Of course. Yes, it’s a strawman, in which you should not have indulged.
Are you going to favor us with an explanation of how you read anything oppositely? :dubious:
Why do you keep trying to twist what **ElvisL1ves **actually said?
That’s why it’s left to a jury - the legal professionals are humble enough to know their own views can be filtered, depending perhaps too much on the letter of the law than on its spirit and justice. The jury system is a vital way to keep the law related to the real world.
The jury has only the evidence presented to it to work with. It goes through several filters first, and the result can be pretty skewed in one direction. Yes, to whatever degree the verdict and sentence are guided by their own preconceptions is their own fault.
It was the part where you said a system whereby we convict beyond a reasonable doubt was “barbaric, but simple”.
Thanks for clearing things up.
Regards,
Shodan
No, a system where we apply the death penalty is that.
How is this a problem for you?
Do you guys ever get tired of slamming each other?
Stop it. Now.
Glad to be off this foolish sidetrack. Thanks.
My mistake. When the sidetrack started I thought you were saying that you’d vote to aquit if there was “possible doubt” which is why I posted that I thought you meant that you considered it to not be beyond reasonable doubt. Upon looking back at the series of posts and the pissing contest that ensued it’s clear I misunderstood you.
My sincerest of apologies.
Cheers, mate. 
I’d rather discuss the reasons many have for maintaining a place for the death penalty today. Having once held that view, I think I generally understand, but I’d like to hear from others. Too often it seems to be using the word *justice *to mean *retribution *or revenge.
Do you agree that they mean different things? If so, what would you say is the difference?
Regards,
Shodan
Justice makes the legal system sound better, and soothes the conscience of the masses. 
It doesn’t seem that you do. Do you?
That would take a whole philosophy class. But generally it’s believing in, and working to build, something larger than ourselves, something more important, something general and lasting, something that appeals to “the better angels of our nature”, vs. simply making somebody else as badly off as they’ve made another person. It’s acting on behalf of all of us, not just a few of us, trying to help us all be better people.
An eye for an eye is what passed for justice thousands of years ago, when we had barely invented civilization yet. I would like to think we’ve developed somewhat since then, instead of holding it up as an ideal. We certainly need to be better than we are.
Yes, I do.
OK, although that’s a little vague.
Although I concur about the “something more important than ourselves”. I would phrase it as justice = society, which is greater than ourselves in some ways, acting as a whole to bring about ends that benefit society as a whole. “Revenge” is me killing my neighbor for selfish reasons, and in ways that are motivated by self-interest.
It might be clearer if we leave the DP out of it for the moment. Kidnapping is wrong. But arresting someone who has committed a crime and sending him to prison is OK. Because we as a society have decided that “justice” merits overriding the right not to be kidnapped. Theft is wrong. But it is still just to force people to pay taxes, even for services that they don’t use (childless people paying for schools, e.g.).
“Justice” is also proportionate. It would not be just, IOW, to cut the hands off thieves because that is a disproportionate response. I as an individual might wish to do so - society as a whole has decided not to do this. That’s why we worry about humane execution, even for horrible murderers. We don’t torture people to death any more. Incidentally, that’s the reason why arguments like “Life in prison is worse than death, so we should do that” mean that LWOP is less just than execution. Because we are arguing in favor of greater suffering, not less, thus less just.
Regards,
Shodan
No. The morality of the DP vs. life imprisonment is the whole subject here. You go on to discuss the morality of law enforcement itself instead. That is not in question.
The justice you describe is in fact simple eye for an eye, no more advanced than in Hammurabi’s time.
Back up and tell us what “humane execution” is. Is it like “humane hand amputation”, which you deplore, but only worse, which you support?
Recent evidence is to the contrary, sadly.
The point I’m getting at is still not about what happens to the convict, but what happens to us because of it. If we choose to kill someone, then we are the kind of people who choose to kill. It then becomes harder to say we’re any better than him, doesn’t it? Even if we use a euphemism like “humane execution” instead.
That’s a meaningless tautology.
No.
No. It’s the difference between a verb and a noun. One describes simply autonomously “executing” a task, the other is defining who we are and what ideals we choose to aspire to.
Then what *is *the difference?
I’m not sure what your point is Shodan. LavenderBlue was making a claim about the death penalty as applied to Tsarnaev. I noted there was 60% support for that nationwide. You link to a Oct 2014 Gallup poll discussing the death penalty in general showing… 63% support. Not too different. Not overwhelming by any rational measure. Solid majority? Sure. Overwhelming consensus? No way: for that you would have to go back to the late 1980s/early 1990s when support peaked at 80%.
But we have to do something don’t we? Holding someone against their will is unlawful but when we imprison someone, do we question if we’re better than kidnappers?
One is reversible and when it happens people can receive so of compensation.
The other…not so much.
Agreed, although as I have muttered innumerable times, by objection to the death penalty is that we should have the ability to rectify mistakes. I don’t really give a damn if punishment “turns us into the same as them” or monsters, or leprechauns, or whatever.