| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"_ Prof. Jonez _" |
| Date: |
08 May 2007 07:14:32 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Bo Raxo -- Death Penalty |
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
Thought you'd find this interesting, Bo.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exoneration
s/I l...
In the quarter century between restoration of the Illinois
death penalty and Governor George Ryan's blanket clemency
order, 298 men and women were sentenced to death in Illinois.
Of those, 18 have been exonerated - a rate of 6%, the highest
exoneration rate of the 38 states with death penalties on
their books.
One out of every 16 persons sentenced to die in Illinois
in the past 25 years was innocent.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Even though SOME people who are
sentenced to death later have their convictions overturned, it
doesn't mean they are innocent
Read the case histories.
I've read enough of them.
In nearly every one of these cases they
actually found the real murderer. So if you solved the case and
found the real killer, it means that the wrongfully convicted
person is factually innocent.
- and what if they were sentenced to life? Then the
anti-death-penalty kooks wouldn't bother to take up their cause
and they'd rot in prison 'til they were dead.
So the people who prevent the execution of someone convicted of a
crime they didn't commit are kooks?
No, the people who demand that we not use the death penalty for
people who are guilty of horrendous crimes are kooks.
If I had any feelings, you would have hurt them with this comment.
I don't deny that there are some people who are better off dead.
The individual is "better off dead" or you are "better off" with
them dead?
That would be me, and the rest of us.
So it's for YOUR convenience then, eh?
I just
think it too dangerous to entrust the state with the power to kill
someone. I don't think that's at all kooky.
Of course, I wouldn't. And, always, YMMV.
Can you grasp how stupid you sound, saying that?
Do you realize how kooky it is to argue that anyone convicted of
the death penalty should be granted a reprieve is?
People aren't convicted of the death penalty. They're convicted of
capital crimes and sentenced to death. To recognize that this is a
dangerous power that ought be withheld from the state is not to say
that those so convicted shouldn't be punished.
Why do you assert that Death is a Penalty?
Are you asserting that in general, it isn't?
Is it?
By the theist's rationalle?
By the anthiest's rationalle?
Do tell.
If it wasn't for the anti death penalty activists, those innocent
people would have been executed.
Let's fix the system then.
The system is probably not fixable in the way you mean. But there's
no "fixing" the fact that the state has power too dangerous for it
to handle.
Which has nothing to do with MITIGATING the harm WHILE improving
the system.
The "harm" here is empowering the state to kill its citizens. I claim
that's authority inherently too dangerous to entrust to the state.
There's no "improvements" that can make that danger go away.
Which is of course why most of the civilized nations of this world
have abolished capital "punishment".
The state's apparatus for
investigating and convicting people obviously made mistakes.
Kooks are people who think such a flawed system should be allowed
to take lives.
Kooks are those who think it's perfectly alright for the system to
remain flawed as long as the maximum penalty is merely life.
Stop attributing to your opponents arguments that you know are
phony. The system will never be perfect: it's a human artifact.
But it's guaranteed to be irreparable when the death penalty is
involved. Not to mention dangerous for everyone.
<snip>
Note to Michael: thanks for posting this, I did find it
interesting. Seems like the wrongful convictions run in clusters
by county: there is one county in Texas that accounts for about
half the released death row inmates in that state. Some places
systematically cut corners - and when the system can be corrupted
like that, it means that the system can't be trusted with the
power of life and death.
If it cannot be trusted, the solution should be to fix the system,
not throw it out.
The state cannot be trusted. That should be the motto on our money.
There's no fix for this. It's the way we are.
So no sense striving for improvement then, as it will never be
perfect
Be may guest. Strive for improvement, in education for judges and
juries, in forensic techniques, in appeal procedures.
But that's not the topic under discussion. Is captial punishment
proper no matter how improved the system is?
Most civilized nations/societies have decided it is not.
That's the question I
don't trust the state with the power of life and death. I don't see
how improvements" alleviate that danger.
"Improvements" would surely lessen the danger.
Then there are the cases of the confessed, admitted killers
who willingly accept, even volunteer for death.
Do they not have that personal right?
Bo Raxo
.
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Bo Raxo -- Death Penalty |
08 May 2007 07:29:29 PM |
|
|
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:5aci5bF2n95aiU1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
Thought you'd find this interesting, Bo.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exoneration
s/I l...
In the quarter century between restoration of the Illinois
death penalty and Governor George Ryan's blanket clemency
order, 298 men and women were sentenced to death in Illinois.
Of those, 18 have been exonerated - a rate of 6%, the highest
exoneration rate of the 38 states with death penalties on
their books.
One out of every 16 persons sentenced to die in Illinois
in the past 25 years was innocent.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Even though SOME people who are
sentenced to death later have their convictions overturned, it
doesn't mean they are innocent
Read the case histories.
I've read enough of them.
In nearly every one of these cases they
actually found the real murderer. So if you solved the case and
found the real killer, it means that the wrongfully convicted
person is factually innocent.
- and what if they were sentenced to life? Then the
anti-death-penalty kooks wouldn't bother to take up their cause
and they'd rot in prison 'til they were dead.
So the people who prevent the execution of someone convicted of a
crime they didn't commit are kooks?
No, the people who demand that we not use the death penalty for
people who are guilty of horrendous crimes are kooks.
If I had any feelings, you would have hurt them with this comment.
I don't deny that there are some people who are better off dead.
The individual is "better off dead" or you are "better off" with
them dead?
That would be me, and the rest of us.
So it's for YOUR convenience then, eh?
Well, not mine individually, and maybe "convenience" is the wrong word.
Safety, satisfaction, sense of justice, whatever.
But note that I think it's too dangerous to indulge that notion.
I just
think it too dangerous to entrust the state with the power to kill
someone. I don't think that's at all kooky.
Of course, I wouldn't. And, always, YMMV.
Can you grasp how stupid you sound, saying that?
Do you realize how kooky it is to argue that anyone convicted of
the death penalty should be granted a reprieve is?
People aren't convicted of the death penalty. They're convicted of
capital crimes and sentenced to death. To recognize that this is a
dangerous power that ought be withheld from the state is not to say
that those so convicted shouldn't be punished.
Why do you assert that Death is a Penalty?
Are you asserting that in general, it isn't?
Is it?
By the theist's rationalle?
By the anthiest's rationalle?
Do tell.
By the rationale of the golden rule.
If it wasn't for the anti death penalty activists, those innocent
people would have been executed.
Let's fix the system then.
The system is probably not fixable in the way you mean. But there's
no "fixing" the fact that the state has power too dangerous for it
to handle.
Which has nothing to do with MITIGATING the harm WHILE improving
the system.
The "harm" here is empowering the state to kill its citizens. I claim
that's authority inherently too dangerous to entrust to the state.
There's no "improvements" that can make that danger go away.
Which is of course why most of the civilized nations of this world
have abolished capital "punishment".
I don't think that's the reason. I think the more likely reason is
repugnance. My reason is too cold to be popular, I'd guess.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "_ Prof. Jonez _" |
|
| Title: Re: Bo Raxo -- Death Penalty |
08 May 2007 07:43:33 PM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:5aci5bF2n95aiU1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
Thought you'd find this interesting, Bo.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exoneration
s/I l...
In the quarter century between restoration of the Illinois
death penalty and Governor George Ryan's blanket clemency
order, 298 men and women were sentenced to death in
Illinois. Of those, 18 have been exonerated - a rate of 6%,
the highest exoneration rate of the 38 states with death
penalties on their books.
One out of every 16 persons sentenced to die in Illinois
in the past 25 years was innocent.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Even though SOME people who are
sentenced to death later have their convictions overturned, it
doesn't mean they are innocent
Read the case histories.
I've read enough of them.
In nearly every one of these cases they
actually found the real murderer. So if you solved the case and
found the real killer, it means that the wrongfully convicted
person is factually innocent.
- and what if they were sentenced to life? Then the
anti-death-penalty kooks wouldn't bother to take up their cause
and they'd rot in prison 'til they were dead.
So the people who prevent the execution of someone convicted of
a crime they didn't commit are kooks?
No, the people who demand that we not use the death penalty for
people who are guilty of horrendous crimes are kooks.
If I had any feelings, you would have hurt them with this comment.
I don't deny that there are some people who are better off dead.
The individual is "better off dead" or you are "better off" with
them dead?
That would be me, and the rest of us.
So it's for YOUR convenience then, eh?
Well, not mine individually, and maybe "convenience" is the wrong
word.
Safety,
How does executing them make you safer than keeping
them in prison?
satisfaction,
You feel satisfaction when the Gov't executes people?
sense of justice,
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
whatever.
Good one.
But note that I think it's too dangerous to indulge that notion.
Yet you elicit the simplistic reasons that are used to
support such a barbaric institution.
I just
think it too dangerous to entrust the state with the power to kill
someone. I don't think that's at all kooky.
Of course, I wouldn't. And, always, YMMV.
Can you grasp how stupid you sound, saying that?
Do you realize how kooky it is to argue that anyone convicted of
the death penalty should be granted a reprieve is?
People aren't convicted of the death penalty. They're convicted
of capital crimes and sentenced to death. To recognize that this
is a dangerous power that ought be withheld from the state is not
to say that those so convicted shouldn't be punished.
Why do you assert that Death is a Penalty?
Are you asserting that in general, it isn't?
Is it?
By the theist's rationalle?
By the athiest's rationalle?
Do tell.
By the rationale of the golden rule.
"An eye for an eye" isn't the golden rule, numbnuts.
Who would Jesus execute?
If it wasn't for the anti death penalty activists, those
innocent people would have been executed.
Let's fix the system then.
The system is probably not fixable in the way you mean. But
there's no "fixing" the fact that the state has power too
dangerous for it to handle.
Which has nothing to do with MITIGATING the harm WHILE improving
the system.
The "harm" here is empowering the state to kill its citizens. I
claim that's authority inherently too dangerous to entrust to the
state. There's no "improvements" that can make that danger go away.
Which is of course why most of the civilized nations of this world
have abolished capital "punishment".
I don't think that's the reason. I think the more likely reason is
repugnance. My reason is too cold to be popular, I'd guess.
<snip>
It's not like you to run and hide from an issue...
Catch a case of cognitive dissonance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Bo Raxo -- Death Penalty |
08 May 2007 10:27:58 PM |
|
|
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:5acjroF2nitutU1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:5aci5bF2n95aiU1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
Thought you'd find this interesting, Bo.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exoneration
s/I l...
In the quarter century between restoration of the Illinois
death penalty and Governor George Ryan's blanket clemency
order, 298 men and women were sentenced to death in
Illinois. Of those, 18 have been exonerated - a rate of 6%,
the highest exoneration rate of the 38 states with death
penalties on their books.
One out of every 16 persons sentenced to die in Illinois
in the past 25 years was innocent.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Even though SOME people who are
sentenced to death later have their convictions overturned, it
doesn't mean they are innocent
Read the case histories.
I've read enough of them.
In nearly every one of these cases they
actually found the real murderer. So if you solved the case and
found the real killer, it means that the wrongfully convicted
person is factually innocent.
- and what if they were sentenced to life? Then the
anti-death-penalty kooks wouldn't bother to take up their cause
and they'd rot in prison 'til they were dead.
So the people who prevent the execution of someone convicted of
a crime they didn't commit are kooks?
No, the people who demand that we not use the death penalty for
people who are guilty of horrendous crimes are kooks.
If I had any feelings, you would have hurt them with this comment.
I don't deny that there are some people who are better off dead.
The individual is "better off dead" or you are "better off" with
them dead?
That would be me, and the rest of us.
So it's for YOUR convenience then, eh?
Well, not mine individually, and maybe "convenience" is the wrong
word.
Safety,
How does executing them make you safer than keeping them in prison?
They won't be getting out or killing guards if they're dead.
satisfaction,
You feel satisfaction when the Gov't executes people?
Certain people. Of course.
sense of justice,
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I didn't say I was proud of how I felt.
whatever.
Good one.
But note that I think it's too dangerous to indulge that notion.
Yet you elicit the simplistic reasons that are used to
support such a barbaric institution.
That's how I feel. So sue me. I don't let those feelings dictate my
political position. If that's not good enough for you, ....
I just
think it too dangerous to entrust the state with the power to kill
someone. I don't think that's at all kooky.
Of course, I wouldn't. And, always, YMMV.
Can you grasp how stupid you sound, saying that?
Do you realize how kooky it is to argue that anyone convicted of
the death penalty should be granted a reprieve is?
People aren't convicted of the death penalty. They're convicted
of capital crimes and sentenced to death. To recognize that this
is a dangerous power that ought be withheld from the state is not
to say that those so convicted shouldn't be punished.
Why do you assert that Death is a Penalty?
Are you asserting that in general, it isn't?
Is it?
By the theist's rationalle?
By the athiest's rationalle?
Do tell.
By the rationale of the golden rule.
"An eye for an eye" isn't the golden rule, numbnuts.
You're not paying attention again. You asked whether I considered
putting someone to death a penalty. I said yes, because I would consider
it a penalty were the state to put me to death.
Who would Jesus execute?
Assuming Jesus ever existed, why would I care?
If it wasn't for the anti death penalty activists, those
innocent people would have been executed.
Let's fix the system then.
The system is probably not fixable in the way you mean. But
there's no "fixing" the fact that the state has power too
dangerous for it to handle.
Which has nothing to do with MITIGATING the harm WHILE improving
the system.
The "harm" here is empowering the state to kill its citizens. I
claim that's authority inherently too dangerous to entrust to the
state. There's no "improvements" that can make that danger go away.
Which is of course why most of the civilized nations of this world
have abolished capital "punishment".
I don't think that's the reason. I think the more likely reason is
repugnance. My reason is too cold to be popular, I'd guess.
<snip>
It's not like you to run and hide from an issue...
I'm not hiding. I'm opposed to capital punishment. Period.
Catch a case of cognitive dissonance?
Well, now that you mention it, yes. Certain people who've acted in
certain despicable ways arouse in me feelings of revenge and a desire to
rid my society of those people. I understand, however, the moral and
political pitfalls in giving way to those feelings. So I take what I
consider to be a rational (and better) stance at odds with my feelings.
You got a problem with that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "_ Prof. Jonez _" |
|
| Title: Re: Bo Raxo -- Death Penalty |
09 May 2007 05:29:59 PM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
Thought you'd find this interesting, Bo.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exoneration
s/I l...
In the quarter century between restoration of the Illinois
death penalty and Governor George Ryan's blanket clemency
order, 298 men and women were sentenced to death in
Illinois. Of those, 18 have been exonerated - a rate of
6%, the highest exoneration rate of the 38 states with
death penalties on their books.
One out of every 16 persons sentenced to die in Illinois
in the past 25 years was innocent.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Even though SOME people who
are sentenced to death later have their convictions
overturned, it doesn't mean they are innocent
Read the case histories.
I've read enough of them.
In nearly every one of these cases they
actually found the real murderer. So if you solved the case
and found the real killer, it means that the wrongfully
convicted person is factually innocent.
- and what if they were sentenced to life? Then the
anti-death-penalty kooks wouldn't bother to take up their
cause and they'd rot in prison 'til they were dead.
So the people who prevent the execution of someone convicted
of a crime they didn't commit are kooks?
No, the people who demand that we not use the death penalty for
people who are guilty of horrendous crimes are kooks.
If I had any feelings, you would have hurt them with this
comment. I don't deny that there are some people who are better
off dead.
The individual is "better off dead" or you are "better off" with
them dead?
That would be me, and the rest of us.
So it's for YOUR convenience then, eh?
Well, not mine individually, and maybe "convenience" is the wrong
word.
Safety,
How does executing them make you safer than keeping them in prison?
They won't be getting out or killing guards if they're dead.
And what ratio of former death-row inmates have escaped or
killed guards, as compared to say those wrongfully convicted of
capital crimes?
satisfaction,
You feel satisfaction when the Gov't executes people?
Certain people. Of course.
Really? Like whom?
sense of justice,
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I didn't say I was proud of how I felt.
Someone else responsible for your emotions?
whatever.
Good one.
But note that I think it's too dangerous to indulge that notion.
Yet you elicit the simplistic reasons that are used to
support such a barbaric institution.
That's how I feel. So sue me. I don't let those feelings dictate my
political position.
Subconsciously you do.
If that's not good enough for you, ....
Is it good enough for you?
I just
think it too dangerous to entrust the state with the power to
kill someone. I don't think that's at all kooky.
Of course, I wouldn't. And, always, YMMV.
Can you grasp how stupid you sound, saying that?
Do you realize how kooky it is to argue that anyone convicted
of the death penalty should be granted a reprieve is?
People aren't convicted of the death penalty. They're convicted
of capital crimes and sentenced to death. To recognize that
this is a dangerous power that ought be withheld from the state
is not to say that those so convicted shouldn't be punished.
Why do you assert that Death is a Penalty?
Are you asserting that in general, it isn't?
Is it?
By the theist's rationalle?
By the athiest's rationalle?
Do tell.
By the rationale of the golden rule.
"An eye for an eye" isn't the golden rule, numbnuts.
You're not paying attention again. You asked whether I considered
putting someone to death a penalty. I said yes, because I would
consider it a penalty were the state to put me to death.
Why?
Who would Jesus execute?
Assuming Jesus ever existed, why would I care?
If he existed, you wouldn't care?
If it wasn't for the anti death penalty activists, those
innocent people would have been executed.
Let's fix the system then.
The system is probably not fixable in the way you mean. But
there's no "fixing" the fact that the state has power too
dangerous for it to handle.
Which has nothing to do with MITIGATING the harm WHILE improving
the system.
The "harm" here is empowering the state to kill its citizens. I
claim that's authority inherently too dangerous to entrust to the
state. There's no "improvements" that can make that danger go
away.
Which is of course why most of the civilized nations of this world
have abolished capital "punishment".
I don't think that's the reason. I think the more likely reason is
repugnance. My reason is too cold to be popular, I'd guess.
<snip>
It's not like you to run and hide from an issue...
I'm not hiding. I'm opposed to capital punishment. Period.
Catch a case of cognitive dissonance?
Well, now that you mention it, yes. Certain people who've acted in
certain despicable ways arouse in me feelings of revenge
Ah yes, that stalwart emotion - vengeance.
and a desire to rid my society of those people.
Is society not rid of them when they are locked inside a cage
24/7/365/forever ?
I understand, however, the moral and political pitfalls in giving
way to those feelings.
Better yet, attempt to comprehend the "feelings" themselves.
So I take what I consider to be a rational (and better) stance at
odds with my feelings.
You got a problem with that?
Why do you harbour such feelings?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Bo Raxo -- Death Penalty |
09 May 2007 06:17:45 PM |
|
|
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:5af0b9F2oadnlU1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
<snip>
No, the people who demand that we not use the death penalty for
people who are guilty of horrendous crimes are kooks.
If I had any feelings, you would have hurt them with this
comment. I don't deny that there are some people who are better
off dead.
The individual is "better off dead" or you are "better off" with
them dead?
That would be me, and the rest of us.
So it's for YOUR convenience then, eh?
Well, not mine individually, and maybe "convenience" is the wrong
word.
Safety,
How does executing them make you safer than keeping them in prison?
They won't be getting out or killing guards if they're dead.
And what ratio of former death-row inmates have escaped or
killed guards, as compared to say those wrongfully convicted of
capital crimes?
What difference does that make? I think we're all slightly safer if
murderers are dead. Am I wrong?
Notice that I am *against* the death penalty.
satisfaction,
You feel satisfaction when the Gov't executes people?
Certain people. Of course.
Really? Like whom?
Adolph Eichman. John Wayne Gacy. Paris Hilton.
No, wait a minute. Scratch that last one.
sense of justice,
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I didn't say I was proud of how I felt.
Someone else responsible for your emotions?
whatever.
Good one.
But note that I think it's too dangerous to indulge that notion.
Yet you elicit the simplistic reasons that are used to
support such a barbaric institution.
That's how I feel. So sue me. I don't let those feelings dictate my
political position.
Subconsciously you do.
You're an analyst now? What mechanism are you suggesting? Reaction
formation?
In the vernacular, letting my feelings dictate my position would mean
that I would support capital punishment. I don't.
If that's not good enough for you, ....
Is it good enough for you?
'Tis.
I just
think it too dangerous to entrust the state with the power to
kill someone. I don't think that's at all kooky.
Of course, I wouldn't. And, always, YMMV.
Can you grasp how stupid you sound, saying that?
Do you realize how kooky it is to argue that anyone convicted
of the death penalty should be granted a reprieve is?
People aren't convicted of the death penalty. They're convicted
of capital crimes and sentenced to death. To recognize that
this is a dangerous power that ought be withheld from the state
is not to say that those so convicted shouldn't be punished.
Why do you assert that Death is a Penalty?
Are you asserting that in general, it isn't?
Is it?
By the theist's rationalle?
By the athiest's rationalle?
Do tell.
By the rationale of the golden rule.
"An eye for an eye" isn't the golden rule, numbnuts.
You're not paying attention again. You asked whether I considered
putting someone to death a penalty. I said yes, because I would
consider it a penalty were the state to put me to death.
Why?
Because I'd rather live than die.
Who would Jesus execute?
Assuming Jesus ever existed, why would I care?
If he existed, you wouldn't care?
Not any more than I would care what you think. Which is to say not in
the least. Why would I?
If it wasn't for the anti death penalty activists, those
innocent people would have been executed.
Let's fix the system then.
The system is probably not fixable in the way you mean. But
there's no "fixing" the fact that the state has power too
dangerous for it to handle.
Which has nothing to do with MITIGATING the harm WHILE improving
the system.
The "harm" here is empowering the state to kill its citizens. I
claim that's authority inherently too dangerous to entrust to the
state. There's no "improvements" that can make that danger go
away.
Which is of course why most of the civilized nations of this world
have abolished capital "punishment".
I don't think that's the reason. I think the more likely reason is
repugnance. My reason is too cold to be popular, I'd guess.
<snip>
It's not like you to run and hide from an issue...
I'm not hiding. I'm opposed to capital punishment. Period.
Catch a case of cognitive dissonance?
Well, now that you mention it, yes. Certain people who've acted in
certain despicable ways arouse in me feelings of revenge
Ah yes, that stalwart emotion - vengeance.
Remember what the philosopher said: Mindless superstition and
meaningless ritual are all we have that separate us from the beasts.
I don't deny my emotions, even the baser ones. I just try not to act on
the latter. Thus my opposition to capital punishment.
and a desire to rid my society of those people.
Is society not rid of them when they are locked inside a cage
24/7/365/forever ?
No. They escape; they're paroled; their society intersects with the
larger one.
I understand, however, the moral and political pitfalls in giving
way to those feelings.
Better yet, attempt to comprehend the "feelings" themselves.
I'm sure that comprehending my feelings is a long and expensive task that
therapy couldn't help but make worse. What difference would it make to
my position on capital punishment?
So I take what I consider to be a rational (and better) stance at
odds with my feelings.
You got a problem with that?
Why do you harbour such feelings?
I don't know. Why do you spell harbor with a 'u'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "_ Prof. Jonez _" |
|
| Title: Re: Bo Raxo -- Death Penalty |
09 May 2007 06:39:56 PM |
|
|
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:5af0b9F2oadnlU1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
<snip>
No, the people who demand that we not use the death penalty
for people who are guilty of horrendous crimes are kooks.
If I had any feelings, you would have hurt them with this
comment. I don't deny that there are some people who are
better off dead.
The individual is "better off dead" or you are "better off"
with them dead?
That would be me, and the rest of us.
So it's for YOUR convenience then, eh?
Well, not mine individually, and maybe "convenience" is the wrong
word.
Safety,
How does executing them make you safer than keeping them in prison?
They won't be getting out or killing guards if they're dead.
And what ratio of former death-row inmates have escaped or
killed guards, as compared to say those wrongfully convicted of
capital crimes?
What difference does that make? I think we're all slightly safer if
murderers are dead. Am I wrong?
You'd be just as safe if *you* were dead too.
Notice that I am *against* the death penalty.
Irrelevant.
satisfaction,
You feel satisfaction when the Gov't executes people?
Certain people. Of course.
Really? Like whom?
Adolph Eichman. John Wayne Gacy. Paris Hilton.
No, wait a minute. Scratch that last one.
George Bu$h?
***** Cheney?
Donald Rumsfeld?
sense of justice,
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I didn't say I was proud of how I felt.
Someone else responsible for your emotions?
whatever.
Good one.
But note that I think it's too dangerous to indulge that notion.
Yet you elicit the simplistic reasons that are used to
support such a barbaric institution.
That's how I feel. So sue me. I don't let those feelings dictate
my political position.
Subconsciously you do.
You're an analyst now? What mechanism are you suggesting? Reaction
formation?
In the vernacular, letting my feelings dictate my position would mean
that I would support capital punishment. I don't.
Hence the internal conflict.
If that's not good enough for you, ....
Is it good enough for you?
'Tis.
I just
think it too dangerous to entrust the state with the power to
kill someone. I don't think that's at all kooky.
Of course, I wouldn't. And, always, YMMV.
Can you grasp how stupid you sound, saying that?
Do you realize how kooky it is to argue that anyone convicted
of the death penalty should be granted a reprieve is?
People aren't convicted of the death penalty. They're
convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death. To
recognize that this is a dangerous power that ought be
withheld from the state is not to say that those so convicted
shouldn't be punished.
Why do you assert that Death is a Penalty?
Are you asserting that in general, it isn't?
Is it?
By the theist's rationalle?
By the athiest's rationalle?
Do tell.
By the rationale of the golden rule.
"An eye for an eye" isn't the golden rule, numbnuts.
You're not paying attention again. You asked whether I considered
putting someone to death a penalty. I said yes, because I would
consider it a penalty were the state to put me to death.
Why?
Because I'd rather live than die.
But why would death be a "punishment" in and of itself?
Who would Jesus execute?
Assuming Jesus ever existed, why would I care?
If he existed, you wouldn't care?
Not any more than I would care what you think. Which is to say not in
the least. Why would I?
Ok, let me rephrase the question then -
Who would George Bu$h execute?
If it wasn't for the anti death penalty activists, those
innocent people would have been executed.
Let's fix the system then.
The system is probably not fixable in the way you mean. But
there's no "fixing" the fact that the state has power too
dangerous for it to handle.
Which has nothing to do with MITIGATING the harm WHILE
improving the system.
The "harm" here is empowering the state to kill its citizens. I
claim that's authority inherently too dangerous to entrust to
the state. There's no "improvements" that can make that danger
go away.
Which is of course why most of the civilized nations of this
world have abolished capital "punishment".
I don't think that's the reason. I think the more likely reason
is repugnance. My reason is too cold to be popular, I'd guess.
<snip>
It's not like you to run and hide from an issue...
I'm not hiding. I'm opposed to capital punishment. Period.
Catch a case of cognitive dissonance?
Well, now that you mention it, yes. Certain people who've acted in
certain despicable ways arouse in me feelings of revenge
Ah yes, that stalwart emotion - vengeance.
Remember what the philosopher said: Mindless superstition and
meaningless ritual are all we have that separate us from the beasts.
That and an awful lot of weaponry.
I don't deny my emotions, even the baser ones. I just try not to act
on the latter. Thus my opposition to capital punishment.
Yet you haven't, nor has anyone else, given any support to
the unfounded assertion that "death" is a "penalty".
Do humans not euthanize sick/suffering animals to
*alleviate* their misery? Is that a punishment?
and a desire to rid my society of those people.
Is society not rid of them when they are locked inside a cage
24/7/365/forever ?
No. They escape;
Really? Do tell how many Death Row or Life Without Parole
inmates have escaped.
they're paroled;
If they are paroled, that is SOCIETY making a conscious choice
that they SHOULD be released.
their society intersects with the
larger one.
I understand, however, the moral and political pitfalls in giving
way to those feelings.
Better yet, attempt to comprehend the "feelings" themselves.
I'm sure that comprehending my feelings is a long and expensive task
that therapy couldn't help but make worse.
My sentiments exactly.
What difference would it make to my position on capital punishment?
If you realized that Death wasn't a Punishment per se ...?
So I take what I consider to be a rational (and better) stance at
odds with my feelings.
You got a problem with that?
Why do you harbour such feelings?
I don't know. Why do you spell harbor with a 'u'?
Looks cool ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Bo Raxo -- Death Penalty |
09 May 2007 07:57:16 PM |
|
|
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:5af4eeF2p3rt6U1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in news:5af0b9F2oadnlU1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote
Deadrat wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <do@not.spam> wrote
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam> wrote:
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Michael Snyder wrote:
<snip>
How does executing them make you safer than keeping them in prison?
They won't be getting out or killing guards if they're dead.
And what ratio of former death-row inmates have escaped or
killed guards, as compared to say those wrongfully convicted of
capital crimes?
What difference does that make? I think we're all slightly safer if
murderers are dead. Am I wrong?
You'd be just as safe if *you* were dead too.
And what's your point?
Notice that I am *against* the death penalty.
Irrelevant.
To a discussion on the death penalty?
satisfaction,
You feel satisfaction when the Gov't executes people?
Certain people. Of course.
Really? Like whom?
Adolph Eichman. John Wayne Gacy. Paris Hilton.
No, wait a minute. Scratch that last one.
Sorry. The first was a typo. Two n's in Eichmann.
George Bu$h?
***** Cheney?
Donald Rumsfeld?
No. No. and No.
sense of justice,
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
I didn't say I was proud of how I felt.
Someone else responsible for your emotions?
whatever.
Good one.
But note that I think it's too dangerous to indulge that notion.
Yet you elicit the simplistic reasons that are used to
support such a barbaric institution.
That's how I feel. So sue me. I don't let those feelings dictate
my political position.
Subconsciously you do.
You're an analyst now? What mechanism are you suggesting? Reaction
formation?
In the vernacular, letting my feelings dictate my position would mean
that I would support capital punishment. I don't.
Hence the internal conflict.
And your point?
<snip>
I just
think it too dangerous to entrust the state with the power to
kill someone. I don't think that's at all kooky.
Of course, I wouldn't. And, always, YMMV.
Can you grasp how stupid you sound, saying that?
Do you realize how kooky it is to argue that anyone convicted
of the death penalty should be granted a reprieve is?
People aren't convicted of the death penalty. They're
convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death. To
recognize that this is a dangerous power that ought be
withheld from the state is not to say that those so convicted
shouldn't be punished.
Why do you assert that Death is a Penalty?
Are you asserting that in general, it isn't?
Is it?
By the theist's rationalle?
By the athiest's rationalle?
Do tell.
By the rationale of the golden rule.
"An eye for an eye" isn't the golden rule, numbnuts.
You're not paying attention again. You asked whether I considered
putting someone to death a penalty. I said yes, because I would
consider it a penalty were the state to put me to death.
Why?
Because I'd rather live than die.
But why would death be a "punishment" in and of itself?
Do you have a point that I'm missing? A punishment takes something of
value to someone from that someone.
Who would Jesus execute?
Assuming Jesus ever existed, why would I care?
If he existed, you wouldn't care?
Not any more than I would care what you think. Which is to say not in
the least. Why would I?
Ok, let me rephrase the question then -
Who would George Bu$h execute?
Exactly. You're getting it, now.
<snip>
I don't deny my emotions, even the baser ones. I just try not to act
on the latter. Thus my opposition to capital punishment.
Yet you haven't, nor has anyone else, given any support to
the unfounded assertion that "death" is a "penalty".
Do you have a point I'm missing. It fits the definition.
Do humans not euthanize sick/suffering animals to
*alleviate* their misery? Is that a punishment?
We euthanize human beings, too. Although sometimes we go to great
lengths to deny it. But we're not talking about animals. We're talking
about human beings who generally value their lives.
and a desire to rid my society of those people.
Is society not rid of them when they are locked inside a cage
24/7/365/forever ?
No. They escape;
Really? Do tell how many Death Row or Life Without Parole
inmates have escaped.
they're paroled;
If they are paroled, that is SOCIETY making a conscious choice
that they SHOULD be released.
their society intersects with the larger one.
Do you have a point I'm missing? Are you denying there are cases in
which murderers are imprisoned but kill again?
<snip>
What difference would it make to my position on capital punishment?
If you realized that Death wasn't a Punishment per se ...?
I don't see how that would make me happy that the state had that power.
So I take what I consider to be a rational (and better) stance at
odds with my feelings.
You got a problem with that?
Why do you harbour such feelings?
I don't know. Why do you spell harbor with a 'u'?
Looks cool ...
That's exactly why I hold my position on capital punishment: it's cool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bo Raxo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bo Raxo -- Death Penalty |
10 May 2007 12:58:02 AM |
|
|
On May 9, 5:57 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote in news:5af4eeF2p3rt6U1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
<Clears throat>
While Jonez has been half wacky in this thread - I mean, c'mon,
arguing death isn't a penalty, when did you start sporting the tinfoil
hat looks - I'm going to interrupt this little show to call
shenanigans on Deadrat.
You feel satisfaction when the Gov't executes people?
Certain people. Of course.
Really? Like whom?
Adolph Eichman. John Wayne Gacy.
Part of a government that killed millions. 'Kay.
And someone who personally killed 33. 'Kay
[ Disrespectful treatment of my girl Paris snipped. If there's one
thing this country needs more of, it's hot slutty trust fund girls.
But I digress. ]
Sorry. The first was a typo. Two n's in Eichmann.
Whoops, too late, we executed the wrong guy.
Hey, it could happen.
George Bu$h?
***** Cheney?
Donald Rumsfeld?
No. No. and No.
Deliberately caused the death of over a hundred thousand people, and
it hasn't stopped yet. Started an illegal war of aggression that this
country has been in for longer than we were in World War II.
Ad when you add up all the deaths from WWII, all the deaths that you
can lay at the feat of Eichmann and his cohorts, about two thirds were
civilians and one third military. In the Iraq war, assuming the lower
range of estimates of Iraqi casualties of a hundred thousand, and the
roughly 3300 military deaths, over 97% of the dead are civilians.
So, kill dozens, get the death penalty.
Top official in a government that kills tens of millions, get the
death penalty.
Top official in a government that kills a mere hundred thousand or so,
and get six figure book advance when you leave office. Is that about
right?
Seems wacky to me. If you'll kill Eichmann for the final solution,
but you let Bush and Cheney off the hook for dropping a few hundred
thousand stormtroopers in a country and plunge the place in to civil
war, with misdirected bombs and stray bullets killing thousands, even
before the resulting chaos kills ten times that many more.
So, I call shenanigans on your viewpoint. Sorry to use such strong
language, but it seems morally inconsistent. And we're all adults
here.
Who would Jesus execute?
Assuming Jesus ever existed, why would I care?
If he existed, you wouldn't care?
Not any more than I would care what you think. Which is to say not in
the least. Why would I?
Because in a democracy, what most folks think is right or wrong is
broadly reflected in the criminal code. You think the folks who
believe abortion is murder aren't truly incensed? But theirs is a
minority view, they get outraged at broad tolerance of something they
find so abhorrent.
Some of us (including me) think the death penalty is murder. It's a
minority viewpoint, in this country and even in some where they don't
have the death penalty. Similiar outrage. You can say you don't care
what others think, but in this instance it's really only because your
viewpoint is the majority and is represented in the criminal code.
But I do agree it's hard to get interested in what somebody's
invisible friend thinks, whether you call your invisible friend Jesus
or Janice or Jamar.
Bo Raxo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Bo Raxo -- Death Penalty |
10 May 2007 08:34:06 AM |
|
|
Bo Raxo <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1178776677.229670.164750@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On May 9, 5:57 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote in news:5af4eeF2p3rt6U1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
<Clears throat>
While Jonez has been half wacky in this thread - I mean, c'mon,
arguing death isn't a penalty, when did you start sporting the tinfoil
hat looks - I'm going to interrupt this little show to call
shenanigans on Deadrat.
Calling shenanigans seems way harsh, dude.
What exactly do you find deceitful in my response to Jonez?
You feel satisfaction when the Gov't executes people?
Certain people. Of course.
Really? Like whom?
Adolph Eichman. John Wayne Gacy.
Part of a government that killed millions. 'Kay.
And someone who personally killed 33. 'Kay
[ Disrespectful treatment of my girl Paris snipped. If there's one
thing this country needs more of, it's hot slutty trust fund girls.
But I digress. ]
Sorry. The first was a typo. Two n's in Eichmann.
Whoops, too late, we executed the wrong guy.
Hey, it could happen.
Touche.
George Bu$h?
***** Cheney?
Donald Rumsfeld?
No. No. and No.
Deliberately caused the death of over a hundred thousand people, and
it hasn't stopped yet. Started an illegal war of aggression that this
country has been in for longer than we were in World War II.
Ad when you add up all the deaths from WWII, all the deaths that you
can lay at the feat of Eichmann and his cohorts, about two thirds were
civilians and one third military. In the Iraq war, assuming the lower
range of estimates of Iraqi casualties of a hundred thousand, and the
roughly 3300 military deaths, over 97% of the dead are civilians.
So, kill dozens, get the death penalty.
Top official in a government that kills tens of millions, get the
death penalty.
Top official in a government that kills a mere hundred thousand or so,
and get six figure book advance when you leave office. Is that about
right?
Seems wacky to me. If you'll kill Eichmann for the final solution,
but you let Bush and Cheney off the hook for dropping a few hundred
thousand stormtroopers in a country and plunge the place in to civil
war, with misdirected bombs and stray bullets killing thousands, even
before the resulting chaos kills ten times that many more.
I don't plan to run the fool's errand of defending Bush or Cheney, nor
do I plan to lay out the differences between John Wayne Gacy the clown
and the clown we have as Commander-in-Chief.
Jonez asked for examples of people that excited vengeful emotions in me,
and I gave him three, although I backed off on your girl Paris. He
proposed three more, and I demurred on those. This isn't topic on which
I need be consistently rational or rationally consistent. They're
emotions. Somtimes emotions are "wacky."
So, I call shenanigans on your viewpoint.
My "viewpoint" is that capital punishment is not a power to be entrusted
to the state. I hold that viewpoint in spite of my sometimes-baser
feelings. What do you find deceitful about that?
Sorry to use such strong language, but it seems morally inconsistent.
I don't know what that means. I'm not in favor of executing Gacy and
giving Bush a pass. I'm against executions period.
Do you mean that I'm emotionally inconsistent? Sure. You got a problem
with that?
And we're all adults here.
There's precious little evidence of that. But why is that relevant?
Who would Jesus execute?
Assuming Jesus ever existed, why would I care?
If he existed, you wouldn't care?
Not any more than I would care what you think. Which is to say
not in the least. Why would I?
Because in a democracy, what most folks think is right or wrong is
broadly reflected in the criminal code. You think the folks who
believe abortion is murder aren't truly incensed? But theirs is a
minority view, they get outraged at broad tolerance of something they
find so abhorrent.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what this civics lesson has to do
with the topic at hand.
Some of us (including me) think the death penalty is murder. It's a
minority viewpoint, in this country and even in some where they don't
have the death penalty. Similiar outrage. You can say you don't care
what others think, but in this instance it's really only because your
viewpoint is the majority and is represented in the criminal code.
As of a year ago, the Gallup Poll reported that Americans favor the death
penalty by better than 2 to 1 (65% for, 28% against, 7% no opinion). I'm
in the 28%. I'm *against* the death penalty.
I've repeated my position many times in response to Jonez. Are you just
not paying attention or am I not being clear?
There are some minority positions I hold, like the death penalty; there
are some majority opinions I hold. In no case do I give a damn what
other people think.
But I do agree it's hard to get interested in what somebody's
invisible friend thinks, whether you call your invisible friend Jesus
or Janice or Jamar.
Bo Raxo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "_ Prof. Jonez _" |
|
| Title: Re: Bo Raxo -- Death Penalty |
10 May 2007 06:17:05 PM |
|
|
Bo Raxo wrote:
On May 9, 5:57 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote in news:5af4eeF2p3rt6U1
@mid.individual.net:
Deadrat wrote:
<Clears throat>
While Jonez has been half wacky in this thread - I mean, c'mon,
arguing death isn't a penalty,
Oh Bo, say it ain't so!
So you can't support the assertion that death is a penalty per se,
can you?
Try here =>
when did you start sporting the tinfoil
hat looks - I'm going to interrupt this little show to call
shenanigans on Deadrat.
You feel satisfaction when the Gov't executes people?
Certain people. Of course.
Really? Like whom?
Adolph Eichman. John Wayne Gacy.
Part of a government that killed millions. 'Kay.
And someone who personally killed 33. 'Kay
[ Disrespectful treatment of my girl Paris snipped. If there's one
thing this country needs more of, it's hot slutty trust fund girls.
But I digress. ]
Sorry. The first was a typo. Two n's in Eichmann.
Whoops, too late, we executed the wrong guy.
Hey, it could happen.
George Bu$h?
***** Cheney?
Donald Rumsfeld?
No. No. and No.
Deliberately caused the death of over a hundred thousand people, and
it hasn't stopped yet. Started an illegal war of aggression that this
country has been in for longer than we were in World War II.
Ad when you add up all the deaths from WWII, all the deaths that you
can lay at the feat of Eichmann and his cohorts, about two thirds were
civilians and one third military. In the Iraq war, assuming the lower
range of estimates of Iraqi casualties of a hundred thousand, and the
roughly 3300 military deaths, over 97% of the dead are civilians.
So, kill dozens, get the death penalty.
Top official in a government that kills tens of millions, get the
death penalty.
Top official in a government that kills a mere hundred thousand or so,
and get six figure book advance when you leave office. Is that about
right?
Seems wacky to me. If you'll kill Eichmann for the final solution,
but you let Bush and Cheney off the hook for dropping a few hundred
thousand stormtroopers in a country and plunge the place in to civil
war, with misdirected bombs and stray bullets killing thousands, even
before the resulting chaos kills ten times that many more.
So, I call shenanigans on your viewpoint. Sorry to use such strong
language, but it seems morally inconsistent. And we're all adults
here.
Who would Jesus execute?
Assuming Jesus ever existed, why would I care?
If he existed, you wouldn't care?
Not any more than I would care what you think. Which is to say
not in the least. Why would I?
Because in a democracy, what most folks think is right or wrong is
broadly reflected in the criminal code. You think the folks who
believe abortion is murder aren't truly incensed? But theirs is a
minority view, they get outraged at broad tolerance of something they
find so abhorrent.
Some of us (including me) think the death penalty is murder. It's a
minority viewpoint, in this country and even in some where they don't
have the death penalty. Similiar outrage. You can say you don't care
what others think, but in this instance it's really only because your
viewpoint is the majority and is represented in the criminal code.
But I do agree it's hard to get interested in what somebody's
invisible friend thinks, whether you call your invisible friend Jesus
or Janice or Jamar.
Bo Raxo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
