You presume incorrectly. Should you wish to blow kisses at a soulless individual, that’s your prerogative. I hope he blows a kiss back before decorating the floor with the contents of your skull. I’ve been a DP proponent for many years, so there has been no change in my deeply held belief that capital murderers should die, swiftly, at the hand of the state. Fuck Mumia and those like him-that piece of shit should have been scraped from the sole of society’s shoe a long time ago. As far as cost, a brick of .44 mag runs under $20, if you buy the good copper jacketed rounds. That’s 40¢ a pop, not including cleanup, burial, and so forth.
Do you really think that you can go back, look over a few records and understand what was happening at the time and WHY? You’ve got to be kidding. It’s interesting to look at, but even if you had ten times the amount of information, you could not prove nor disprove causality. Many things we don’t know: how public were the executions? Was everyone aware of them? Over how big a radius? As newspapers of the day would expand that circle, how far did they reach? What was the literacy rate? Especially among the poor who were more apt to perpetrate the crimes? Was everyone aware that they occurred and that the punishment had been swift? What was their view of death. It was much more a part of their daily lives than it is ours. What was their view of banishment (travel)? Were they afraid of it? Etc., etc.
My position stems from basic behavior modification and training. The only leap I make is that humans can project and don’t have to be slapped on the snout individually. Given our ability to empathize and project, that seems like a reasonable tiny jump to take.
I am absolutely against the DP…except in cases like this. Plenty of witnesses, no doubt of his guilt. Fry his ass and forget about him.
And then he specifically enshrined the DP in multiple places in Jewish law and appointed judges whose job it was to decide who lives and who dies. I don’t really think your argument supports your point.
Oh really? How so? What do you think my view of society is? My comments have only been on swift, consistent penalties and how they apply to reducing a particular behavior.
And that didn’t happen very often, did it? I’m not advocating that his obscenely severe, swift punishment was justified, or that it wasn’t abominable. Only that it was effective.
I didn’t claim that my examples were good comparisons to American society. I guess you chose to skip the last part:
This is the only data I could find readily available on the internet, however, if you look back through old records, you’ll see a very similar pattern. I have yet to see any data which supports a deterrent effect, so, like God and the Easter Bunny, I’ll have to assume it doesn’t exist unless proven otherwise.
Everyone knew which day was “hanging day” and people would travel from miles around to see it. Here is a page about Tyburn.
Newspaper, yes and also pamphlets which reported the deeds of the wicked in salacious detail. It was common for these to be read aloud in taverns and by firesides. Broadside ballads were also very popular at the time for immortalizing criminals. Here’s an example.
Quite so. The Murder Act of 1752 decreed that all persons convicted of murder had to be executed within 48 hours. Before then, there were sceduled “hanging days”. The 48 hour thing just created new hanging days so that it became a more or less constant show.
Executions and the crimes for which the accused was about to die were announced ahead of time to all and sundry. People would come early in the morning to get a good spot. It was a festive occasion, considered “fun for the whole family”-- even tiny children would come to watch the criminals hang or burn. Everyone looked forward to it (except the condemned, of course.)
Times haven’t changed that much. Of course people back then were afraid of death and of course they mourned being seperated from their families. People are people, regarless of the time period.
My position stems from basic behavior modification and training. The only leap I make is that humans can project and don’t have to be slapped on the snout individually. Given our ability to empathize and project, that seems like a reasonable tiny jump to take.
[/QUOTE]
Lissa
Didn’t you and I do this before? 
I think we thrashed this through 4 or 5 pages about some man in the UK that tortured and killed an infant. I didn’t convince you and you didn’t convince me. Sometimes I think attitudes about the DP are like religion or something, people can debate it to death but no one is ever convinced to change their stance on it.
Needless to say, I’m on the side of the people here that want the guy killed in the fastest possible legal manner.
Something we didn’t really talk about last time (IIRC) was; Why shouldn’t we kill this guy? He isn’t going to reform and he’s a menace to some degree as long as he remains alive. As far as your own sensibilities go, well, no one is asking you to pull the switch on the guy. You don’t have to deal with it at all.
Regards
Testy
No, we need to demonstrate that is wrong to kill people without permission.
We demonstrate this by getting permission before killing people.
There are many insights to be offered on this subject. For instance, Lissa’s posts in this very thread are extremely insightful on the subject of deterrence. Note that that’s very specifically not a comment on their originality or whether or not I’m familiar with them; it’s that to a hypothetical wise, impartial, and ignorant third-party they contain value. That the state shouldn’t do ‘x’ because ‘x’ is wrong for individuals to do does not. It’s just nonsense.
And the value we place on freedom and personal autonomy is presumed to be the foundation of our laws regarding kidnapping. A proper respect would demand a grave reluctance to imprison, regardless of the provocation. But nonetheless, there are a set of actions that we’re willing to empower the state to imprison people for, and there could be a set of actions we’re willing to empower the state to kill people for.
Nonsense, assuming you’re using this definition for chastity :
b : abstention from all sexual intercourse
Justice is:
1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
You see the flaw in your comparison now? The very definition of chastity precludes fucking, whereas the definition of justice explicitly includes the 'assignment of merited…punishments." If you want to argue that the DP is never merited, I’m all ears. But without making that case, these platitudes just don’t constitute an argument.
Is that really any different than what you were trying to do?
I’m not sure I understand you. I don’t think reviewing records from the 18th century sheds much light on anything. Specifically, what are you referring to?
DNT
I am also impressed by friend Lissas argument, but it is of a fundamentally different type than mine own. She cogently addresses the issue of deterence, whereas I would not likely be swayed even had she not. She is probably quite right that CP is of little or no value as a deterence.
Since we are arguing principles, actual “proof” doesn’t enter into it. You are entirely free to your opinion, as I am to the opposite. Your need to insult mine doesn’t make you wrong, merely rude.
Yes, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Not as grave a reluctance, of course, as a prisoner can be freed, and a corpse…well, you could free a corpse, I suppose. Cold comfort indeed.
Indeed, we do have such laws! I’m against them. I’m sorry, thought I had made that clear…
Unless you want to suggest a more exacting choice of words to enhance my argument, I fail to see what you hope to accomplish by posting quotations from dictionaries. You have found a definition that suits your purpose. Bravo. So what?
And with all due awe, my principles are no less “platitudes” than your own, nor any more, for that matter. Unless you speak from some authority you have yet to reveal.
If I believed that, I’d cancel my membership. Since I’ve been posting here, I’ve changed my opinions on a couple of issues based on being exposed to more facts and convincing arguments. I like to believe that everyone has the same flexibility, otherwise, why do any of us bother?
You don’t really want my moral philosophy do you? Let’s just say I’m one of those folks who believe that policy should show some sort of benefit in order to be supportable.
As it stands, the death penalty is cumbersome and pointless. (Putting aside the expense issue because a good whack with the “rare cancer” stick can cost an equal amount to treat.) It takes up way too much of our court system’s valuable time. From voire dire all the way to the appeals process, it’s a time sink for everyone involved and our system is over-burdened already.
It also may have abrutalization effect. (Though as far as I’m concerned, the jury’s still out on this one.)
So, it’s a time-wasting process which may actually have the opposite intended effect and it lumps us in with countries like Iran and China (who aren’t exactly famous for their support of human rights.)
Me, no. My husband, yes. He’s been on two execution teams so far.
We need to demonstrate that it is wrong to kill innocent people. What were those 168 people (including the 19 children) doing that they deserved to be murdered? I hope we are all in agreement that the only correct answer is “absolutely, positively 100% nothing.”
What did Timonthy McVeigh do that he deserved to be lawfully executed? Either you have to answer "killed 168 innocent people (including 19 children) or you have to answer “nothing.”
Yep.
In your “fixed” system, what would happen to people like David Milgaard or Stephen Truscott?
It’s one thing to spend decades in prison because of a miscarriage of justice, but at least the courts still have the option of saying, “Whoops, sorry about that, here’s the rest of your life back.”
Truth may take more than two years to out.
Except somehow, I don’t think you’d be saying that if the data showed a clear bias to your explanation.
The old english data shows a few things- first of all, if your choice was between a dead certainly of yourself and your family starving to death vs a high chance of being hung, one will choose the less chance of death every time. The DP wasn’t a deterant as the alternative was death anyway. England was pretty fucked up around then, economically. Today- in the West at least- no one will starve unless they want to, no one NEEDS to commit crime to live. Thus, one can’t compare the periods at all.
Next, I can say with absolute certainly that every person "hung by the neck until dead’ was indeed “detered” from commiting more crimes.
Note that I am strongly against the sort of DP practiced as in Texas. In Texas far too many dudes are executed and too often for but a single crime. It’s just too damn easy to be falsely convicted of A murder. IN CA, OTOH, the DP seems to be meted out to those truely deserving- those whom we can justly call “mad dogs who need to be put down in order to protect future victims”. From what I can see, about 90% of the DP cases in TX would be better met with LifewoPoP.
If you’ll read over the cases listed here you’ll find that most of the people executed were not afflicted by crushing poverty. Rather, they often stole for the same reason that modern folks do: greed. Here is a selection of robbers and highway men. Again, starvation doesn’t appear to be the cause.
I’m not saying that poverty wasn’t a major crisis in England during this time, but it doesn’t seem to be the motivating factor in the majority of recorded crimes.
This is where you explain your view of society. After you wrote the words
**
**
That is where I got your view of society. Not only do you think we are like a pack of animals, but your assumption that people will project themselves into someone else’s situation is also wrong. People always feel that they can get away with it, even though that guy didn’t because they are smarter. Are you telling me the only reason that you don’t kill people is that you are certain that you will get the DP? The vast majority of murders, (not the one profiled on tv or in books) are crimes of passion. Someone gets pissed and then they decide to kill the person that pissed them off.
Now,
If opposing the government didn’t happen very often in Saddam’s Iraq, then why were the prisions so full of people? You stated that the swift and harsh punishments PREVENTED crime jin Iraq. It did no such thing. You conclusion is wrong.
Your conclusion about prision camps and sailing vessels are also wrong and inapplicable, which you yourself admit. So, why the fuck did you bring them up as examples to bolster your arguement? Is it because you don’t have anything to bolster your auguement? hummmmmm?
As I stated earlier, I would prefer that the DP be used much less often. But in those instances where guilt is not in question (the death of those Quaker children was the example) there is no reason to draw it out for twenty years. So, I would only be a fan of the DP in clear-cut cases where there is videotape or multipple witnesses, etc. But in those cases, let’s get it over with in a reasonable timeframe: 1-2 years. If there is a clear videotape and a confession, sooner.