outlines clear rules on use of force and proper handling of escalation; it does administrate even lawful killings, as evidenced by the paperwork a cop has to go through in situations where deadly force is used.
QuotePresumably like yourself, I also get frustrated when people quote the deterrent value of the death penalty asd a justification for it given the lack of evidence for this assumption, but I dispute your assertion that "societal protection" requires the killing of certain members of that society. It requires the punishing of certain members of society, and such punishments should include incarceration for life for the protection of society, if neccessary. The list of available punishments should not include the taking of an individual's life.
All I can add to that is my own view that Grumbler included in his ridicule - that punishment is a matter for this world; if I had faith in an afterlife, I might not be so vehemently opposed to the death penalty, I freely admit.
There's no dispute here; I'm playing devil's advocate. I only mention the "deterrence" effect because it's the most common point of debate in death penalty arguments; advocates say it is common sense that it will deter crime, opponents point out a lack of statistics supporting that conclusion. I feel that the government's primary, overarching responsibility is to protect the lives and welfare of its citizens, and that since executing a convict accomplishes nothing that holding the convict for the remainder of his or her lifetime would not, it can only be seen as a failure to protect the life of the convict.
As a secondary argument, our penal system is supposedly designed to rehabilitate as well as discipline; execution is, by nature, the only existing punishment that leaves no possibility for rehabilitation, and so it conflicts the major philosophies governing criminal justice in the United States today.
Quote from: Berkut on October 16, 2009, 09:37:22 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 16, 2009, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2009, 09:12:11 AM
It's a question of endings. The case of the guy tossed in prision for life is pretty well as horrible, when he dies in prision. Up to that time, there is always the chance that someone will get interested in his case, demonstrate his innocence, and get him released. Presumably if his imprisionment was the result of culpable negligence by the athourities, he could even be compensated (to the extent you can do that with money) for his damages.
When the guy is dead no such restitution is possible.
Exactly. :yes:
Meh, no such restitution is possible if in fact he is tossed in jail for life and nobody ever does get him out. And that is much more likely to happen absent a DP.
This is a very good point, which I think that most people have missed. If you are wrongly convicted, you might actually be better off being sentenced to death. Given the lengthy (and automatic) appeals process, you have a much better chance of being vindicated than if you were sentenced to life.
Quote from: grumbler on October 16, 2009, 11:53:23 AM
The fact that injustice may occur does not mean that we should avoid injustice where it is possible.
WHAT?!?
Maybe I'm reading this wrong. Is this your position, or is it your characterization of Berkut's position? If the latter, I'll leave it to Berkut to say whether or not it's a mis-characterization; if the former, I'll re-iterate: WHAT?!?
Funny thing is I'm not even for the Death Penalty. But it was nice being considered a rightists for once.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 17, 2009, 08:50:15 PM
Funny thing is I'm not even for the Death Penalty. But it was nice being considered a rightists for once.
Like I said, that part was separate from the part directed at you. Should've made that more clear.
Quote from: dps on October 17, 2009, 08:41:18 PM
This is a very good point, which I think that most people have missed. If you are wrongly convicted, you might actually be better off being sentenced to death. Given the lengthy (and automatic) appeals process, you have a much better chance of being vindicated than if you were sentenced to life.
In theory. The reality appears otherwise. The problem is that the lengthy appeals process appears in many cases to be mostly automatic: it is not a retrial of the issues, but rather a review of the file for procedural errors.
The problem with this is: garbage in, garbage out. That is, where the original trial was held with overworked and lacklustre public defenders who assume their clients are guilty and based on the evidence of so-called "experts" who just make shit up (see the OP for example), there may be no "procedural errors" to review, as the fault is with the substance and not the procedure. An appeal may not catch that.
While this problem may be solvable, the greater problem is the simple passage of time. History has demonstrated forecfully that great strides have been taken in the analysis of evidence - take for example the development of DNA technology over the last 20 years or so. This has had the effect, on re-evaluating evidence, of proving beyond doubt that some who were judged guilty are in fact innocent. If a person was convicted of a capital crime and executed in 1985 (or more reasonably 1990 as it would take some time to work through the appeals), it is small comfort to them that with DNA analysis they were proved innocent in 1995; if they were imprisioned for life, on the other hand, they could in theory at least agitate for a reconsideration of their case - having lost a decade in prision it is true, but they would still be alive.
The other side of the coin - that leaving murderers alive provides the chance that they could escape and kill again - is of course also a concern; but if one added up all of the persons whose verdicts were changed by DNA analysis vs. all of the escaped convicts who killed again, my guess is that the former would far ountnumber the latter.
Quote from: Malthus on October 18, 2009, 09:36:53 AM
In theory. The reality appears otherwise. The problem is that the lengthy appeals process appears in many cases to be mostly automatic: it is not a retrial of the issues, but rather a review of the file for procedural errors.
The problem with this is: garbage in, garbage out. That is, where the original trial was held with overworked and lacklustre public defenders who assume their clients are guilty and based on the evidence of so-called "experts" who just make shit up (see the OP for example), there may be no "procedural errors" to review, as the fault is with the substance and not the procedure. An appeal may not catch that.
While this problem may be solvable, the greater problem is the simple passage of time. History has demonstrated forecfully that great strides have been taken in the analysis of evidence - take for example the development of DNA technology over the last 20 years or so. This has had the effect, on re-evaluating evidence, of proving beyond doubt that some who were judged guilty are in fact innocent. If a person was convicted of a capital crime and executed in 1985 (or more reasonably 1990 as it would take some time to work through the appeals), it is small comfort to them that with DNA analysis they were proved innocent in 1995; if they were imprisioned for life, on the other hand, they could in theory at least agitate for a reconsideration of their case - having lost a decade in prision it is true, but they would still be alive.
The other side of the coin - that leaving murderers alive provides the chance that they could escape and kill again - is of course also a concern; but if one added up all of the persons whose verdicts were changed by DNA analysis vs. all of the escaped convicts who killed again, my guess is that the former would far ountnumber the latter.
:yes: That's a common misconception about the appellate courts: they
do not review any new evidence; they just either uphold the court's decision, or if there was a flaw in the trial, they can remand it back to the lower courts to retry those specific parts. The only way new evidence would come into a trial is if the appellate court finds that significant admissible evidence was known
at the time of the trial but was omitted for some reason.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 18, 2009, 09:42:03 AM
:yes: That's a common misconception about the appellate courts: they do not review any new evidence; they just either uphold the court's decision, or if there was a flaw in the trial, they can remand it back to the lower courts to retry those specific parts. The only way new evidence would come into a trial is if the appellate court finds that significant admissible evidence was known at the time of the trial but was omitted for some reason.
So what's a guy on death row to do if later on there surfaces a video where another guy kills the victim?
Quote from: miglia on October 17, 2009, 06:07:32 PM
:huh:
What is fucked up is your way of arguing. That in the Unites States a premeditated state-sanctioned killing is not considered murder is so for no other reason than that that is the way the law is written. He is clearly talking about how it should be, and not how it is. When you say his definition is contrary to the commonly accepted one you say "this is how it is". That is no more than simple appeal to authority. And that is a game anyone can play, whenever anyone say anything contrary to what is commonly accepted. Except, of course, those with any sense of intellectual honesty.
:huh:
What is fucked up is that you haven't bothered to think through what is being said, and instead are just reacting emotionally. Agelastus is arguing that murder is "defined as the taking of human life
in any circumstances other than self-defence." He claims it is murder to protect a family member by killing the person about to kill their kid, because it is not "self-defense." He claims it is murder for a soldier to kill an enemy who is not shooting at him because it isn't "self-defense."
That's not the way the law should be, that's pinheaded daftness. The reason that the common definition does not uinclude protecting the family or country isn't because it is an "appeal to authority" (look up the definition of the phrase before you misuse it again, mkay?), it is because society has thought about this issue, unlike Agelastus and you.
Quote from: DGuller on October 18, 2009, 02:42:42 PM
So what's a guy on death row to do if later on there surfaces a video where another guy kills the victim?
Have a motion filed to vacate the conviction, if the prosecutor hasn't already done so to avoid a PR nightmare.
By the way, the big issue in this case is probably not the wrongful death itself (though it makes for the best headlines). There are plenty of cases of state government being involved with wrongful death; notably in cases of police officers who have killed civilians in a response situation. There are also cases of executions where the convicted have never been formally exonerated, but are popularly believed to have not been guilty (first case that springs to mind is Mary Surratt, one of the "Lincoln assassination conspirators").
This case is huge because it would be the first time the state was formally held responsible posthumously. Typically, cases and appeals are not reviewed after the suspect's death, because it would be a waste of administrative time for such symbolic gestures, but in this case, the state is actually on the hook for the person's death as part of the (informal at this point) appeal.
You can't convict a dead man because he has no ability to answer in his own defense, but while that doesn't necessarily mean you can't exonerate a dead man, the state would probably be pressured to do something more concrete than just posthumously vacate the conviction. Also, it would most likely be the state required to compensate the convict-turned-victim's estate; in theory, the state is liable for wrongful death, but many of those response situation cases are rubber-stamped as "improper response" and the liability is turned to the emergency responder- between the conviction and the upholding of the appeals process, there would be no question the judge on the bench was acting as a representative of the state.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 03:12:29 PM
What is fucked up is that you haven't bothered to think through what is being said, and instead are just reacting emotionally. Agelastus is arguing that murder is "defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence." He claims it is murder to protect a family member by killing the person about to kill their kid, because it is not "self-defense." He claims it is murder for a soldier to kill an enemy who is not shooting at him because it isn't "self-defense."
That's not the way the law should be, that's pinheaded daftness. The reason that the common definition does not uinclude protecting the family or country isn't because it is an "appeal to authority" (look up the definition of the phrase before you misuse it again, mkay?), it is because society has thought about this issue, unlike Agelastus and you.
To be frank, Grumbler, I've been "thinking about the death penalty" for over twenty-five years, ever since I've been old enough to understand that not everybody thinks as I do. It's hard to avoid thinking about it given the world we live in, when even advanced, western style, democracies seem to consider it a justifiable punishment. It's taken me years to work through just exactly why the whole idea gives me such a fundamental feeling of wrongness when I hear about it on the news, or from other sources, especially as I have in the past had the thought "he/they deserved to die" when I have heard of particularly brutal crimes.
I try not to be a hypocrite even when something I believe to be right contradicts some of my own emotional responses. For example, I support the right of a woman to have an abortion, even though the idea itself makes me very uncomfortable. I am certain part of the reason for this discomfort is that I can quite easily see my mother making another choice to the one she obviously made, as I am posting here - I am supporting a right for women that could quite easily have seen me never being born (my mother is a single, unmarried woman, who to this day will not tell me who my father is.)
Anyway, so yes Grumbler, I do think about the issues before I take a definite position - which is why although my stance on the death penalty is in line with the views of the politicians who run my country, my stance on sentencing for crimes that would merit the death penalty in other countries is not.
So before you jump to conclusions and your well-worn sarcasm, perhaps you could ask me to explain further instead of resorting to ridicule?
And yes, I used the term "western style democracy" advisedly, as the USA is NOT the only country of that description that retains this particular archaism, as I am all to well aware.
And, of course, your definition of self-defence is clearly much more narrow (and narrow minded) than my own.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 17, 2009, 06:15:43 PM
You are really starting to get unoriginal in the bollocks you post.
Duh! :lmfao: I was copying your post almost word for word. Of course I wasn't original, and of course it is bullocks. That is my point!
QuoteAlthough I will admit that that definition should have been written as "the deliberate taking of human life in any circumstance other than self defence". I blame the time of night for that omission, and apologise for it profusely. To be absolutely clear on my position, I should also have added the qualifier that assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness is also not murder, which I inexplicably forgot in my post above. Despite my personal discomfort with the idea, it does involve a person's free choice, so I would be somewhat hypocritical to oppose it.
So, now you are backing off the position that I pointed out was (in your words) "bullocks?" You should be thanking me, then, for forcing you to reconsider an absurd position.
QuotePresumably, given your rather poor attempt to ridicule my position, you believe murder to be morally correct?
Presumably, since I got even you to admit the position s "bullocks," my post served its purpose. This strawman deserves, and will get, no response.
Quote
I am unaware of any definitive proof that some form of our existence continues after death; I would be greatly interested if you have such proof as it is a matter of obvious concern to most people in this world? If you do not have any proof, then I find your objection to my contention that punishment should be for this world, not the next, spurious in the extreme.
WTF?
QuoteYour attacking my intellectual honesty for expressing my own personal opinion on the subject of the death penalty is also pretty low. I expected better of you Grumbler. Although your previously expressed opinion that somebody was "happy to die" should have warned me of the possibility, I suppose.
The entire purpose of your made-up definition of murder is to make the purely emotional argument that "the death penalty is murder." No, I don't find that intellectually honest.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 17, 2009, 06:41:52 PM
May I point out that that is mostly covered by the "self defence" portion of my definition. The military is used to protect the country (although definitions of what constitutes legitimate protection can be somewhat fluid) and the only police officers who would fall foul of my definition that I can think of are the members of Latin American deathsquads, whose activities I am convinced all Languishites would revile.
You may not point that out, as it is untrue. Self-defense means just that: defense of self. Defense of others is not self-defense, and murder isn't "killing a human except in self-defense," it is the
unlawful killing of a human being. Which, of course, you know but cannot concede because that makes your appeal to emotion fail.
You are not, unfortunately for you, going to get to weasel-word your way around self-defense to make you appeal to emotion fly.
QuoteMilitary personnel deliberately killing unarmed civilians are court-martialled - that's murder; military personnel who shoot at people who are armed and capable of shooting back - that's not murder. Police officers who kill in circumstances other than self-defence are generally not swept under the carpet these days either.
Bullshit. Military personnel who bomb or shell cities and kill civilians are not court-martialed, because their actions are not unlawful (though they are also not self-defense).
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 03:12:29 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 17, 2009, 06:07:32 PM
:huh:
What is fucked up is your way of arguing. That in the Unites States a premeditated state-sanctioned killing is not considered murder is so for no other reason than that that is the way the law is written. He is clearly talking about how it should be, and not how it is. When you say his definition is contrary to the commonly accepted one you say "this is how it is". That is no more than simple appeal to authority. And that is a game anyone can play, whenever anyone say anything contrary to what is commonly accepted. Except, of course, those with any sense of intellectual honesty.
:huh:
What is fucked up is that you haven't bothered to think through what is being said, and instead are just reacting emotionally. Agelastus is arguing that murder is "defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence."
Here is where you go wrong. He is not arguing that murder is defined that way. Your quote omits "...morally wrong". He is saying that he will, for the purpose of his
moral, not legal, argument, define it that way. Only when he is finished explaining how he feels on the matter does he mention the legal status and how it compares. Moral, not legal. Do you see a difference between the two? No, you probably don't.
But you're right I did react emotionally. Anyone could see what he meant, but instead of replying in good faith you exploited his vagueness by misconstruing his meaning and insult him in the most rude manner.
Quote from: miglia on October 17, 2009, 07:04:15 PM
QuoteThat makes sense since Murder is a legal term. Perhaps you are looking for a word like "homicide"
I know that. You're missing the point.
mur·der (mûr'dər)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
What decides what is lawful killing and what is not lawful killing? The law decides that. The law is different in different places and has been different in different times. The legal definition of murder can be anything. A dictator's killings are not murder as long as they are legal by his own law.
If you are talking from the perspective of morals, and how you personally feel on the matter, i.e. how it SHOULD BE, and not from the perspective of what the law currently IS, then it makes perfect sense to come up with your own definition of murder.
What Grumbler is saying is that Angelastus' definition of murder is different from the definition in the law, and therefore Angelastus is intellectually dishonest. Do you find that intellectually honest?
The problem with arguments like Agelastus's (and your) appeal to emotion is that they are intellectually bankrupt. They try to argue by redefinition, which is pointless because the definition of words (by definition, so to speak) is to make the meaning of words carry from the speaker/writer to the listener/reader. If I call you a fucking coward, and mean by that a nice guy, you are going to be pissed because you don't share my definition.
To argue that the law "should say" that the DP is murder is also pointless because only the state can carry out the DP, and it doesn't need to make exercising certain of its own powers a crime to lose the power to act. "I think no government should be empowered to execute because of X" is an emotionally neutral and intellectually honest; "I think government officials who execute condemned prisoners are murderers" is neither.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:13:15 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 17, 2009, 07:04:15 PM
QuoteThat makes sense since Murder is a legal term. Perhaps you are looking for a word like "homicide"
I know that. You're missing the point.
mur·der (mûr'dər)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
What decides what is lawful killing and what is not lawful killing? The law decides that. The law is different in different places and has been different in different times. The legal definition of murder can be anything. A dictator's killings are not murder as long as they are legal by his own law.
If you are talking from the perspective of morals, and how you personally feel on the matter, i.e. how it SHOULD BE, and not from the perspective of what the law currently IS, then it makes perfect sense to come up with your own definition of murder.
What Grumbler is saying is that Angelastus' definition of murder is different from the definition in the law, and therefore Angelastus is intellectually dishonest. Do you find that intellectually honest?
The problem with arguments like Agelastus's (and your) appeal to emotion is that they are intellectually bankrupt. They try to argue by redefinition, which is pointless because the definition of words (by definition, so to speak) is to make the meaning of words carry from the speaker/writer to the listener/reader. If I call you a fucking coward, and mean by that a nice guy, you are going to be pissed because you don't share my definition.
To argue that the law "should say" that the DP is murder is also pointless because only the state can carry out the DP, and it doesn't need to make exercising certain of its own powers a crime to lose the power to act. "I think no government should be empowered to execute because of X" is an emotionally neutral and intellectually honest; "I think government officials who execute condemned prisoners are murderers" is neither.
This is appeal to authority. You are appealing to the authority of the state. Because the state says it's OK, it's OK! And yet, as I pointed out, a dictator's killings are not murder as long as they are legal by his own law. I take it, then, that it would be "an appeal to emotion" and "intellectually dishonest" and "fucked up" (etc) of me to call this hypothetical dictator a murderer.
Ah, crap it, I have to stop typing away while I am reclining like some faux Roman. I just lost the entire post I'd quoted and cropped in response to yours, Grumbler. :( :mad:
Anyway, without the quotes, based on the first post.
(1) The point was you've used it and similar techiques of ridicule a heck of a lot recently; it's getting old and repetitive, and I would suggest you need a new string to your bow.
(2) Not backtracking at all; a general statement of position tends to have qualifiers once one gets down to the "nitty-gritty". And I have apologised for omitting the term "deliberate" from my original post, since my position as written would have had accidental deaths (such as a car driver obeying all the traffic laws who ran over a man who jumped out in front of him) listed as murderers.
(3) Agreed, a complete strawman, as I do not for one second believe that you consider murder morally correct. But your resorting to ridicule rather than reasoned argument certainly left that impression for someone who did not know your internet style.
And can you please spell "bollocks" correctly if you are going to use it. "Bullocks" is the animal, "bollocks" is something else as I am sure you are well aware.
(4) That's what I thought when I read your post.
(5) Is it any less intellectually dishonest to exclude emotional responses from a discussion of such an issue? We are human beings after all, not dispassionate robots. More to the point, I fail to see where my position was emotional; it was based around a reasonable proposition that a government is there to protect ALL of its citizens, and that depriving one of its citizens of life is breaking that basic contract.
Simply put, this implies that I consider the purpose of government to protect the individual first, rather than the abstract that is society. It appears you consider that the government's duty is to protect society first, then the individual, although that may be too extreme a reading of your position. I suppose one could argue that my position is based on emotion, since I give more weight to different considerations than you do, but then that would trap you in the same way.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 18, 2009, 05:42:09 PM
To be frank, Grumbler, I've been "thinking about the death penalty" for over twenty-five years, ever since I've been old enough to understand that not everybody thinks as I do. It's hard to avoid thinking about it given the world we live in, when even advanced, western style, democracies seem to consider it a justifiable punishment. It's taken me years to work through just exactly why the whole idea gives me such a fundamental feeling of wrongness when I hear about it on the news, or from other sources, especially as I have in the past had the thought "he/they deserved to die" when I have heard of particularly brutal crimes.
Big whoop. i have been thinking about it even longer than you, and that hasn't made me make up new defintions for common words just so I can justify my position to myself. My opposition to the death penalty, which I formulated in high school and have never had a need to reconsider, is based on two considerations:
(1) the odds of executing someone wrongly seem, in my mind, to be higher than the odds that, in the absence of the DP, a convicted murderer who would have been executed with the DP would escape and murder again. Eliminating the DP would thus, in my opinion, reduce the number of innocents who die; and
(2) I do not trust any government enough to grant them the power to impose the ultimate sanction. If I could, I would also rob them of the power to kill via war, but that isn't anything a single government which I can influence can accomplish, so I stick to the possible.
Note that neither of these reasons are appeals to emotion, and neither of them requires making up private definitions for public words.
Maybe 25 years isn't enough for you.
QuoteAnyway, so yes Grumbler, I do think about the issues before I take a definite position - which is why although my stance on the death penalty is in line with the views of the politicians who run my country, my stance on sentencing for crimes that would merit the death penalty in other countries is not.
I very much doubt that the politicians in your country believe that the President of the United States, or the governors of the applicable US states, are murderers. Thisis appeal to authority is Teh Fail.
QuoteSo before you jump to conclusions and your well-worn sarcasm, perhaps you could ask me to explain further instead of resorting to ridicule?
Nope. If you say something stupid, I feel no obligation to point out that it is stupid in a polite way.
QuoteAnd, of course, your definition of self-defence is clearly much more narrow (and narrow minded) than my own.
If we are making up new, broader, definitions to "self-defense" than I can just say that execution is society exercising its right of self-defense against a murderer. Executed murderers will not kill again, while some non-executed ones will. Thus, whether we use the normal defintion or your universal definition, your "CP is teh murdur" argument fails.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:05:11 PM
You may not point that out, as it is untrue. Self-defense means just that: defense of self. Defense of others is not self-defense, and murder isn't "killing a human except in self-defense," it is the unlawful killing of a human being. Which, of course, you know but cannot concede because that makes your appeal to emotion fail.
You are not, unfortunately for you, going to get to weasel-word your way around self-defense to make you appeal to emotion fly.
Oh? And if I kill a man who is going to kill my wife, thus causing me extreme emotional trauma, I am not acting partially in self-defence, then? A very specific example, of course, which is very difficult to extend to a generalisation, as I am sure you are aware.
But as we are not going to agree on the limits of how self-defence can be made to apply, then perhaps I should point out that criminal laws are quite often enacted as emotional responses to particular tragedies (the tightening of gun laws in the UK after Hungerford and Dunblane being good examples of such knee-jerk reactions) and thus expressing opposition to a particular aspect of law in both emotional and logical terms is perfectly justifiable.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:05:11 PM
Bullshit. Military personnel who bomb or shell cities and kill civilians are not court-martialed, because their actions are not unlawful (though they are also not self-defense).
Well, I can say two things to this. One is that the Allies themselves ran in to difficulties with the legal ramifications of bombing cities at Nuremburg, after all.
The other is that they are not court-martialled because these days the civilian casualties are, to use a rather cold term,"collateral damage". The military personnel have been ordered to bomb military targets, and shit happens. If an order was given to deliberately target and massacre civilians by a soldier of any western democracy these days they would be court-martialled and punished for such an act, as you are very well aware. So that's a strawman you have just thrown up Grumbler!
Quote from: miglia on October 18, 2009, 06:23:40 PM
This is appeal to authority. You are appealing to the authority of the state. Because the state says it's OK, it's OK! And yet, as I pointed out, a dictator's killings are not murder as long as they are legal by his own law.
This is utter bullshit! I asked, politely, that you look up "appeal to authority" before you misused the term again, and you turned around and misused the term in exactly the same fashion again.
A dictator's killings may or may not be murder, based on both domestic and the relevant international law. The whole "dictator" thing is yet another appeal to emotion. No one here is talking about killings by dictators, we are discussing the death penalty. If you want to startt a thread about when a dictator's killings are murder, knock yourself out.
QuoteI take it, then, that it would be "an appeal to emotion" and "intellectually dishonest" and "fucked up" (etc) of me to call this hypothetical dictator a murderer.
This is called a strawman. You are proposing my arguments for me. Holmie don't play that game.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 18, 2009, 06:36:18 PM
Oh? And if I kill a man who is going to kill my wife, thus causing me extreme emotional trauma, I am not acting partially in self-defence, then?
Wait a second. Are you proposing that a person can lawfully kill another in order to avoid "extreme emotional trauma?" I know of no jurisdiction where avoiding "extreme emotional trauma" is defined as the sort of "self-defense" that authorizes lethal force.
QuoteBut as we are not going to agree on the limits of how self-defence can be made to apply, then perhaps I should point out that criminal laws are quite often enacted as emotional responses to particular tragedies (the tightening of gun laws in the UK after Hungerford and Dunblane being good examples of such knee-jerk reactions) and thus expressing opposition to a particular aspect of law in both emotional and logical terms is perfectly justifiable.
It may be your opinion that the tightening of gun laws was done merely for emotional reasons, as opposed to a sudden recognition that existing laws allowed things to happen which society wanted to make illegal, but this is mere argument by assertion.
Making laws based on emotion rather than logic has almost always led to tragedy and regret. The displacement of the US Nisei is a good example of that.
QuoteWell, I can say two things to this. One is that the Allies themselves ran in to difficulties with the legal ramifications of bombing cities at Nuremburg, after all.
Not really. They had the statements of specific allied officers used against them as defense arguments, but the Allies had no difficulties deciding not to prosecute bomber crews.
QuoteThe other is that they are not court-martialled because these days the civilian casualties are, to use a rather cold term,"collateral damage". The military personnel have been ordered to bomb military targets, and shit happens. If an order was given to deliberately target and massacre civilians by a soldier of any western democracy these days they would be court-martialled and punished for such an act, as you are very well aware.
The deliberate killing of civilians is, as you point out, lawful if justified by military necessity, a fact of which you are very well aware.
QuoteSo that's a strawman you have just thrown up Grumbler!
Please learn the meaning of "strawman" lest you continue to misuse the term. :cool:
I have to say, after much reflection, that SMU deserved the Death Penalty.
Quote from: miglia on October 18, 2009, 06:23:40 PM
This is appeal to authority. You are appealing to the authority of the state. Because the state says it's OK, it's OK! And yet, as I pointed out, a dictator's killings are not murder as long as they are legal by his own law. I take it, then, that it would be "an appeal to emotion" and "intellectually dishonest" and "fucked up" (etc) of me to call this hypothetical dictator a murderer.
What's wrong with appealing to the authority of the state? The state
has the authority.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 18, 2009, 06:36:18 PM
Well, I can say two things to this. One is that the Allies themselves ran in to difficulties with the legal ramifications of bombing cities at Nuremburg, after all.
Except they didn't, because they won. Nuremburg had no legal ramifications.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:37:57 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 18, 2009, 06:23:40 PM
This is appeal to authority. You are appealing to the authority of the state. Because the state says it's OK, it's OK! And yet, as I pointed out, a dictator's killings are not murder as long as they are legal by his own law.
This is utter bullshit! I asked, politely, that you look up "appeal to authority" before you misused the term again, and you turned around and misused the term in exactly the same fashion again.
That's your way of being polite? And who cares about your technical definition? You are appealing to authority. Does the state not have authority? Does the law not have authority? It does, and that is what you are appealing to. You understand perfectly well what I'm saying. Stop pretending like you don't.
Quote
A dictator's killings may or may not be murder, based on both domestic and the relevant international law. The whole "dictator" thing is yet another appeal to emotion. No one here is talking about killings by dictators, we are discussing the death penalty. If you want to startt a thread about when a dictator's killings are murder, knock yourself out.
More obfuscatory babble.
QuoteI take it, then, that it would be "an appeal to emotion" and "intellectually dishonest" and "fucked up" (etc) of me to call this hypothetical dictator a murderer.
This is called a strawman. You are proposing my arguments for me. Holmie don't play that game.
[/quote]
As is this. It is not a strawman - it is the logical conclusion of your own argument.
Quote from: Neil on October 18, 2009, 06:53:54 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 18, 2009, 06:23:40 PM
This is appeal to authority. You are appealing to the authority of the state. Because the state says it's OK, it's OK! And yet, as I pointed out, a dictator's killings are not murder as long as they are legal by his own law. I take it, then, that it would be "an appeal to emotion" and "intellectually dishonest" and "fucked up" (etc) of me to call this hypothetical dictator a murderer.
What's wrong with appealing to the authority of the state? The state has the authority.
I agree the state has this authority. It is right to appeal to this authority in a court of law. It is not right to appeal to this authority in a discussion of morals and say it is intellectually dishonest to deviate from this authority in your personal opinions.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:30:23 PM
Big whoop. i have been thinking about it even longer than you, and that hasn't made me make up new defintions for common words just so I can justify my position to myself. My opposition to the death penalty, which I formulated in high school and have never had a need to reconsider, is based on two considerations:
(1) the odds of executing someone wrongly seem, in my mind, to be higher than the odds that, in the absence of the DP, a convicted murderer who would have been executed with the DP would escape and murder again. Eliminating the DP would thus, in my opinion, reduce the number of innocents who die; and
(2) I do not trust any government enough to grant them the power to impose the ultimate sanction. If I could, I would also rob them of the power to kill via war, but that isn't anything a single government which I can influence can accomplish, so I stick to the possible.
Note that neither of these reasons are appeals to emotion, and neither of them requires making up private definitions for public words.
Interesting definition of emotion, there. I take it "trust" has no emotional overtones?
I'll grant you that (a) is, on the surface, expressed logically and unemotionally. It also has, to the best of my knowledge, no statistical proof, so you appear to be exercising "faith" here in your own logic without supporting evidence. "Faith" has no emotional overtones, then?
Although, I must say it is good to know that you oppose the death penalty as well, even if our reasoning differs. I could not recall which side you'd been on in previous death penalty threads where I didn't post. My emotional response to that is :hug:.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:30:23 PM
Maybe 25 years isn't enough for you.
Too long, almost. I am not a criminal, but I definitely have a somewhat dark and vengeful side. I oppose the death penalty, yet as I have posted there have been times when I have caught myself thinking "that fucker needs to die for what he did". I don't think you can separate an element of emotional response from a subject as fundamental as the death penalty.
And when you get right down to it, my considering that the death penalty is effectively equivalent to a state-sponsored murder, and your position that a government should not have the power to impose the ultimate sanction are not that far apart.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:30:23 PM
I very much doubt that the politicians in your country believe that the President of the United States, or the governors of the applicable US states, are murderers. Thisis appeal to authority is Teh Fail.
Since I never said they did, I fail to see the purpose of your point. I said that they agreed with me that the death penalty should not exist, not that they shared the same reasoning why it should not exist that I do.
Although, on reflection, from what I know of the abolitionist argument when this was discussed in my country, I think it quite likely some of the more fundamentalist abolitionists probably did, and do.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:30:23 PMNope. If you say something stupid, I feel no obligation to point out that it is stupid in a polite way.
The absence of one word made it "stupid", which I am now, for a third time, apologising for the omission of.
And stigmatising a personal viewpoint that was made solely as an expression of position as "stupid" is pretty low. I am sure you noted that I was not responding to anyone elses argument, but merely making my own position on the subject of the death penalty clear. Now I am stuck in yet another interminable "Grumblerisation argument" because you slipped into your standard, knee-jerk response pattern to something you consider to be "stupid". You could have just ignored it, if that was how you felt, rather than making yourself look so arrogant.
Of course, what you did was an emotional reaction as well..
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:30:23 PMIf we are making up new, broader, definitions to "self-defense" than I can just say that execution is society exercising its right of self-defense against a murderer. Executed murderers will not kill again, while some non-executed ones will. Thus, whether we use the normal defintion or your universal definition, your "CP is teh murdur" argument fails.
As Miglia has pointed out, as the law stands now in the USA, society has effectively made that decision. It does not mean that I have to believe that the current law is right, or refrain from expressing my own view on the appropriateness of the death penalty.
And self-defence has a very broad definition when it comes to societies, as I am sure you are well aware. I would remind you of the contortions that various governments went through to justify the invasion of Iraq in terms of self-defence.
Self-defence has a much broader definition than you allow when it comes to people as well.
Moreover, moral positions on really fundamental issues to do with human life tend to be longer lasting than most societies laws ("thou shalt not kill" being an obvious expression of a moral position that has endured two thousand years in western thought.)
Please note my deliberate use of the term "fundamental issues" there; I am well aware that the above argument can easily be partially holed by the much more recent phenomena of "animal rights", which now sees various forms of hunting (to use a UK example) that were perfectly acceptable fifty years ago as now being "morally wrong".
Quote from: miglia on October 18, 2009, 06:58:44 PM
That's your way of being polite?
I didn't say I was asking politely
again. Your repeated erroneous insistence that I am "appealing to authority" when I am not is merely mulish.
QuoteAnd who cares about your technical definition? You are appealing to authority. Does the state not have authority? Does the law not have authority? It does, and that is what you are appealing to.
I have no clue as to what you are attempting to argue here. I am not appealing to "the state" as an authority at all.
QuoteYou understand perfectly well what I'm saying. Stop pretending like you don't.
As far as I can tell, you are either engaging in non sequiturs or speaking gibberish. I won't pretend you are not. If you have an argument, make it.
QuoteMore obfuscatory babble.
That is what your whole "appeal to authority" argument is, insofar as I can tell.
QuoteAs is this. It is not a strawman - it is the logical conclusion of your own argument.
No, it isn't. Argument by assertion is another logical fallacy. I never said, and do not believe, that calling a hypothetical dictator a murderer would be "an appeal to emotion" under any circumstances. If a murderer is executed in North Korea after a fair trial, that doesn't make Kim Jung Il a murderer. Other acts might, but to argue that any execution does
is a mere appeal to emotion. I specifically noted that whether an act of a dictator is murder depends on the act, and yo deliberately ignored my statement in order to craft your strawman having me argue that no act by a dictator is murder.
So what have we learned here?
miglia is a fool,
Agelastus is a wanker
and Grumbler...he's crumbly.
:cool:
Quote from: Neil on October 18, 2009, 06:57:42 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 18, 2009, 06:36:18 PM
Well, I can say two things to this. One is that the Allies themselves ran in to difficulties with the legal ramifications of bombing cities at Nuremburg, after all.
Except they didn't, because they won. Nuremburg had no legal ramifications.
I'll have go look it up again, but I was under the impression that the Allies did not bring charges against various Luftwaffe personnel for bombing civilian populations because of the potential legal ramifications for their own campaign of bombing German civilian populations. So it has no legal ramifications because the issue was deliberately avoided.
And unfortunately, I am well aware that Britain was probably the worst offender in this context.
Quote from: miglia on October 18, 2009, 07:07:14 PM
I agree the state has this authority. It is right to appeal to this authority in a court of law. It is not right to appeal to this authority in a discussion of morals and say it is intellectually dishonest to deviate from this authority in your personal opinions.
There's nothing wrong with appealing to the authority of the state in a moral argument.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 18, 2009, 07:11:34 PM
I'll have go look it up again, but I was under the impression that the Allies did not bring charges against various Luftwaffe personnel for bombing civilian populations because of the potential legal ramifications for their own campaign of bombing German civilian populations. So it has no legal ramifications because the issue was deliberately avoided.
And unfortunately, I am well aware that Britain was probably the worst offender in this context.
And yet they prosecuted the Germans for the Holocaust, despite the fact that the Soviet crimes were far worse.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:48:47 PM
Wait a second. Are you proposing that a person can lawfully kill another in order to avoid "extreme emotional trauma?" I know of no jurisdiction where avoiding "extreme emotional trauma" is defined as the sort of "self-defense" that authorizes lethal force.
Crumbs, Grumbler, that's taking selective quoting too far - the next bit expressly states that I would have difficulty making this a generalisation.
One could make a good argument that "honour killings", which are legal in certain extremely backward jurisdictions, base there legality on exactly the issue of "extreme emotional trauma". Self-defence, in other words in its most basic meaning.
But before you quote this back at me, I am sure we both agree that those societies are a bunch of backwards barbarians.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:48:47 PM
It may be your opinion that the tightening of gun laws was done merely for emotional reasons, as opposed to a sudden recognition that existing laws allowed things to happen which society wanted to make illegal, but this is mere argument by assertion.
Trust me, they are good examples for my country in this respect. I was old enough to see the hysteria around them both, and also to be able to note how ill thought out some aspects of the laws were, due to how rapidly they were put before parliament. I remember mentioning in another thread that one consequence is that Britain has gone from World Class to World Shit in competitive shooting.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:48:47 PM
Making laws based on emotion rather than logic has almost always led to tragedy and regret. The displacement of the US Nisei is a good example of that.
As an aside, I have always been impressed by how many of the Nisei still wanted to fight for America, despite that.
And since emotional responses can't really be separated from lawmaking in democracies, I am not going to retreat from my now assumed position that emotion has a place alongside logic in discussions of the death penalty.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:48:47 PM
The deliberate killing of civilians is, as you point out, lawful if justified by military necessity, a fact of which you are very well aware
Grumbler, you know what you have written here is untrue. If they were targetting civilians deliberately, they would be committing criminal acts. They are targetting installations that unfortunately can have civilians living nearby (or not even nearby, but shit happens.) I know that you didn't quite mean that as written.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 06:48:47 PM
Please learn the meaning of "strawman" lest you continue to misuse the term. :cool:
Nice...since you and I are both well aware that no western democracy's military would get away with deliberately targetting civilians, despite your somewhat imprecise language on the issue (see above), then how is this not a strawman raised by you to obfuscate the issue?
Quote from: Neil on October 18, 2009, 07:16:41 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 18, 2009, 07:11:34 PM
I'll have go look it up again, but I was under the impression that the Allies did not bring charges against various Luftwaffe personnel for bombing civilian populations because of the potential legal ramifications for their own campaign of bombing German civilian populations. So it has no legal ramifications because the issue was deliberately avoided.
And unfortunately, I am well aware that Britain was probably the worst offender in this context.
And yet they prosecuted the Germans for the Holocaust, despite the fact that the Soviet crimes were far worse.
Yes, they prosecuted Germans for the Holocaust, as that was something both democratic west and dictatorial Communist East could agree on.
Bombing cities raised enough ethical, moral and legal questions for the democratic west to get uneasy, and to want to drop the issue. The dictatorial Communist East of course, didn't care about this, but was involved in a joint exercise.
And you don't accuse your ally of crimes worse than the Nazis after the sort of war you'd just fought; especially as you were abetting them in these crimes (see the returns of various groups by the British to the Soviet Union, despite knowing these people, including families, would probably be executed.)
1945 was NOT a good year for someone who is proud of being British in some respects. :(
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:10:37 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 18, 2009, 06:58:44 PM
That's your way of being polite?
I didn't say I was asking politely again. Your repeated erroneous insistence that I am "appealing to authority" when I am not is merely mulish.
I was referring to the first one, "mkay?"
Quote
QuoteAnd who cares about your technical definition? You are appealing to authority. Does the state not have authority? Does the law not have authority? It does, and that is what you are appealing to.
I have no clue as to what you are attempting to argue here. I am not appealing to "the state" as an authority at all.
Oh please.
QuoteYou understand perfectly well what I'm saying. Stop pretending like you don't.
As far as I can tell, you are either engaging in non sequiturs or speaking gibberish. I won't pretend you are not. If you have an argument, make it.[/quote]
I have made it. You proceed to hide from it.
QuoteMore obfuscatory babble.
That is what your whole "appeal to authority" argument is, insofar as I can tell.
QuoteAs is this. It is not a strawman - it is the logical conclusion of your own argument.
No, it isn't. Argument by assertion is another logical fallacy. I never said, and do not believe, that calling a hypothetical dictator a murderer would be "an appeal to emotion" under any circumstances. If a murderer is executed in North Korea after a fair trial, that doesn't make Kim Jung Il a murderer. Other acts might, but to argue that any execution does
is a mere appeal to emotion. [/quote]
I never said
any execution. Strawman.
QuoteI specifically noted that whether an act of a dictator is murder depends on the act, and yo deliberately ignored my statement in order to craft your strawman having me argue that no act by a dictator is murder.
I never said you said that no act by a dictator is murder. See, I can play this game too. But I prefer not to, because it's rediculous, and I don't argue to win on technicalities.
This is pointless. I'm going to bed now. And Garbon, no one is impressed by you being
just the opposite of the stereotype. Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. Good night everyone.
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2009, 07:11:27 PM
So what have we learned here?
miglia is a fool,
Agelastus is a wanker
and Grumbler...he's crumbly.
:cool:
Well, I'd disagree with you on Miglia.
And Grumbler...well, he's Grumbler. He's unique.
As for me being a wanker...well, it depends on which meaning of the word you are using, I suppose... :perv:
Anyway, I need to get some sleep, as I've got an appointment tomorrow morning, and will probably be stuck with relatives for the rest of the day.
So, gentlemen, I bid you adieu, and look forward to continuing this in the early hours of tomorrow morning, my time. :bows:
Quote from: Agelastus on October 18, 2009, 07:08:12 PM
Interesting definition of emotion, there. I take it "trust" has no emotional overtones?
Interestig because it is the common one, and not one made up for the sake of an argument? I suppose you may find that interesting.
QuoteI'll grant you that (a) is, on the surface, expressed logically and unemotionally. It also has, to the best of my knowledge, no statistical proof, so you appear to be exercising "faith" here in your own logic without supporting evidence. "Faith" has no emotional overtones, then?
I have no clue as to how you could think you could successfully interject the strawman concept of "faith" here. I have no "faith" about this issue whatever.
QuoteAlthough, I must say it is good to know that you oppose the death penalty as well, even if our reasoning differs. I could not recall which side you'd been on in previous death penalty threads where I didn't post. My emotional response to that is :hug:.
I oppose the death penalty precisely because I have thought about it dispassionately, read up on it a great deal, and drew conclusions based on the best evidence I could find. It isn't an emotional issue with me, and I could be convinced my conclusions are wrong (either because of faulty facts or faulty reasoning). that is the advantage of being dispassionate about such things.
QuoteToo long, almost. I am not a criminal, but I definitely have a somewhat dark and vengeful side. I oppose the death penalty, yet as I have posted there have been times when I have caught myself thinking "that fucker needs to die for what he did". I don't think you can separate an element of emotional response from a subject as fundamental as the death penalty.
You mean you don't think
you can separate the emotional from the logical. I certainly can. I don't grieve over the executions that take place, and while I am angered by cases of apparent injustice like the one we are discussing, I don't blame the death penalty itself for such occurrences. I blame the logic-defeating powers of politics and bureaucracy, which is why I want to limit government powers to those unable to be exerted outside government so those political and bureaucratic imperatives cannot work further against my interests.
QuoteAnd when you get right down to it, my considering that the death penalty is effectively equivalent to a state-sponsored murder, and your position that a government should not have the power to impose the ultimate sanction are not that far apart.
They are poles apart, I think. I oppose state-sponsored murder for very different reasons than I oppose state-sponsored non-murder killings.
QuoteSince I never said they did, I fail to see the purpose of your point. I said that they agreed with me that the death penalty should not exist, not that they shared the same reasoning why it should not exist that I do.
Your claim for opposing the DP is that it is murder. Their reason for opposing it is, by your admission here, different.
QuoteAnd stigmatising a personal viewpoint that was made solely as an expression of position as "stupid" is pretty low. I am sure you noted that I was not responding to anyone elses argument, but merely making my own position on the subject of the death penalty clear. Now I am stuck in yet another interminable "Grumblerisation argument" because you slipped into your standard, knee-jerk response pattern to something you consider to be "stupid". You could have just ignored it, if that was how you felt, rather than making yourself look so arrogant.
I have no clue as to what you are now arguing. I made a post that pointed out the absurdity of starting with a "premise" that was totally at odds with the commonly-understood meaning of a word, by showing that if we simply make up our own meanings for the word "murder" we can go so far as to call a posting on languish murder, and the board sponsors and moderators accomplices to murder. This was clever and effective, and so obviously not "knee-jerk."
It is both stupid and pointless to develop an argument like "the death penalty is murder and those who carry it out are murderers" when the argument depends on a definition of murder that everyone knows is false and easily disproven.
QuoteOf course, what you did was an emotional reaction as well..
Not at all, and the whole "I am rubber, you are glue" argument is childish.
QuoteAs Miglia has pointed out, as the law stands now in the USA, society has effectively made that decision. It does not mean that I have to believe that the current law is right, or refrain from expressing my own view on the appropriateness of the death penalty.
How the law stands in the US or anywhere else is irrelevant to your argument that the DP is murder. Were you correct, then those who carried out executions in your country or any other before the DP was ended could be tried as murderers, for they had killed people and not in self-defense.
QuoteAnd self-defence has a very broad definition when it comes to societies, as I am sure you are well aware. I would remind you of the contortions that various governments went through to justify the invasion of Iraq in terms of self-defence.
So the DP is then self-defense? That is the broad definition. You can choose the broad definition, in which case you are wrong, or the narrow one, in which case you are wrong. What you cannot do is weasel and say it is just broad enough to include all acts which which even yopu cannot define as murder, but narrow enough to leave the DP alone as murder.
QuoteSelf-defence has a much broader definition than you allow when it comes to people as well.
No, it does not. The law recognizes (and should recognize) a difference between self-defense and the defense of others. In many jurisdictions in the US, for instance, self-defense includes an obligation to retreat, if possible, while defense of others bears no such obligations.
QuoteMoreover, moral positions on really fundamental issues to do with human life tend to be longer lasting than most societies laws ("thou shalt not kill" being an obvious expression of a moral position that has endured two thousand years in western thought.)
Wow. That is a probably the worst example you could have used! :lmfao: It is one of the most-ignored Biblical injunctions ever! Rightfully so, of course, because all animals must kill to survive.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PM
I have no clue as to what you are now arguing. I made a post that pointed out the absurdity of starting with a "premise" that was totally at odds with the commonly-understood meaning of a word, by showing that if we simply make up our own meanings for the word "murder" we can go so far as to call a posting on languish murder, and the board sponsors and moderators accomplices to murder. This was clever and effective, and so obviously not "knee-jerk."
Clever? Word substitution does not take quick wit. -_-
And clearly it wasn't very effective as this discussion is still happening.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PM
Not at all, and the whole "I am rubber, you are glue" argument is childish.
Not sure this is the best description as the "I am rubber, you are glue" phrase typically indicates deflecting a negative attribute from the accused to the accuser. Agelastus's phrasing seems to suggest that he sees both of you acting emotionally, so that's not quite the same. Although, the end effect is much the same as it makes the discussion about you rather than him.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 18, 2009, 07:27:47 PM
Crumbs, Grumbler, that's taking selective quoting too far - the next bit expressly states that I would have difficulty making this a generalisation.
So what you are saying is that it is a crappy argument and withdraw it? Smart man.
QuoteOne could make a good argument that "honour killings", which are legal in certain extremely backward jurisdictions, base there legality on exactly the issue of "extreme emotional trauma". Self-defence, in other words in its most basic meaning.
You have lost me here. In what jurisdictions are honor killings legal, and what makes you think they are there made legal because of the concept of self-defense? It seems to me that you are grasping at straws here. That is always a sign of an untenable position.
QuoteBut before you quote this back at me, I am sure we both agree that those societies are a bunch of backwards barbarians.
I don't know which societies these are, though I expect you are right. Dunno what this has to do with self-defense, though.
QuoteTrust me, they are good examples for my country in this respect. I was old enough to see the hysteria around them both, and also to be able to note how ill thought out some aspects of the laws were, due to how rapidly they were put before parliament. I remember mentioning in another thread that one consequence is that Britain has gone from World Class to World Shit in competitive shooting.
Sorry, but Idon't trust you on this. I also remember the cases, and remember that the public opinion was "we thought this was already illegal! If it isn't, that was an oversight that should be corrected immediately!" That isn't an emotional response.
QuoteAs an aside, I have always been impressed by how many of the Nisei still wanted to fight for America, despite that.
Yeah, that fact is something that alwayys impressed me as well. 442nd RCT FTW!
Of additional interest, many of the members of the 442 (including one of its battalion commanders) were Korean-Americans, unfortunately totally overshadowed by the Nisei story.
QuoteAnd since emotional responses can't really be separated from lawmaking in democracies, I am not going to retreat from my now assumed position that emotion has a place alongside logic in discussions of the death penalty.
Okay. Just understand that this merely weakens your position. Logic is universal, while emotion is individual.
QuoteGrumbler, you know what you have written here is untrue. If they were targetting civilians deliberately, they would be committing criminal acts. They are targetting installations that unfortunately can have civilians living nearby (or not even nearby, but shit happens.) I know that you didn't quite mean that as written.
I meant it exactly as written, and know from my courses in the Law of Armed Conflict that it is true. Your rewording of it is untrue, of course, but I cannot help you re-writing my points in a feeble attempt to refute them.
Let's take a case from LoAC textbooks: an enemy soldier is driving civilians in front of him and hiding behind them. He pops up and shoots at you, then ducks down again behind his human civilian shield. Can you, under the LoAC, shoot the civilians in front of him to get him?
QuoteNice...since you and I are both well aware that no western democracy's military would get away with deliberately targetting civilians, despite your somewhat imprecise language on the issue (see above), then how is this not a strawman raised by you to obfuscate the issue?
Answer my question, and then we will see which of us knows what the law says. Note that my case involves deliberately targeting those civilians.
...and a good SMU joke lost in the detritus...
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2009, 08:02:40 PM
Clever? Word substitution does not take quick wit. -_-
Clever doesn't have to be quick! :lol:
QuoteAnd clearly it wasn't very effective as this discussion is still happening.
True, but it is ongoing because, while Agelastus has abandoned his original contention, he is weaseling a bunch of other contentions into line to try to make us believe that he has not abandoned it.
Quote from: PDH on October 18, 2009, 08:10:16 PM
...and a good SMU joke lost in the detritus...
:shocked: There are good SMU jokes?
Oh. You mean good as in jokes, not good as in SMU.
Don't try and earn back any points, Oh Groaning One.
Quote from: PDH on October 18, 2009, 08:14:18 PM
Don't try and earn back any points, Oh Groaning One.
I had points?
Doh!
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 08:11:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2009, 08:02:40 PM
Clever? Word substitution does not take quick wit. -_-
Clever doesn't have to be quick! :lol:
QuoteAnd clearly it wasn't very effective as this discussion is still happening.
True, but it is ongoing because, while Agelastus has abandoned his original contention, he is weaseling a bunch of other contentions into line to try to make us believe that he has not abandoned it.
Good, the relatives have gone...
Abandoned my original contention? Hardly, and if you think that, then we have been having two different discussions. :lol:
I clarified my original phrase by adding the word "deliberate", that should have been there all along, then added one case that was ill-covered by the post I had made.
As for "weaselling contentions", the debate is merely expanding from its base proposition.
And you know what - the death penalty does effectively equate to state sponsored murder, of a particularly brutal and cold-blooded type. I stand by that opinion.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 19, 2009, 04:29:25 PM
And you know what - the death penalty does effectively equate to state sponsored murder, of a particularly brutal and cold-blooded type. I stand by that opinion.
That is simply inane.
Murder is a legal term. It has a specific legal meaning, and there is no way execution can possibly fit that definition, by definition.
The word you are looking for his "homicide".
The legal definition of murder:
Quote229. Culpable homicide is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
(i) means to cause his death, or
(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or
(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 19, 2009, 04:29:25 PM
And you know what - the death penalty does effectively equate to state sponsored murder, of a particularly brutal and cold-blooded type. I stand by that opinion.
That is simply inane.
Murder is a legal term. It has a specific legal meaning, and there is no way execution can possibly fit that definition, by definition.
The word you are looking for his "homicide".
I already stated that. Almost word for word.
I am actually confused as to what A is arguing here. Saying that Execution of criminals is wrong because it's not a power we should invest in the state, or that it's cruel, or that it's immoral, or that it's wasteful, or that it makes one late for dinner all seem to be valid arguments (I don't subscribe to all of them), but to say it's murder doesn't seem be a valid argument since by definition it can't be. The State can of course murder people when it acts in contrary to it's own laws. I do wonder if a state can murder if it acts in contradiction to international law but in accordance to it's own laws.
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 04:39:34 PM
The legal definition of murder:
Quote229. Culpable homicide is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
(i) means to cause his death, or
(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or
(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.
Back up, councellor: you are missing the important definition, 'culpable homicide':
QuoteCulpable homicide
(4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.
Idem
(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
(a) by means of an unlawful act;
(b) by criminal negligence;
(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
(d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.
Exception
(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, a person does not commit homicide within the meaning of this Act by reason only that he causes the death of a human being by procuring, by false evidence, the conviction and death of that human being by sentence of the law.
In Canada at least, an execution (even procured by false evidence) cannot be murder because it cannot be culpable homicide.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PM
Interestig because it is the common one, and not one made up for the sake of an argument? I suppose you may find that interesting.
----
I have no clue as to how you could think you could successfully interject the strawman concept of "faith" here. I have no "faith" about this issue whatever.
No strawman here - "trust" and "faith" have emotional components as much as logical, and your second contention relies on your own faith in your deductive abilities rather than hard data, as far as I am aware. I was rather hoping you could point me at a study to back-up your second contention, as I am dubious about it. I can quite easily see more murders being done by released murderers than there are innocent men falsely accused of murder in jail. However, that may be due to my impression of the British legal system, and may not equate directly to the American experience.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PM
I oppose the death penalty precisely because I have thought about it dispassionately, read up on it a great deal, and drew conclusions based on the best evidence I could find. It isn't an emotional issue with me, and I could be convinced my conclusions are wrong (either because of faulty facts or faulty reasoning). that is the advantage of being dispassionate about such things.
I find it impossible to believe that anyone is completely unemotional in their assessment of the death penalty, given the horrific nature of many murders.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PM
You mean you don't think you can separate the emotional from the logical. I certainly can. I don't grieve over the executions that take place, and while I am angered by cases of apparent injustice like the one we are discussing, I don't blame the death penalty itself for such occurrences. I blame the logic-defeating powers of politics and bureaucracy, which is why I want to limit government powers to those unable to be exerted outside government so those political and bureaucratic imperatives cannot work further against my interests.
I was unaware that you are a Vulcan or a robot, Grumbler... :huh: Besides, you just admitted to anger over the perceived injustice.
Moreover, I don't believe anybody here has "blamed the death penalty itself" for such occurrences, but rather the people involved. I am interested in just how far you wish to limit government powers, though. At face value, that looks almost like an anarchist outlook in the last two lines.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PMThey are poles apart, I think. I oppose state-sponsored murder for very different reasons than I oppose state-sponsored non-murder killings.
I disagree, but since in this case it seems as if "ne'er the twain shall meet", I suppose this point is moot.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PM
Your claim for opposing the DP is that it is murder. Their reason for opposing it is, by your admission here, different.
Quite correct. But since I never said there reason was the same as mine, I fail to see what I am admitting. You are grasping at a straw here to try and beat me with, and failing.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PM
I have no clue as to what you are now arguing. I made a post that pointed out the absurdity of starting with a "premise" that was totally at odds with the commonly-understood meaning of a word, by showing that if we simply make up our own meanings for the word "murder" we can go so far as to call a posting on languish murder, and the board sponsors and moderators accomplices to murder. This was clever and effective, and so obviously not "knee-jerk."
It was sarcasm and a pretty trite attempt at ridicule, of a type you had done before. And my point was if you had simply posted, "you're position does not match the commonly accepted definition of murder", rather than typing a response that was more insulting than clever, then we would not be having this argument.
"Grumblerisation argument" is a term I think I will adopt for a discussion that devolves into point by point post quoting, as you do tend to use the technique more than others on the forum.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PM
It is both stupid and pointless to develop an argument like "the death penalty is murder and those who carry it out are murderers" when the argument depends on a definition of murder that everyone knows is false and easily disproven.
I expressed my personal opinion on the subject of murder. Moreover, as a generalised description of murder, it is actually fairly apt.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PM
Not at all, and the whole "I am rubber, you are glue" argument is childish.
So, in essence, was your post.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PMHow the law stands in the US or anywhere else is irrelevant to your argument that the DP is murder. Were you correct, then those who carried out executions in your country or any other before the DP was ended could be tried as murderers, for they had killed people and not in self-defense.
How the law stands now is not irrelevant; if enough people share my view in the future, then the law will be changed. Moreover, your point is, to be blunt, pointless, as it is highly unlikely any such law could be, or would be, applied retroactively.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PM
So the DP is then self-defense? That is the broad definition. You can choose the broad definition, in which case you are wrong, or the narrow one, in which case you are wrong. What you cannot do is weasel and say it is just broad enough to include all acts which which even yopu cannot define as murder, but narrow enough to leave the DP alone as murder.
I believe you are the one who stated that the death penalty could be described as society's legitimate self defence, not I; moreover, since this is a statement neither of us are in agreement with, trying to misuse it as a bat to beat me with is foolish. Stop putting your words in to my mouth (or rather, text.)
Besides, how on earth do you draw a reference to the death penalty from the various political contortions Britain and the USA went through in order to justify the second Gulf War in terms of self-defence? I actually think it is quite silly that we had to go through all that, but the modern world demands it.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 07:42:41 PM
Wow. That is a probably the worst example you could have used! :lmfao: It is one of the most-ignored Biblical injunctions ever! Rightfully so, of course, because all animals must kill to survive.
While it may have been ignored in the specific, the general moral message has been a part of western thought and society for at least sixteen centuries. It is therefore one of the best examples to use, as it has had reat influence even on otherwise violent societies. Consider the "Truce of God" concept in medieval France, for example.
This debate over semantics is like executing Mr. Willingham all over again. :cry: :(
Damn, a "Grumblerisation argument" takes to long...there's been at least three new posts while I was typing the last one.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 08:08:17 PM
So what you are saying is that it is a crappy argument and withdraw it? Smart man.
One can't withdraw something one has already said is difficult to generalise from. You shouldn't have bothered quoting it in the first place.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 08:08:17 PM
You have lost me here. In what jurisdictions are honor killings legal, and what makes you think they are there made legal because of the concept of self-defense? It seems to me that you are grasping at straws here. That is always a sign of an untenable position.
Now that the Latin countries have all fallen in to line (most recently Brazil and Colombia, according to mostly-reliable Wikipedia) only a bunch of middle eastern Islamic countries as far as I can tell.
And as for the self-defence idea, protecting one's honour has a long tradition in many societies as a concept as important as preserving ones own life. "Self" defence, as in defence of "Self", "Self" being more than just the physical but also the status and obligations imposed on you by society.
Fortunately, that attitude towards honour that justifies such killings never took much of a hold in post-Roman western societies, and we have long outgrown it.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 08:08:17 PM
Sorry, but Idon't trust you on this. I also remember the cases, and remember that the public opinion was "we thought this was already illegal! If it isn't, that was an oversight that should be corrected immediately!" That isn't an emotional response.
Actually, with Dunblane, that certainly was not the case, as the public had been sensitivised to the gun laws by Hungerford. The hysteria around Dunblane in particular was not rational.
Still, I can't help it if you don't trust me on this. After all, I am only a citizen of the country in question, and thus a little closer to the source than you...you could be right in that that makes me too close for objectivity on the issue. I would disagree, of course, but that is what discussion boards are for, is it not? :)
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 08:08:17 PMOf additional interest, many of the members of the 442 (including one of its battalion commanders) were Korean-Americans, unfortunately totally overshadowed by the Nisei story.
I didn't know that, although, on reflection, I suppose it was not too surprising given Korea's status in the Japanese Empire. Were many Chinese Americans mistaken for Japanese as well, since Formosa fudged the issue slightly?
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 08:08:17 PMOkay. Just understand that this merely weakens your position. Logic is universal, while emotion is individual.
I wouldn't deny that, but I repeat, humans are not Vulcans. I am not convinced that you have completely divorced logic and emotion either (see previous post.)
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 08:08:17 PMI meant it exactly as written, and know from my courses in the Law of Armed Conflict that it is true. Your rewording of it is untrue, of course, but I cannot help you re-writing my points in a feeble attempt to refute them.
Let's take a case from LoAC textbooks: an enemy soldier is driving civilians in front of him and hiding behind them. He pops up and shoots at you, then ducks down again behind his human civilian shield. Can you, under the LoAC, shoot the civilians in front of him to get him?
And now, when challenged after you have posted a statement that makes no mention of armed opposition, you respond with an example which adds armed opposition, thus changing the scenario! That is NOT what you originally posted. What you originally posted would have been a war crime. Your new contention changes the playing field entirely.
Anyway, in the example given, and operating from deduction rather than courses in law (which, as I am sure you are aware, I have never claimed to have taken.)
Presumably, on grounds of self-defence, you are definitely allowed to shoot to wound to remove the shield. Given the circumstances of such an issue, I doubt it would be possible to prove that a soldier had shot to kill if a civilian died, so "shit happens, no foul."
How close am I?
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 08:08:17 PM
Answer my question, and then we will see which of us knows what the law says. Note that my case involves deliberately targeting those civilians.
In a situation already covered by what I have posted covering "collateral damage" or "accidental death" or, more appropriately, "shit happens".
May I repeat that you made no qualification to your contention that it was OK to "deliberately target civilians", a statement which in the absence of any mention of enemy forces effectively endorses a war crime! Which is exactly why I called you on it.
The death penalty is like a murder of crows. There is a lot of noise and beating of limbs about it, which can become very annoying.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 19, 2009, 04:29:25 PM
Abandoned my original contention? Hardly, and if you think that, then we have been having two different discussions. :lol:
I clarified my original phrase by adding the word "deliberate", that should have been there all along, then added one case that was ill-covered by the post I had made.
So you still contend that "murder [is] defined as the [deliberate] taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence"? That the killing of enemy soldiers who are not threatening the soldiers doing the killing is murder? That a policeman who kills a maniac about to knife a women is a murderer?
Adding "deliberate," of course, makes your terminology even worse. A gang-banger firing a gun into a crowd and killing a person at random is not murder by your definition, because the gangbanger didn't deliberately kill anyone, let alone the victim.
Your position grows more absurd by the post.
QuoteAs for "weaselling contentions", the debate is merely expanding from its base proposition.
Expanding as your desperately attempt to avoid the logical consequences of your own contentions.
And you know what - the death penalty does effectively equate to state sponsored murder, of a particularly brutal and cold-blooded type. I stand by that opinion.[/quote]
You are entitled to whatever hysterical opinions you wish to generate. Just don't expect anyone else to respect those opinions.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 19, 2009, 04:54:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 19, 2009, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 19, 2009, 04:29:25 PM
And you know what - the death penalty does effectively equate to state sponsored murder, of a particularly brutal and cold-blooded type. I stand by that opinion.
That is simply inane.
Murder is a legal term. It has a specific legal meaning, and there is no way execution can possibly fit that definition, by definition.
The word you are looking for his "homicide".
I already stated that. Almost word for word.
I am actually confused as to what A is arguing here. Saying that Execution of criminals is wrong because it's not a power we should invest in the state, or that it's cruel, or that it's immoral, or that it's wasteful, or that it makes one late for dinner all seem to be valid arguments (I don't subscribe to all of them), but to say it's murder doesn't seem be a valid argument since by definition it can't be. The State can of course murder people when it acts in contrary to it's own laws. I do wonder if a state can murder if it acts in contradiction to international law but in accordance to it's own laws.
I concur. You did indeed, Berkut could just simply have quoted your post for equal effect.
Nor would I subscribe to the "late for dinner" argument...was it inspired by General Melchett from Blackadder goes Forth, by any chance? :D
Anyway.
Equating execution with murder is a moral position.
It is not currently a legal position, although as a number of jurisdictions will not extradite their citizens if they could face the death penalty, even if the offence in question is one covered in extradition treaties with the country where the crime took place, one does wonder if it would be possible for said governments to be sued as accessories to murder if they did extradite individuals in these cases.
Although it is not currently a legal position, laws can and are changed, and given how "wet" society is becoming on other issues, it may not be an entirely unlikely possibility in certain countries.
As for your point about international and national law, I don't know the answer, although theoretically I suppose it could be possible. Can anyone think of a possible scenario for discussion here?
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 04:39:34 PM
The legal definition of murder:
Quote229. Culpable homicide is murder
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
(i) means to cause his death, or
(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or
(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.
We all understand that, BB. What Agelastus and mglia are arguing is that murder isn't murder by any legal definition, but rather by any defnition that makes judicial execution a murder. This isn't about logic, it is about an appeal to emotion.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 05:34:16 PM
So you still contend that "murder [is] defined as the [deliberate] taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence"? That the killing of enemy soldiers who are not threatening the soldiers doing the killing is murder? That a policeman who kills a maniac about to knife a women is a murderer?
Adding "deliberate," of course, makes your terminology even worse. A gang-banger firing a gun into a crowd and killing a person at random is not murder by your definition, because the gangbanger didn't deliberately kill anyone, let alone the victim.
Your position grows more absurd by the post.
We've already discussed the semantic issues with self-defence.
And firing a gun into a crowd is most definitely a deliberate action. Just because he could have killed anyone does not mean he has not deliberately taken a human life. I am surprised you would even consider that a telling point.
Anyway, when did "gang-banger" become a term for a shooter? Last I heard that referred to a much different, and if consensual, much more pleasant act. Is this a recent addition to American slang?
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 05:34:16 PM
Expanding as your desperately attempt to avoid the logical consequences of your own contentions.
Well, that deserves a "you started it" response, but since I am really starting to enjoy myself here, I won't. In fact, Raz has just raised a very interesting point that I am looking forward to your response on.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 05:34:16 PM
You are entitled to whatever hysterical opinions you wish to generate. Just don't expect anyone else to respect those opinions.
Well, I wouldn't call it hysterical, in either sense of the word. You disagree, obviously enough. I respect your opinion. You see no need for the converse to be true, but would rather make a laboured attempt to ridicule it rather than make simple and factual posts in disagreement to it.
Well, anyway, my opinion is my opinion. I would not dream of forcing it on others absent the backing of a democratic majority, which is currently not present. However, I'm happy to keep talking about it as long as you are.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 19, 2009, 05:02:44 PM
No strawman here - "trust" and "faith" have emotional components as much as logical, and your second contention relies on your own faith in your deductive abilities rather than hard data, as far as I am aware.
No, they don't, and no, it does not. This argument by assertion of yours is boring and pointless, so from now on I will respond to such arguments by noting "ABA" and otherwise ignoring them.
QuoteI was rather hoping you could point me at a study to back-up your second contention, as I am dubious about it. I can quite easily see more murders being done by released murderers than there are innocent men falsely accused of murder in jail. However, that may be due to my impression of the British legal system, and may not equate directly to the American experience.
I am afraid you will have to do your own research on this.
QuoteI find it impossible to believe that anyone is completely unemotional in their assessment of the death penalty, given the horrific nature of many murders.
Okay, you find it impossible. I know of no way in which to expand the range of what you consider possible, so we will just leave it at the point where I contend that I can do something you think impossible.
QuoteI was unaware that you are a Vulcan or a robot, Grumbler... :huh:
I was well aware that you resort to ad hominem arguments.
QuoteBesides, you just admitted to anger over the perceived injustice.
So?
QuoteI am interested in just how far you wish to limit government powers, though. At face value, that looks almost like an anarchist outlook in the last two lines.
I believe that government should be limited to those roles that only it can do effectively. This is a pretty common political stance this side of the pond.
QuoteQuite correct. But since I never said there reason was the same as mine, I fail to see what I am admitting. You are grasping at a straw here to try and beat me with, and failing.
Dude, ywhy would you post
Quote from: Agelastus on October 18, 2009, 05:42:09 PM
...which is why although my stance on the death penalty is in line with the views of the politicians who run my country...
and then claim that you had never said such a thing. Your stance "the death penalty is murder" is not in line with the views of the politicians who run your country, and you later conceded that this was true. Now you are saying you never even made the contention, which is easily disproven!
QuoteIt was sarcasm and a pretty trite attempt at ridicule, of a type you had done before. And my point was if you had simply posted, "you're position does not match the commonly accepted definition of murder", rather than typing a response that was more insulting than clever, then we would not be having this argument.
We are not having an argument, you are simply posting silly contentions and I am blowing them away. You are not responding to my arguments at all, which would be required for us to have "an argument." My point is that if you had simply not posted silly shit, we would not be spending lifespan on the issue.
QuoteI expressed my personal opinion on the subject of murder. Moreover, as a generalised description of murder, it is actually fairly apt crap.
No one really cares about opinions that are rooted in absurd premises and lack any evidence of careful consideration.
QuoteHow the law stands now is not irrelevant; if enough people share my view in the future, then the law will be changed. Moreover, your point is, to be blunt, pointless, as it is highly unlikely any such law could be, or would be, applied retroactively.
I don't think it would be wise to hold your breath until even a seond person hares your view, let alone a majority of people. Your point is, to be blunt, pointless (such a clever pun I will also use it).
QuoteI believe you are the one who stated that the death penalty could be described as society's legitimate self defence, not I; moreover, since this is a statement neither of us are in agreement with, trying to misuse it as a bat to beat me with is foolish. Stop putting your words in to my mouth (or rather, text.)
Are you arguing for the narrow definition of self-defense (the one everyone agrees upon) or the broad one (where anyone can make up their own meaning)? Either way, you lose. You cannot choose the definition where you get to make up meanings and I don't, though.
QuoteBesides, how on earth do you draw a reference to the death penalty from the various political contortions Britain and the USA went through in order to justify the second Gulf War in terms of self-defence? I actually think it is quite silly that we had to go through all that, but the modern world demands it.
This is the second time you have brought this up, and each time you ask me how I do something with it. The answer is that i don't. This is a red herring.
QuoteWhile it may have been ignored in the specific, the general moral message has been a part of western thought and society for at least sixteen centuries. It is therefore one of the best examples to use, as it has had reat influence even on otherwise violent societies. Consider the "Truce of God" concept in medieval France, for example.
No, it has never been enforced, as the existence of humans proves. I don't think it was ever even written by any of the authors of the bible. I think you will find out that your entire point here is based around a mis-translation! :) It is, I am sure, not "thou shalt not kill," it is "don't commit murder."
Quote from: Agelastus on October 19, 2009, 05:26:48 PM
One can't withdraw something one has already said is difficult to generalise from. You shouldn't have bothered quoting it in the first place.
:lmfao: Don't you mean that you shouldn't have
said it in the first place? You cannot gig me for quoting you when you say stupid shit.
QuoteNow that the Latin countries have all fallen in to line (most recently Brazil and Colombia, according to mostly-reliable Wikipedia) only a bunch of middle eastern Islamic countries as far as I can tell.
Stricken as non-responsive. Argument refuted by default.
QuoteAnd as for the self-defence idea, protecting one's honour has a long tradition in many societies as a concept as important as preserving ones own life. "Self" defence, as in defence of "Self", "Self" being more than just the physical but also the status and obligations imposed on you by society.
In your society? Or in mine? These kinds of weasels about "many societies" and "a bunch of countries" are ABA.
QuoteActually, with Dunblane, that certainly was not the case, as the public had been sensitivised to the gun laws by Hungerford. The hysteria around Dunblane in particular was not rational.
ABA
QuoteI wouldn't deny that, but I repeat, humans are not Vulcans. I am not convinced that you have completely divorced logic and emotion either (see previous post.)
Strawman.
QuoteAnd now, when challenged after you have posted a statement that makes no mention of armed opposition, you respond with an example which adds armed opposition, thus changing the scenario!
I was discussing an issue of war. War includes armed opposition. Kinda by definition.
QuoteThat is NOT what you originally posted. What you originally posted would have been a war crime. Your new contention changes the playing field entirely.
You clearly didn't understand the military necessity argument when extended to a larger theater, so now I have given a case on a much smaller scale, to demonstrate why deliberately targeting and killing civilians is not always a war crime.
QuotePresumably, on grounds of self-defence, you are definitely allowed to shoot to wound to remove the shield. Given the circumstances of such an issue, I doubt it would be possible to prove that a soldier had shot to kill if a civilian died, so "shit happens, no foul."
Nope. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound" in the LoAC. You can deliberately target and kill as many civilians in this case as military necessity requires, but no more than that. This
is not murder, even if you yourself are not under threat.
QuoteIn a situation already covered by what I have posted covering "collateral damage" or "accidental death" or, more appropriately, "shit happens".
Nope, not covered by those cases at all. Deliberate targeting of civilians is not always murder.
QuoteMay I repeat that you made no qualification to your contention that it was OK to "deliberately target civilians", a statement which in the absence of any mention of enemy forces effectively endorses a war crime! Which is exactly why I called you on it.
I do not need to include every qualification possible to each case. If there is only one case, the general statement is true. This is basic logic.
It is merely your strawman that I am "endorsing a war crime" unless I make some known-only-to-you specific qualification.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:09:18 PM
No, they don't, and no, it does not. This argument by assertion of yours is boring and pointless, so from now on I will respond to such arguments by noting "ABA" and otherwise ignoring them.
No argument by assertion about it; you are simply denying a logical point about your own views.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:09:18 PMI am afraid you will have to do your own research on this.
Which rather suggests my point about the lack of such studies is real, as I am confident a man such as yourself would normally be able to quote me chapter and verse. Do you want to quit the losing hand you have here?
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:09:18 PM
I believe that government should be limited to those roles that only it can do effectively. This is a pretty common political stance this side of the pond.
And these roles are?
You are avoiding the point here, which is that your definition of roles that government can do effectively will naturally differ to another person's even when they are presented with exactly the same data. You are expressing a personal opinion which may not match with the law as written or the perception of the general populace. Should I ridicule you asininely for that?
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:09:18 PMDude, ywhy would you post
Quote from: Agelastus on October 18, 2009, 05:42:09 PM
...which is why although my stance on the death penalty is in line with the views of the politicians who run my country...
and then claim that you had never said such a thing. Your stance "the death penalty is murder" is not in line with the views of the politicians who run your country, and you later conceded that this was true. Now you are saying you never even made the contention, which is easily disproven!
The government's stance on the death penalty is that it is not a legitimate punishment; my stance is that it is not a legitimate punishment. That's pretty simple to understand, isn't it? I repeat, I did not say their
reasons were the same as mine.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:09:18 PM
We are not having an argument, you are simply posting silly contentions and I am blowing them away. You are not responding to my arguments at all, which would be required for us to have "an argument." My point is that if you had simply not posted silly shit, we would not be spending lifespan on the issue.
Since the first "silly shit" was posted by
you your definition of our current activity does not inspire me to agree with you.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:09:18 PM
QuoteI expressed my personal opinion on the subject of murder. Moreover, as a generalised description of murder, it is actually fairly apt crap.
No one really cares about opinions that are rooted in absurd premises and lack any evidence of careful consideration.
Other than a number of years of careful thought, of course. I didn't make this opinion up on the morning of my post, after all. Not, of course, that you seem to believe me, but what the heck can I do about that?
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:09:18 PM
I don't think it would be wise to hold your breath until even a seond person hares your view, let alone a majority of people. Your point is, to be blunt, pointless (such a clever pun I will also use it).
Normally I edit my posts to avoid word repetition; it is lazy writing not to use two different words given the breadth of the English language.
No pun intended.
And I would not be surprised if other people in the world shared my view. However, I would not expect to run into many/any of them on Languish.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:09:18 PM
This is the second time you have brought this up, and each time you ask me how I do something with it. The answer is that i don't. This is a red herring.
So WHY did you bring it up? The section of the relevant post talked about the political contortions used to justify the second Gulf War in terms of self-defence, not the death penalty, so why did you link the two? You are actually one of the best I know for bringing up red herrings...
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:09:18 PMNo, it has never been enforced, as the existence of humans proves. I don't think it was ever even written by any of the authors of the bible. I think you will find out that your entire point here is based around a mis-translation! :) It is, I am sure, not "thou shalt not kill," it is "don't commit murder."
The Catholic church, quite possibly the oldest extant Christian denomination, and also the principle faith of Western Europe during the critical formative years of modern western civilisation, uses "kill", not "murder". Yes, it is a mistranslation of the original, but it is the mistranslation that was and is in common usage. Hence that is the moral directive relating to this Commandment that most of us are brought up with.
And as for its enforcement, you are aware, for example, of the medieval "Truce of God" movement that I have already cited, aren't you?
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:24:12 PM
:lmfao: Don't you mean that you shouldn't have said it in the first place? You cannot gig me for quoting you when you say stupid shit.
I rather think I can, when your quoting it proves you did not bother to either read all of the section involved, or trouble yourself to understand it. :P
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:24:12 PMStricken as non-responsive. Argument refuted by default.
Oh, this is new - it is now non-responsive to answer a question about under which jurisdictions honour killings remain legal. That's a good one.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:24:12 PM
In your society? Or in mine? These kinds of weasels about "many societies" and "a bunch of countries" are ABA.
ABA as you really need to study more history. Which is something I never thought I would have to say to YOU!
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:24:12 PMABA
ABA yourself. :rolleyes: To the best of my knowledge you were not present in Britain at the time, so are not best placed to provide a first hand opinion of the public mood post-Hungerford and Dunblane.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 06:24:12 PM
QuoteAnd now, when challenged after you have posted a statement that makes no mention of armed opposition, you respond with an example which adds armed opposition, thus changing the scenario!
I was discussing an issue of war. War includes armed opposition. Kinda by definition.
QuoteThat is NOT what you originally posted. What you originally posted would have been a war crime. Your new contention changes the playing field entirely.
You clearly didn't understand the military necessity argument when extended to a larger theater, so now I have given a case on a much smaller scale, to demonstrate why deliberately targeting and killing civilians is not always a war crime.
QuotePresumably, on grounds of self-defence, you are definitely allowed to shoot to wound to remove the shield. Given the circumstances of such an issue, I doubt it would be possible to prove that a soldier had shot to kill if a civilian died, so "shit happens, no foul."
Nope. There is no such thing as "shoot to wound" in the LoAC. You can deliberately target and kill as many civilians in this case as military necessity requires, but no more than that. This is not murder, even if you yourself are not under threat.
QuoteIn a situation already covered by what I have posted covering "collateral damage" or "accidental death" or, more appropriately, "shit happens".
Nope, not covered by those cases at all. Deliberate targeting of civilians is not always murder.
QuoteMay I repeat that you made no qualification to your contention that it was OK to "deliberately target civilians", a statement which in the absence of any mention of enemy forces effectively endorses a war crime! Which is exactly why I called you on it.
I do not need to include every qualification possible to each case. If there is only one case, the general statement is true. This is basic logic.
It is merely your strawman that I am "endorsing a war crime" unless I make some known-only-to-you specific qualification.
Now, as for this whole section.
You stated "deliberately targeted civilians" with no qualification. Without a qualification that can mean anything from taking a family to one side and shooting them dead to your own weaselly retraction-by-example.
Are you saying that the first example (taking a family to one side and shooting them dead) is covered by your blanket assertions? Because that is bullshit, easily disproved by reference to events in Iraq. Which, as they involved American soldiers, I am sure you know more about than I do.
Now, as for the example you gave, I suppose I am not surprised there is no "shoot to wound" in the LoAC, although as I am not a lawyer, I was not previously aware of that. But since you raised the whole thing as a red herring to cover your own shocking imprecision (the very issue you take me to task for) I don't suppose that really matters, does it?
Quote from: Agelastus on October 19, 2009, 05:48:09 PM
And firing a gun into a crowd is most definitely a deliberate action. Just because he could have killed anyone does not mean he has not deliberately taken a human life. I am surprised you would even consider that a telling point.
It is not a deliberate killing. I am surprised that you still insist on this "deliberation" part of the definition, when it is precisely the lack of deliberation that makes reckless killing murder in the real world.
QuoteAnyway, when did "gang-banger" become a term for a shooter? Last I heard that referred to a much different, and if consensual, much more pleasant act. Is this a recent addition to American slang?
A gangbanger is a member of a gang who isn't a leader.
QuoteWell, I wouldn't call it hysterical, in either sense of the word. You disagree, obviously enough. I respect your opinion. You see no need for the converse to be true, but would rather make a laboured attempt to ridicule it rather than make simple and factual posts in disagreement to it.
The reason why you respect my opinion is because my opinion is based on the available facts and some simple logic. Yours is based on an assertion which everyone but you know to be false.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 19, 2009, 04:54:56 PM
I do wonder if a state can murder if it acts in contradiction to international law but in accordance to it's own laws.
Yes, it can. Genocide, for instance, cannot be justified by reference to domestic law.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 19, 2009, 06:53:02 PM
I rather think I can, when your quoting it proves you did not bother to either read all of the section involved, or trouble yourself to understand it. :P:
I dare say your difficulty here is that I did trouble myself to understand what you wrote, and you did not. The clear implication of killing someone in order to "self defence" yourself from the severe trauma of seeing your wife killed is that is the trauma, and not the defense of others, that triggers your milling justification. Had you tried for a logical argument rather than an emotive argument, you would have seen instantly how stupid this would sound when parsed out.
QuoteABA yourself. :rolleyes: To the best of my knowledge you were not present in Britain at the time, so are not best placed to provide a first hand opinion of the public mood post-Hungerford and Dunblane.
ABA.
QuoteYou stated "deliberately targeted civilians" with no qualification. Without a qualification that can mean anything from taking a family to one side and shooting them dead to your own weaselly retraction-by-example.
No, that is not true, as a matter of logic. "One can target civilians and not commit a war crime" is true if there is even one case in which it is true (and there is). Your argument that I was saying "it is always possible to target civilians without committing a war crime" is an obvious strawman.
QuoteAre you saying that the first example (taking a family to one side and shooting them dead) is covered by your blanket assertions? Because that is bullshit, easily disproved by reference to events in Iraq. Which, as they involved American soldiers, I am sure you know more about than I do.
I have no idea why this paragraph is even in here. No one is arguing that one can legally take a family to one side and shooting them dead. That's not even an issue of war crimes. That is straight ordinary murder. What does this have to do with anything we are discussing? Are
you arguing it is
not murder?
QuoteNow, as for the example you gave, I suppose I am not surprised there is no "shoot to wound" in the LoAC, although as I am not a lawyer, I was not previously aware of that. But since you raised the whole thing as a red herring to cover your own shocking imprecision (the very issue you take me to task for) I don't suppose that really matters, does it?
Haven't a clue as to why this bleat is here, either. What is a "shocking imprecision?" Some sort of electric whoopee cushion? I don't own one of those, not that it is any of your business.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 07:22:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 19, 2009, 04:54:56 PM
I do wonder if a state can murder if it acts in contradiction to international law but in accordance to it's own laws.
Yes, it can. Genocide, for instance, cannot be justified by reference to domestic law.
I didn't think so. I wasn't sure how that was always handled. So if the US signed a treaty that banned execution and executed a guy anyway that could make it a murder right?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 19, 2009, 07:36:15 PM
I didn't think so. I wasn't sure how that was always handled. So if the US signed a treaty that banned execution and executed a guy anyway that could make it a murder right?
It would be an extrajudicial execution, so it would be murder. The "US" couldn't execute anyone in violation of the law; it would have to be a person or persons doing this as private individuals rather than government officials.
Quote from: grumbler on October 20, 2009, 08:54:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 19, 2009, 07:36:15 PM
I didn't think so. I wasn't sure how that was always handled. So if the US signed a treaty that banned execution and executed a guy anyway that could make it a murder right?
It would be an extrajudicial execution, so it would be murder. The "US" couldn't execute anyone in violation of the law; it would have to be a person or persons doing this as private individuals rather than government officials.
Are you saying that the word "execute" is mutually exclusive with illegality?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2009, 01:33:33 PM
Are you saying that the word "execute" is mutually exclusive with illegality?
Not execute, but "judicial execution." If someone is executed in violation of the law, it cannot be a judicial execution, by definition.
Ahh. Thank you for clearing that up.
I was thinking on this subject earlier today. It occurs to me that using A's reasoning would lead to a bit of trouble. If say, a legal execution by the state was the moral equivalent to say a man cold bloodedly killing his wife then it puts us citizens in a bind. Since I may be morally obligated to stop the man from killing his wife, even to the point of using lethal force would I not be so obligated to save the prisoner on death row? I'd rather not have to charge the local penitentiary guards for the sake of some gangster.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2009, 08:33:17 PM
Ahh. Thank you for clearing that up.
I was thinking on this subject earlier today. It occurs to me that using A's reasoning would lead to a bit of trouble. If say, a legal execution by the state was the moral equivalent to say a man cold bloodedly killing his wife then it puts us citizens in a bind. Since I may be morally obligated to stop the man from killing his wife, even to the point of using lethal force would I not be so obligated to save the prisoner on death row? I'd rather not have to charge the local penitentiary guards for the sake of some gangster.
It will also lead to an infinite loop that will depopulate the entire country. The wife murder gets executed, then his executioners get executed, then the executioners of the executioners get executed, then the executioners of the executioners of the executioners get executed, and so on.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 20, 2009, 08:33:17 PM
Ahh. Thank you for clearing that up.
I was thinking on this subject earlier today. It occurs to me that using A's reasoning would lead to a bit of trouble. If say, a legal execution by the state was the moral equivalent to say a man cold bloodedly killing his wife then it puts us citizens in a bind. Since I may be morally obligated to stop the man from killing his wife, even to the point of using lethal force would I not be so obligated to save the prisoner on death row? I'd rather not have to charge the local penitentiary guards for the sake of some gangster.
You are not morally obliged to stop a man from killing his wife, if the only means to do so is killing him. In fact, it would be murder for you to do so, according to Agelastus. Ditto for saving a man on death row. Remember that, according to Agelastus, self defense is the
sole exception to the rule that killing someone deliberately is murder. Hell, you could have killed the 9-11 hijackers and saved all the people in the World Trade Center, and been a murderer for doing so if your own life was not in danger from them.
I have not followed this whole thread so forgive me for asking if it's obvious from earlier posts, but is Agelastus's position that killing of another human being = murder? If so I have never heard this argument before.
Intentional deprivation of life, apparently. The question seems to be for him whether or not the state has authority to justify deprivation of life, and he's come down firmly against. From what I've seen, it's a fairly common approach among legal naturalists, who maintain that the Constitution is subordinate to some ethereal, inviolate "natural law of society."
Quote from: Caliga on October 21, 2009, 08:57:02 AM
I have not followed this whole thread so forgive me for asking if it's obvious from earlier posts, but is Agelastus's position that killing of another human being = murder? If so I have never heard this argument before.
All you have to understand is that Age thinks that the words "murder" and "homicide" are synonyms.
All you have to do is replace "murder" with "homicide" in his arguments, add in the moral implications of murder to the word homicide (which is why he doesn't just use the word homicide of course) and then you can understand the form of his argument.
The content will still be beyond you, since it doesn't make any logical or rational sense, however.
I was for the death penalty up until recently (this case had something to do with it), but really I don't care much either way. It's not something I worry about on a daily basis.
Quote from: Caliga on October 21, 2009, 08:57:02 AM
I have not followed this whole thread so forgive me for asking if it's obvious from earlier posts, but is Agelastus's position that killing of another human being = murder? If so I have never heard this argument before.
No, it is that the death penalty is murder. All forms of killing beside judicial execution are apparently some subset of a mysteriously all-encompassing concept of "self defense."
I have never heard this argument before, either. It is based on a private definition of murder, though, so one wouldn't expect to have heard of it.
But... since murder is a legal term, how can the death penalty be murder if it is conducted by the state which by definition gets to decide what is murder and what isn't?
I can see the argument that execution is "wrong" or maybe unethical or immoral, but not that it is a form of murder.
Quote from: Caliga on October 21, 2009, 11:43:56 AM
But... since murder is a legal term, how can the death penalty be murder if it is conducted by the state which by definition gets to decide what is murder and what isn't?
I can see the argument that execution is "wrong" or maybe unethical or immoral, but not that it is a form of murder.
Agelastus's argument is that the legal definition for murder is bogus because it allow the death penalty, and that he personally uses a new and better private definition which includes judicial execution.
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2009, 05:00:09 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 21, 2009, 11:43:56 AM
But... since murder is a legal term, how can the death penalty be murder if it is conducted by the state which by definition gets to decide what is murder and what isn't?
I can see the argument that execution is "wrong" or maybe unethical or immoral, but not that it is a form of murder.
Agelastus's argument is that the legal definition for murder is bogus because it allow the death penalty, and that he personally uses a new and better private definition which includes judicial execution.
Well lets not pretend he's the only one on languish that has his personal defintion of words that don't jive with everyone elses.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2009, 05:49:44 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2009, 05:00:09 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 21, 2009, 11:43:56 AM
But... since murder is a legal term, how can the death penalty be murder if it is conducted by the state which by definition gets to decide what is murder and what isn't?
I can see the argument that execution is "wrong" or maybe unethical or immoral, but not that it is a form of murder.
Agelastus's argument is that the legal definition for murder is bogus because it allow the death penalty, and that he personally uses a new and better private definition which includes judicial execution.
Well lets not pretend he's the only one on languish that has his personal defintion of words that don't jive with everyone elses.
Indeed. Like the way Tim uses 'dreadnaught' in place of 'dreadnought'.