How Many Here Are For the death Penalty?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri May 13, 2005 5:16 pm

copy that. i didn't go back to check. good policy.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 5:23 pm

koan wrote: anastrophe, when your post turned to indigo it made you seem almost...feminine. Almost. heehee.

damn you koan, it's all you're fault! see, it's happening even now! the text color bleeds into the reply. dastardly.

I classified everyone under the rant so I would draw out the drowning members who did not support the DP and redirect to some of the arguement. Rather shifty of me, I know. It was a good rant though.
i can argue at length and convincingly, either for or against the death penalty. the aforementioned failures of the justice system wherein innocent men have been incarcerated and even put to death present the potential for great harm to others, and on that basisi think a different standard needs to be applied where the ultimate sentence can be rendered.

on the other hand, when one learns about something like the recent case in florida, where the little girl was kidnapped, raped repeatedly for more than a week, then buried alive by the perpetrator....i ask, has that individual not clearly and succinctly exchanged any claim to mercy for a date with the electric chair? how can an individual like that *ever* be of value to society? how can society ever take the chance that such an individual might escape from incarceration?

one rather peculiar reaction i noted within myself with the description of the execution just a day or so ago of the man who rejected all attempts to block his execution. in some respects, that man, to me, has actually earned back the right to live, ironically. when a man so fully accepts the horror of the crimes he committed against others, and the concommitant pain inflicted upon the families of the victims, that he specifically asserts that his sentence of death should be carried out - it tells me the change in that person's character is so profound that he is no longer a threat to society.

on the other hand, there have been other criminals who expressed their desire to be executed, not specifically because their character had been reformed, but because they did recognize the evil of what they had done *and knew that they would still do it again if they ever had the chance*.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Fri May 13, 2005 5:29 pm

Paul said: on the other hand, when one learns about something like the recent case in florida, where the little girl was kidnapped, raped repeatedly for more than a week, then buried alive by the perpetrator....i ask, has that individual not clearly and succinctly exchanged any claim to mercy for a date with the electric chair?.....................................................................................just to clarify, we retired old sparky after a couple rather messy botched-up executions.

i'd bring it back for couey however. just to see if it would still make a mess.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 5:46 pm

anastrophe wrote: and you are whom to make any demands upon our sovereign nation?You seem to require a longhand statement of everything. Here in England, we use rather more implication than you, it would seem:

All I require is that your state comply with my three conditions before I am prepared to concur with your use of the death penalty.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 5:53 pm

Society imposes a penalty for a breach in a law, not for a breach of morality. You may have moral sensibility, but the contract is based on the law. The jury does not find the defendant guilty on the basis of moral sense, but on statute and precedent.

anastrophe wrote: all persons, save perhaps the rare infant abandoned and suckled by wolves, is born into a society. The infant has no contract with society, for obvious reasons.If you except infants and children from the contract, I note only that many societies do that as well. They have an age of criminal responsibility. That, I suggest, is where the contract is entered into - to varying degrees according to the ability of the individual to understand what is being promised.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 5:56 pm

anastrophe wrote: i can argue at length and convincingly, either for or against the death penalty.Give that man a coconut.

We were asked our opinion, not for a self-indulgent display of fireworks.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:05 pm

spot wrote: Society imposes a penalty for a breach in a law, not for a breach of morality. You may have moral sensibility, but the contract is based on the law. The jury does not find the defendant guilty on the basis of moral sense, but on statute and precedent.
the law, and the 'morality' behind the existence of the law, are inextricably intertwined. There is law prohibiting rape because rape is immoral and harmful. the difference is ontologically important; in practice, it is not. the law exists to codify the morality.

If you except infants and children from the contract, I note only that many societies do that as well. They have an age of criminal responsibility. That, I suggest, is where the contract is entered into - to varying degrees according to the ability of the individual to understand what is being promised.
you seem preoccupied with the notion of the individual being able to 'understand what is promised'. that seems evasive. if anything, it seems more accurate, in discussion pertaining to penalties for crimes against individual such as rape, murder, kidnapping, etc, that what may be in question is the individual's understanding of what is forbidden. in rare instance - the truly criminally insane - the individual knows what is forbidden, and made a choice to violate that. on that basis punishment is rendered.

there have sadly been people here who have been found not guilty of a violent crime because they claimed they didn't know it was wrong - even though after the crime they took steps to conceal the crime, and to evade capture. those actions are only taken by someone who is aware that what they have done is wrong, otherwise, they'd simply stand over their victim and be unconcerned when the police show up. it's unfortunate that criminals are also often dishonest. it's more unfortunate when people fall for their dishonest claims.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:10 pm

spot wrote: Give that man a coconut.

We were asked our opinion, not for a self-indulgent display of fireworks.if you are unable to convincingly express the argument counter to your own, then you can't be terribly adept at enunciating your own position. the ability to play devil's advocate to one's own position is useful.

i'm amused that you consider that one line a 'display of fireworks'. your riposte is but a damp squib.

:yh_party

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:16 pm

anastrophe wrote: the law, and the 'morality' behind the existence of the law, are inextricably intertwined. There is law prohibiting rape because rape is immoral and harmful. the difference is ontologically important; in practice, it is not. the law exists to codify the morality.I doubt whether you would agree that, for example, Iranian sharia law is based on a morality that you recognize, and yet it is Iranian law. I doubt whether a random Grand Ayatollah would agree that American law is based on a morality that he would recognize, and yet it is American law. What is common about judicial systems is that they enforce laws applicable in their jurisdiction, not that they enforce an acknowledged system of morality.

I have, though you might not have noticed, expressed a moral indifference as to whether a legal system incorporates the death penalty or not. You have thrown out my conditional baby with your oceans of bathwater, and I'd like you to address yourself to it for a moment. Before society can legitimately - morally, if you will - apply the death penalty:

First, society has an absolute duty to impartially apply its penalties and benefits.

Second, society has an absolute duty to be accurate in its assessment of guilt before it can apply sanctions.

Third, society has to declare the contract in a comprehensible manner before a sanction can be invoked.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:31 pm

Dana71 wrote: I aggree with Koan here, but obviously nobody is listening, there has been many cases where death row inmates have been exonerated. But like as I see here, most seem to ignore that fact.

So why should I even bother???? I'm reading all that's written, Dana and Koan. I think I've written in favor of your point of view, too. I don't think we're all working toward a consensus.

People tend often to scream louder for the death penalty to be applied if the crime was particularly obviously vile, rather than if the convict is particularly obviously guilty, which is dangerous. If there are people who die in jail, for whom no restitution is possible, for crimes of which they are subsequently exonerated through, for example, new and overwhelming evidence, then I would rather keep everyone alive in case it becomes true of them too. Clean up the accuracy of the convictions, for a demonstrable and long period of time, and then perhaps you can execute in the knowledge that you have a safe record. At the moment, what the US is doing is regularly murdering people judicially, and subsequently salving their conscience by saying "well they might not have done that, but they'd not be suspected in the first place if they weren't trash anyway".

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:40 pm

spot wrote: I doubt whether you would agree that, for example, Iranian sharia law is based on a morality that you recognize,
let us, perhaps, confine the discussion to our own societies. at minimum, it helps prevent digression into areas that are very important, but that are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

and yet it is Iranian law. I doubt whether a random Grand Ayatollah would agree that American law is based on a morality that he would recognize, and yet it is American law.
as above. we are not asking a grand ayatollah to decide matters of law or morality within our society (by 'our' i mean american society).

What is common about judicial systems is that they enforce laws applicable in their jurisdiction, not that they enforce an acknowledged system of morality.
again, this is specious. within that jurisdiction, implicitly, the morality is codified within the law. this is rather a basic concept, i'm surprised you're having trouble with it.

I have, though you might not have noticed, expressed a moral indifference as to whether a legal system incorporates the death penalty or not. You have thrown out my conditional baby with your oceans of bathwater, and I'd like you to address yourself to it for a moment. Before society can legitimately - morally, if you will - apply the death penalty:

First, society has an absolute duty to impartially apply its penalties and benefits.since we are discussing penalties assigned to crimes, in particular those considered of a heinous nature and thus appropriate for the application of the 'ultimate' punishment - and not discussing the benefit to society of safe roadways or inspection of produce, etc, then within this context, it is more appropriate to posit:

First, society has an absolute duty to impartially apply its penalties.

To which I agree.

Second, society has an absolute duty to be accurate in its assessment of guilt before it can apply sanctions.
here, you have accurately limited your position to what is at issue.

And I agree.

Third, society has to declare the contract in a comprehensible manner before a sanction can be invoked.
This is where we part ways. Your statement is ambiguous. A contract, as a matter of law, is an agreement between parties. Formalized, it normally takes the form of the written contract, signed by all parties to whom the covenant applies. You state above merely that 'society has to declare the contract'. Are you suggesting that all that is required is that the contract be presented, but that it need not be agreed upon? I don't think that is what you're suggesting, but precision in expressing these arguments is salutory.

the notion of the comprehensibility of the contract is another perilous expedition. a reasonable man would argue that any member of a society who was raised from childhood within that society understands the contract a priori. the social contract, the prohibitions against murder, kidnap, rape, etc, are obvious to all except those who are mentally deficient or insane. on that very basis, one can argue that - because those who commit crimes implicitly do not therefore understand the laws in prohibition of same, then no murderer, rapist, or kidnapper can be guilty of the crime, because they did not understand it was wrong! as i said, it is a perilous expedition.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:45 pm

anastrophe wrote: again, this is specious. within that jurisdiction, implicitly, the morality is codified within the law. this is rather a basic concept, i'm surprised you're having trouble with it.I disagree fundamentally. In England there is plenty of statute law laid down by previous generations which some of us, at least, regard as immoral when applied - as it is - in the current day. There are also recent laws relating to secrecy and disclosure, applied both to Government and the Internet, that I regard as immoral but which are employed in court.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:45 pm

anastrophe could argue for or against the death penalty. i can not. i think the arguement for it are weak and flawed. but i looked them up just in case.

why don't we discuss them one by one?

Deterrence.As a justification for capital punishment, deterrence is used to suggest that executing murderers will decrease the homicide rate by causing other potential murderers not to commit murder for fear of being executed themselves ("general deterrence") and, of course, that the murderer who is executed will not kill again ("specific deterrence") (Bowers, 1988). Such a position may seem intuitively correct. Indeed, in a USA Today Poll, 68% of respondents agreed that the death penalty deters crime (USA Snapshots, 1984). However, some research suggests that rather than deterring homicide, state executions actually may cause an increase in the number of homicides (Bowers, 1988; Forst, 1983; Stack, 1990). This phenomenon has been called the "brutalization hypothesis" and suggests that through suggestion, modelling, or by legitimising killing, the death penalty actually causes an increase in homicides. Thus, the brutalization hypothesis has been used as an argument for opposing the death penalty.

It has been shown for some time now that the death penalty has not reduced the number of murders. Why this is still an arguement confounds me.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:48 pm

anastrophe wrote: A contract, as a matter of law, is an agreement between parties. Formalized, it normally takes the form of the written contract, signed by all parties to whom the covenant applies. You state above merely that 'society has to declare the contract'. Are you suggesting that all that is required is that the contract be presented, but that it need not be agreed upon? I don't think that is what you're suggesting, but precision in expressing these arguments is salutory.Perhaps if you keep in mind my previous posts within a thread, we'd have fewer misunderstandings. Society has to declare the contract. The individual has to accept it. Without both parts, there can be no social contract. That's what I've said. I've noted your disagreement to the suggestion.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:51 pm

spot wrote: I'm reading all that's written, Dana and Koan. I think I've written in favor of your point of view, too. I don't think we're all working toward a consensus.

People tend often to scream louder for the death penalty to be applied if the crime was particularly obviously vile, rather than if the convict is particularly obviously guilty, which is dangerous. If there are people who die in jail, for whom no restitution is possible, for crimes of which they are subsequently exonerated through, for example, new and overwhelming evidence, then I would rather keep everyone alive in case it becomes true of them too. Clean up the accuracy of the convictions, for a demonstrable and long period of time, and then perhaps you can execute in the knowledge that you have a safe record.
you were going along well up to here.

At the moment, what the US is doing is regularly murdering people judicially, and subsequently salving their conscience by saying "well they might not have done that, but they'd not be suspected in the first place if they weren't trash anyway".
here, your inate disdain for the US unfortunately overwhelms the clarity of your argument, revealing your parti pris.

certainly, there are twits about who believe what you expressed in your (i hope) mock quote. however, i've not heard an actual quote from anyone in the judiciary to that effect.

as you well know, "murdering people judicially" is a misnomer. while a lovely 'display of fireworks', when the state puts someone to death, it is an execution. murder requires that the act be the criminal taking of an innocent life, with malice and forethought. that some criminals have been executed and later learned to be innocent is without dispute. the suggestion that this is a 'regular' occurrance is false, and inflammatory. if you are suggesting that the state regularly executes people that it *knows are innocent*, then i'll ask you to present your evidence.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:54 pm

spot wrote: I disagree fundamentally. In England there is plenty of statute law laid down by previous generations which some of us, at least, regard as immoral when applied - as it is - in the current day. There are also recent laws relating to secrecy and disclosure, applied both to Government and the Internet, that I regard as immoral but which are employed in court.
focus, spot, focus. we are speaking of those crimes which warrant the 'ultimate' penalty. are you suggesting that there are ancient laws in your country that are being applied today as means to execute people?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:58 pm

Okay.

Let's jump to the next one. (same source)

Moral Issues and Retribution

The desire for vengeance or retribution is the desire to see persons suffer, or be punished, for their actions (Reiman, 1988). The principles of retribution suggest that a murderer should be executed because he or she "deserves" or "has earned" the sentence of death (Foley, 1983). Those who base their opposition to the death penalty on moral grounds argue that life is sacred and killing is always wrong, whether it is done by an individual or by the state. In addition, people also have questioned whether we as individuals or as a society have the right to decide that another must die.

hmm. I think this author is biased as he suggests that the punishers have a desire for vengeance and the anti-DPers have compassion. There are flavours to these terms. But I happen to agree with him. Then...can one have too much compassion? It is as likely as the idea of having too much vengeance. So it comes down to how one would like to be. Vengeful or compassionate.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:58 pm

koan wrote: anastrophe could argue for or against the death penalty. i can not. i think the arguement for it are weak and flawed. but i looked them up just in case.

why don't we discuss them one by one?

Deterrence.As a justification for capital punishment, deterrence is used to suggest that executing murderers will decrease the homicide rate by causing other potential murderers not to commit murder for fear of being executed themselves ("general deterrence") and, of course, that the murderer who is executed will not kill again ("specific deterrence") (Bowers, 1988). Such a position may seem intuitively correct. Indeed, in a USA Today Poll, 68% of respondents agreed that the death penalty deters crime (USA Snapshots, 1984). However, some research suggests that rather than deterring homicide, state executions actually may cause an increase in the number of homicides (Bowers, 1988; Forst, 1983; Stack, 1990). This phenomenon has been called the "brutalization hypothesis" and suggests that through suggestion, modelling, or by legitimising killing, the death penalty actually causes an increase in homicides. Thus, the brutalization hypothesis has been used as an argument for opposing the death penalty.
however, it is a hypothesis. it has little actual factual basis, otherwise it wouldn't be presented as a hypothesis.

specific deterrence is quite real however. once executed, a murderer, rapist, kidnapper, cannot harm another innocent person.

It has been shown for some time now that the death penalty has not reduced the number of murders. Why this is still an arguement confounds me.
it may not reduce the number of murders. it can prevent a murderer from adding to the number of murders. the same is not always accomplished with life imprisonment (murders committed against other inmates, and more rarely, escape).

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:58 pm

anastrophe wrote: if you are suggesting that the state regularly executes people that it *knows are innocent*, then i'll ask you to present your evidence.I'd stand by a criminal lack of care on the part of the police, the prosecutors and the court, in some cases. That justifies, in my mind, the use of the word "judicial murder" of people who are executed and then subsequently fully exonerated. It's not a knowledge of innocence, it's a gross lack of care in investigating, preparing, hearing and judging.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 6:59 pm

anastrophe wrote: focus, spot, focus. we are speaking of those crimes which warrant the 'ultimate' penalty. are you suggesting that there are ancient laws in your country that are being applied today as means to execute people?Lord, no. You went off on a branch of morality equates to law, and I followed.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:02 pm

spot wrote: Perhaps if you keep in mind my previous posts within a thread, we'd have fewer misunderstandings. Society has to declare the contract. The individual has to accept it. Without both parts, there can be no social contract. That's what I've said. I've noted your disagreement to the suggestion.then why, pray, in reiterating your argument, did you not write

Third, society has to declare the contract in a comprehensible manner and the individual has to agree to it before a sanction can be invoked.

clarity, spot, clarity. i've read your previous posts. it's helpful if you say what you mean, particularly when reiterating your specific three point construct which rests upon very specific language.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:05 pm

spot wrote: I'd stand by a criminal lack of care on the part of the police, the prosecutors and the court, in some cases. That justifies, in my mind, the use of the word "judicial murder" of people who are executed and then subsequently fully exonerated. It's not a knowledge of innocence, it's a gross lack of care in investigating, preparing, hearing and judging.ahem. you asserted, specifically, "regularly". that the above has happened in some circumstances is incontrovertible. that it happens "regularly" is disputable.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:07 pm

anastrophe wrote: clarity, spot, clarity. i've read your previous posts. it's helpful if you say what you mean, particularly when reiterating your specific three point construct which rests upon very specific language.This is an informal conversation in an informal environment, and it's not that much further back that I expressed the full concept. When I write for publication, I proof-read carefully and often.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:08 pm

spot wrote: Lord, no. You went off on a branch of morality equates to law, and I followed.i've never suggested that morality equates to law. perhaps if you paid closer attention to, you know, the actual words i write, we'd have fewer of these misunderstandings. law, specifically with regard to what is under discussion (rather than irrelevancies such as laws relating to secrecy and disclosure), to wit crimes that warrant the ultimate punishment, flows from the morality of the culture. law does not equal morality. law codifies the penalties for violating the morality of the culture (again, focus, this is pursuant to the topic of the death penalty, not littering).

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:11 pm

spot wrote: This is an informal conversation in an informal environment, and it's not that much further back that I expressed the full concept. When I write for publication, I proof-read carefully and often.
you're published? wonderful! can you direct us to some of the papers, articles, books, theses, etc you've had published? that would be great. i've never been published. my brother has written a handful of books however, for which i'm very proud of him.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:18 pm

koan wrote: Okay.

Let's jump to the next one. (same source)

Moral Issues and Retribution

The desire for vengeance or retribution is the desire to see persons suffer, or be punished, for their actions (Reiman, 1988). The principles of retribution suggest that a murderer should be executed because he or she "deserves" or "has earned" the sentence of death (Foley, 1983). Those who base their opposition to the death penalty on moral grounds argue that life is sacred and killing is always wrong, whether it is done by an individual or by the state. In addition, people also have questioned whether we as individuals or as a society have the right to decide that another must die.

hmm. I think this author is biased as he suggests that the punishers have a desire for vengeance and the anti-DPers have compassion. There are flavours to these terms. But I happen to agree with him. Then...can one have too much compassion? It is as likely as the idea of having too much vengeance. So it comes down to how one would like to be. Vengeful or compassionate.
i have little sensation myself for vengeance when i think that someone 'deserves' the death penalty. more in mind is preventing that person from ever harming another innocent person (and bearing in mind that fellow prisoners, while guilty of other crimes, are innocent persons as well if the convicted criminal harms them).

the reintroduction of violent felons into our society is far more heinous to me than their being executed. you don't turn a lion loose on main street. the problem of repeat violent offenders committing worse and worse crimes is real. locally, richard allen davis, who kidnapped, raped, and murdered polly klaas. that happened a mere ten miles from my home. mr. davis was a long time incarceree (sp?) who had committed many previous violent crimes...and was released back into society simply because he'd spent enough years in prison. he should never have been released for his previous crimes.

the simultaneous problem we have with benign drug abusers being incarcerated for mandatory ten, twenty, thirty year terms is that they displace the violent felons convicted without those mandatories. the madness of locking up a pot smoker for ten years, while releasing a repeat rapist back into the population, is mind boggling to me.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:19 pm

anastrophe wrote: ahem. you asserted, specifically, "regularly". that the above has happened in some circumstances is incontrovertible. that it happens "regularly" is disputable.Once is enough, perhaps, if we're talking about the morality of taking the innocent life of a person wrongly convicted. The difference between one and a thousand is less important than the difference between none and any.

George Bernard Shaw, at a dinner party, wanted to make a similar point to a woman seated beside him. He asked, "Madam, would you go to bed with me for a pound?" The woman turned red and said he was mad. He lowered his voice, leaned close and offered a thousand pounds, saying she had captivated him. She paused and coyly replied: "Perhaps." "I think the pound is more reasonable" Shaw said.

"Mr. Shaw!" the woman exclaimed. "What do you take me for?"

"We have already established that," Shaw replied. "We are merely haggling over the price."

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:21 pm

anastrophe wrote: you're published? wonderful! can you direct us to some of the papers, articles, books, theses, etc you've had published? that would be great. i've never been published. my brother has written a handful of books however, for which i'm very proud of him.Sarcasm is an external display of an ugly trait of mind, anastrophe. You belittle yourself by employing it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:22 pm

anastrophe.

Twice now you have mentioned not letting murders kill again. My next bit of info to post is

REHABILITATION AND INCAPACITATION

It is indisputable that executing a murderer renders him or her unable to kill again. However, those who support the concept of rehabilitation for murderers believe that imprisonment is effective in preventing murderers from killing again. Murderers have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all offenders (Radelet & Bedau, 1988). In fact, people who have served time in prison for other offences are more likely to commit murder upon their release than are convicted killers (Radelet & Bedau, 1988).

Post by **spot** » Fri May 13, 2005 7:32 pm

anastrophe wrote: i've never suggested that morality equates to law.I had "the law, and the 'morality' behind the existence of the law, are inextricably intertwined" in mind when I wrote that you went off on a branch of morality equates to law. I still hear what we say as conversational, anastrophe. You might be a frustrated debating society wannabee, or you might not. Either way, you're squeezing down into a minor focus to avoid my original canvas. My picture is there, a long way back in the thread. What we're doing now is tedious and I, for one, am going to read a book instead.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 9:39 pm

spot wrote: Once is enough, perhaps, if we're talking about the morality of taking the innocent life of a person wrongly convicted. The difference between one and a thousand is less important than the difference between none and any.

George Bernard Shaw, at a dinner party, wanted to make a similar point to a woman seated beside him. He asked, "Madam, would you go to bed with me for a pound?" The woman turned red and said he was mad. He lowered his voice, leaned close and offered a thousand pounds, saying she had captivated him. She paused and coyly replied: "Perhaps." "I think the pound is more reasonable" Shaw said.

"Mr. Shaw!" the woman exclaimed. "What do you take me for?"

"We have already established that," Shaw replied. "We are merely haggling over the price."a delightful story, oft repeated, likely apocryphal, and pointedly trivializing in the context of this discussion.

your evasion is palpable. indeed, "once is enough". but that's not what you unequivocally stated. it's a valid sentiment indeed, and one i share, but meaningless in the context of your prattling on that it happens "regularly". in my lexicon, 'once' is not equivalent to 'regularly'. had you begun with 'once is enough', your backpedalling wouldn't be so comical.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 9:43 pm

spot wrote: Sarcasm is an external display of an ugly trait of mind, anastrophe. You belittle yourself by employing it.
there was no sarcasm in that. if you're published, i'm interested. if you're not published, then your self-congratulatory puffery is exposed.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 9:56 pm

spot wrote: I had "the law, and the 'morality' behind the existence of the law, are inextricably intertwined" in mind when I wrote that you went off on a branch of morality equates to law. I still hear what we say as conversational, anastrophe. You might be a frustrated debating society wannabee, or you might not.
mmm. and you might be a pompous celibate, or you might not. you might be many things. you might not. it's a lovely game to play, tossing the ad hominem in the form of a hypothetical.

Either way, you're squeezing down into a minor focus to avoid my original canvas.nonsense. i'm trying to discern specifically what you're driving at from your ambiguous, murky splatters upon the canvas. you concocted a very interesting threefold test for the ability of the state to execute those convicted of capital offenses. i noted - and still consider in question - a peculiar inclusion in the first of those three, not repeated in the others, and an ambiguous concluding third test. since you seem to have a pretty strong ideology behind much of what you write here on FG, i don't take lightly these discrepancies, particularly when you're evasive about them when pressed.

no, this isn't a debating team. contrarily, trivializing my probing of your statements isn't 'conversational', it's evasive. forumgarden is a place to discuss things. we have topics ranging from the trivial, to the sublime, to the profane. this is a very serious topic. some have expressed opinions little more in depth than 'hang 'em high' and 'never execute ever'. others have posted more in depth opinions, analyses, comments. your posts have not been superficial. suggesting, when met with serious questions and probes of your meaning, that i'm a 'debating team wannabee' *is* superficial.

My picture is there, a long way back in the thread. What we're doing now is tedious and I, for one, am going to read a book instead.
mmm. pleasant reading.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri May 13, 2005 10:28 pm

koan wrote: anastrophe.

Twice now you have mentioned not letting murders kill again. My next bit of info to post is

REHABILITATION AND INCAPACITATION

It is indisputable that executing a murderer renders him or her unable to kill again. However, those who support the concept of rehabilitation for murderers believe that imprisonment is effective in preventing murderers from killing again. Murderers have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all offenders (Radelet & Bedau, 1988).
that may be. but i question whether the low recidivism rates are indeed due to 'rehabilitation'. there is precious little active rehabilitation that takes place within the prison system, for the simple reason often that many of those thus incarcerated are beyond rehabilitation. this sounds like the correlation/causation fallacy.

In fact, people who have served time in prison for other offences are more likely to commit murder upon their release than are convicted killers (Radelet & Bedau, 1988).
i would wonder however how this correlates with specific offenses. there are people in prison for felony drunk driving, people in prison for grand theft, people in prison for *nearly* beating someone to death. i would suspect, though i have no data - merely a suspicion - that the last is the one most likely to commit murder after release. 'offenses' is a catchall.

it is however an interesting bit of information.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Fri May 13, 2005 10:42 pm

sorry to stray a little bit, but i watched an excellent "Frontline" on PBS tonght about the corrections system having become the new mental hospitals. there are 500,000 mentally ill in US jails and prisons. about 17% of the entire system. they were deemed so dangerously and criminally insane that they are kept in supermax conditions and are also treated by psychiatric staff. some of the housing like dungeons. and for group therapy each in a special individual cell, cuffed and shackled.

LWR VENTURES · Post by **LWR VENTURES** » Sat May 14, 2005 2:12 am

I stated my position on this this subject on a diferent thread. But dont mind repeating it. I am dead set against the death penalty. Will remain against it untill im convinced that we have a flawless justice system where no mistakes are made in convictions. The death penalty serves no usefull purpose other than to temporarly satisfy the need for revenge. I will how ever advocate for the long painfull torture of the monsters mentioned in this thread.

turbonium · Post by **turbonium** » Sat May 14, 2005 2:31 am

There are some cases that are 100% no-brainers - Dahmer, Gacy, etc.

But two points to ponder.....

How is it "indisputable evidence" if there is a frame-up? Not that it is a common thing but even 1 person, after his (or her) execution, proven to have been framed for the murder would be the most horrific nightmare for the family.

It is one thing for someone to say "kill the scumbag", it is quite another to actually do the killing. I don't know about everyone else, but being an "executioner" is not a job I could do! With or without one of those hoods! With one exception: if it was a family member as a victim. (actually, I think I'd lose it and ....well, I'll leave it at that).

LottomagicZ4941 · Post by **LottomagicZ4941** » Sat May 14, 2005 2:57 am

I believe that only God has a right to take a life. And if someone premeditatively(sp?)takes a life there's should be also fortheted.

I think there is Bibical evidence to suport this view.

Sorry I don't have the refrence.

_________________

Lotto

http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-local/ ... elcome-344

MagicZ4941A

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sat May 14, 2005 3:27 am

Ok as ive said before im all for the death penalty but we don`t do that in the UK,so what do you see as a deterent. Every day we hear about another poor soul kiddnapped ,raped ,murdered for every innocent person executed how many innocent people are killed and maimed every day by the dreggs of society .If it was my child i would stand up and be counted look the B*****D in the eye and kill them myself .Prison here in the UK is like holiday camp and you can`t rehabilitate a pedaphile HOW can some body like this be a valuable member of society?sarah jane

Post by **spot** » Sat May 14, 2005 9:41 am

anastrophe wrote: there was no sarcasm in that. if you're published, i'm interested. if you're not published, then your self-congratulatory puffery is exposed.Go back and look. It was sarcasm.

Anastrophe, we have exchanged views on matters where we have no common ground, and on matters where are in basic agreement. In both cases, and to the detriment of the thread, you go for my jugular like a rabid rottwieler. This may amuse you, but it's unseemly and I have no intention of allowing you to indulge yourself further. Go and find another playmate, I am not victim material.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat May 14, 2005 9:44 am

spot wrote: This is an informal conversation in an informal environment, and it's not that much further back that I expressed the full concept. When I write for publication, I proof-read carefully and often.this appears to say you are published. i don't see the sarcasm.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 14, 2005 9:54 am

lady cop wrote: this appears to say you are published. i don't see the sarcasm. The sarcasm, lady, appears in the posting I referred to:

anastrophe wrote: you're published? wonderful! can you direct us to some of the papers, articles, books, theses, etc you've had published? that would be great. i've never been published. my brother has written a handful of books however, for which i'm very proud of him.I didn't think I needed to repeat it in full. For the record, I haven't the least intention of bringing my professional life into this or any other thread.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 14, 2005 10:24 am

spot wrote: Go back and look. It was sarcasm.

Anastrophe, we have exchanged views on matters where we have no common ground, and on matters where are in basic agreement. In both cases, and to the detriment of the thread, you go for my jugular like a rabid rottwieler. This may amuse you, but it's unseemly and I have no intention of allowing you to indulge yourself further. Go and find another playmate, I am not victim material.

okay. so you're not published. that's what i figured.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 14, 2005 10:26 am

anastrophe wrote: okay. so you're not published. that's what i figured.As it happens, you're wrong. That, however, is not the point. Press this, as with previous questions, and you'll prove wrong again - not that it ever seems to bother you. You throw stuff like this in as spoilers, by the time they're dealt with they're irrelevant, win or lose.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 14, 2005 10:32 am

spot wrote: As it happens, you're wrong. That, however, is not the point. Press this, as with previous questions, and you'll prove wrong again - not that it ever seems to bother you. You throw stuff like this in as spoilers, by the time they're dealt with they're irrelevant, win or lose.
okay - well, you've issued the challenge - "press this, as with previous questions, and you'll prove wrong again". so prove me wrong.

until then, i'll take your claim that you're published - without any evidence whatsoever - as what it is. puffery.

funny thing about the word 'published'. you might want to look it up. that which is published is explicitly 'public'. refusing to divulge that which you have made public elsewhere is rather contrary to the concept, unless of course what's been published falls within the realm of state secrets, espionage, etc....oh, but darn - then it couldn't be called 'published', as it wouldn't be public.

i've never been published. not once. i wish i could say i have been published, as it does make a nice feather one can put in one's hat, if one actually has been published. of course, you can't put the feather in your cap, then when people ask 'why the feather in your cap?' reply "none of your business'. well, you can, but you look like an ass.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 14, 2005 10:34 am

anastrophe wrote: okay - well, you've issued the challenge - "press this, as with previous questions, and you'll prove wrong again". so prove me wrong.Here's a test, if you agree to apologize on FG afterwards should you get an affirmative.

We agree on one of the FG members, X, to check my references to publication. X agrees to reply to you "yes, he has shown me truthfully that he has published" or "no, he has not shown me that he has published". X agrees to say no more than that to anyone about what I have shown him, or to discuss the matter further. At that point, off FG, I'll show X some of my published material and X can reply appropriately. I am not going to have my professional life discussed on FG, and that includes revealing it to you.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 14, 2005 10:35 am

spot wrote: Go and find another playmate, I am not victim material.
by the way, harry truman said it best: "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." if you consider yourself victimized by me, by all means, find someplace that's not as bruising to your ego and sensibilities. From my standpoint, if you choose to post here, implicit in that is getting a response, like it or not.

i find some of your ideologies - those you've expressed here - quite ugly, and will counter them at every turn.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 14, 2005 10:39 am

spot wrote: Here's a test, if you agree to apologize on FG afterwards should you get an affirmative.

We agree on one of the FG members, X, to check my references to publication. X agrees to reply to you "yes, he has shown me truthfully that he has published" or "no, he has not shown me that he has published". X agrees to say no more than that to anyone about what I have shown him, or to discuss the matter further. At that point, off FG, I'll show X some of my published material and X can reply appropriately. I am not going to have my professional life discussed on FG, and that includes revealing it to you.
nope. that's a silly, convoluted 'test' (and about what i'd expect from a paranoic). you show me that you've been published. i review. i apologize if proven wrong in my claim that you've not been published. i don't reveal any details publicly or privately to any other party.

easy. you get your apology, your exploits remain private.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 14, 2005 10:43 am

anastrophe wrote: nope. that's a silly, convoluted 'test' (and about what i'd expect from a paranoic). you show me that you've been published. i review. i apologize if proven wrong in my claim that you've not been published. i don't reveal any details publicly or privately to any other party.

easy. you get your apology, your exploits remain private.
to clarify, i apologize PUBLICLY.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 14, 2005 10:43 am

anastrophe wrote: i find some of your ideologies - those you've expressed here - quite ugly, and will counter them at every turn.Would that you tried, instead of employing spoilers like this. Squits(1) who call me a liar just to divert a discussion don't impress me at all.

anastrophe wrote: i don't reveal any details publicly or privately to any other party.I trust you, anastrophe, as far as I could spit into a gale.

(1)I refer to your "git" of some days ago, before you complain of name-calling.