Death Penalty

Originally posted by Schecter
the modern prison system is based upon the theory that rehabilitation is possible, and with the hope that those who cannot be rehabilitated today may be reachable tomorrow. it is intended to be a system which betters the criminal instead of punishing them. if not, then it would have never been put into practice and we would still be executing people for lesser crimes. the possibility/probability that they will never be rehabilitated does not erase the possibility that they will, and even behind bars many find peace which they would never have achieved had they been put to death. your point that life in prison=torture/damnation across the board is factually incorrect.

Originally posted by Schecter
even behind bars many find peace which they would never have achieved had they been put to death. your point that life in prison=torture/damnation across the board is factually incorrect.

According to the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons:

"the number of assault victims (each year) is not the 34,000 officially reported in 2000; the actual number of assault victims was (conservatively) in the 300,000 range for that year."

and

“violence - and the threat of violence - is a routine way of life [in prison]”

and

"data from the 2000 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities revealed that “the number of assaults, including both physical and sexual assaults, was 32% higher [in 2000] than in a similar period preceding the 1995 census. In 2000, there were 34,000 inmate on inmate assaults reported."

Peace? I think that is a bit naive.

"prison=torture/damnation across the board is factually incorrect"?

Not according to research done in US prisons...

http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/byrne_james_m.pdf

Originally posted by lord xyz
I am all in favour of that system.

well point i was making is that the system is based on an ideal/theory. in particularly america it is almost completely failed, but that to me would illustrate a problem with our practice rather than the ideal as a whole.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
*fluff*

none of this counters my statement. you're saying that many people are in prison for life and that their lives on average suck. congrats. we agree.

however, again, why did you quote me?

Originally posted by Schecter
well point i was making is that the system is based on an ideal/theory. in particularly america it is almost completely failed, but that to me would illustrate a problem with our practice rather than the ideal as a whole.

Ah, now we are approaching a point where we are getting closer to agreement. I agree, that in an ideal world, rehabilitation would be a better solution than execution.

Although, of course, in an ideal world there wouldn't be crime in the first place.

But, as you stated, even though there is nothing wrong with the ideal, in practice it has failed. Just like socialism, in an ideal world, would be the ideal answer.

Therefore, it seems to me, that since in practice the the theory has failed, it is time for a new theory...

Now we just need to agree on what that theory is!

Originally posted by Schecter
none of this counters my statement. you're saying that many people are in prison for life and that their lives on average suck. congrats. we agree.

however, again, why did you quote me?

Actually, when you read my quotes from the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons again, you will notice that I directly and incontrovertibly prove your argument wrong, which was:

"even behind bars many find peace which they would never have achieved had they been put to death. your point that life in prison=torture/damnation across the board is factually incorrect."

And that is why I quoted you.

Originally posted by Schecter
your point that life in prison=torture/damnation across the board is factually incorrect.

Isn't the point of going to jail to punish someone? Why should prison be like a really long daycare experience for adults?

The funny part is that the same three hots and a cot in a monastary and they'd find that peace you're talking about.

Originally posted by Dreampanther
inmate on inmate

They can't help that they're inmates. I say we let them get married.

Originally posted by Devil King
Isn't the point of going to jail to punish someone? Why should prison be like a really long daycare experience for adults?

The funny part is that the same three hots and a cot in a monastary and they'd find that peace you're talking about.

They can't help that they're inmates. I say we let them get married.

Originally posted by Devil King
They can't help that they're inmates. I say we let them get married.

I don't have a problem with that. As long as they cannot breed, and as long as they no longer do harm to society, I don't care what they do...

I just really like the potential entertainment value of bringing back gladiatorial events - come on, wouldn't you like to see two guys with chainsaws hacking and slashing each other to death?

Or, what about using them in Chuck Norris movies? Instead of faking it with stunt men and actors, just think how much money we would make out of these supposedly prohibitively-expensive executions if Chuck really kicks their heads off! 😈

(With apologies to Bill Hicks, whose idea I stole and changed...)

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Aah, I thnk I begin to understand your argument. First, we are not allowed to question statistics, we should just accept them as gospel. We should never question whether they have included all the relevant factors and excluded all the irrelevant ones. We should never ask who did the research, and why they decided which factors to include.

Interesting theory... Yet, all my university career, I was taught to treat all statistics with scientific skepticism. Perhaps it's scientific research theory that has been wrong all along?

As for making up new data - actually, all I did was to point out that all the relevant data was never included in the original research...

As for the current system, which allows for appeal after appeal after appeal, and delay after delay after delay, all at the taxpayer's cost - well, I thought the whole point of this debate was to establish whether the current system, which you so dogmatically cling to, could do with some improving?

Finally, your point that the rape and violent assaults in prisons isn't the government's fault: The fact is, they do occur, regularly and repeatedly. Therefore, the government is failing in its stated objective - which is to protect the rights of prisoners to a safe environment while trying to rehabilitate them.

Therefore, the current system, which you seem so eager to protect, is already a failure. Therefore, it seems (fairly) obvious that it needs to change. Since it needs to change anyway, then, I merely propose that perhaps a complete overhaul seems appropriate, at this time...

You seem to be unable have on your conscience the execution of a convicted murderer, but yet you seem to be able to live in peace with the fact that by condemning a man to life-long imprisonment, you are already condemning him to a life without the basic human rights that you seem so passionately in favour of...

Jesus Christ, you just completely misrepresented what I said, I would think that during your university career, they would teach you some reading comprehension, that whole post is just one big example of The Straw Man logical fallacy.

I never said, nor did I allude to the idea that statistics should not be questioned or challenged. I simply said that you can't just flat out ignore relevant statistics just because they go against your argument. It's not a matter of questioning, it's a matter of being objective and fair. You simply don't like those statistics, so you think they don't count; well, they do.

Also, let's make it perfectly clear, you imply that abolishing the death penalty would induce some kind of horrible increase in the number of criminals to the point where we'd have to build a number of new facilities. That's incorrect. The number of people who are put to death are not substantial enough to make a difference in that respect (in January 2007, there was roughly 3,300 people on death row in the entire USA). 3300 is quite negligible and could be circulated into prisons without much hassle, heck, they're already IN prison awaiting death, so there is already room for them.

Why do you say I 'dogmatically cling to our system" when I am sitting here arguing AGAINST that system. You are confusing the point of statistics with the point of argumentation. Statistics don't go away just because you don't like them. They are there, and factually, they are relevant since they pertain to how the system works. You can argue whether or not the system SHOULD work the way it does, I'm not saying you can't or that you shouldn't. Simply that statistics are banners of truth, they are counters of what is, not what should be.

So, your argument seems to be as follows: People get raped in prison, so it's okay for us to kill them. Ridiculous. Yes, the system should be changed in order to avoid that rape, that doesn't somehow excuse murdering them.

Again, I mention, the biggest reason against the death penalty is the fact that innocent people can and are somtimes killed by it. After they are dead, they are later found to be innocent. By that point, it's too late. If they were to simply be in prison, they would be able to be released and be given a second chance. It would still suck for them, but at least they wouldn't be dead.

And as Schecter mentions, the current point of our system is rehabilitation whenever possible. Many people do find peace in prison despite the hostile nature, they sometimes do change and find rehabilitation. And even if they don't, then what does killing them achieve? You get the same effect by putting them in prison for life -- they're out of society -- minus that nasty fact of being a huge hypocrite.

Originally posted by BackFire
Jesus Christ, you just completely misrepresented what I said, I would think that during your university career, they would teach you some reading comprehension, that whole post is just one big example of The Straw Man logical fallacy.

I never said, nor did I allude to the idea that statistics should not be questioned or challenged. I simply said that you can't just flat out ignore relevant statistics just because they go against your argument. It's not a matter of questioning, it's a matter of being objective and fair. You simply don't like those statistics, so you think they don't count; well, they do.

Also, let's make it perfectly clear, you imply that abolishing the death penalty would induce some kind of horrible increase in the number of criminals to the point where we'd have to build a number of new facilities. That's incorrect. The number of people who are put to death are not substantial enough to make a difference in that respect (in January 2007, there was roughly 3,300 people on death row in the entire USA). 3300 is quite negligible and could be circulated into prisons without much hassle, heck, they're already IN prison awaiting death, so there is already room for them.

Why do you say I 'dogmatically cling to our system" when I am sitting here arguing AGAINST that system. You are confusing the point of statistics with the point of argumentation. Statistics don't go away just because you don't like them. They are there, and factually, they are relevant since they pertain to how the system works. You can argue whether or not the system SHOULD work the way it does, I'm not saying you can't or that you shouldn't. Simply that statistics are banners of truth, they are counters of what is, not what should be.

So, your argument seems to be as follows: People get raped in prison, so it's okay for us to kill them. Ridiculous. Yes, the system should be changed in order to avoid that rape, that doesn't somehow excuse murdering them.

Again, I mention, the biggest reason against the death penalty is the fact that innocent people can and are somtimes killed by it. After they are dead, they are later found to be innocent. By that point, it's too late. If they were to simply be in prison, they would be able to be released and be given a second chance. It would still suck for them, but at least they wouldn't be dead.

And as Schecter mentions, the current point of our system is rehabilitation whenever possible. Many people do find peace in prison despite the hostile nature, they sometimes do change and find rehabilitation. And even if they don't, then what does killing them achieve? You get the same effect by putting them in prison for life -- they're out of society -- minus that nasty fact of being a huge hypocrite.

Ouch, it looks like I touched a nerve there... Why so upset about the fact that I question the validity of the statistics? Were you the one who did the research and compiled the statistics? 😕

In the words attributed to Benjamin Disraeli "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." (The semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments.)

As for the argument that the number of executions are "quite negligible" - well, that is exactly my point! 😛 The number should be increased - drastically!

As for your "biggest reason against the death penalty [which] is the fact that innocent people can and are somtimes (sic) killed by it", well, I was hoping and waiting that somebody would eventually raise that point.

Why not concentrate on repeat offenders, then? People who kill and/or rape repeatedly, despite being given every opportunity to rehabilitate? People who not only engage in violent crimes outside the prison, but also inside it?

As I previously quoted, research in US prisons indicate that there were in the region of 300 000 violent assaults INSIDE the prisons in the span of a year. Therefore, since these repeat offenders seem to be incapable or unwilling to change their antisocial behaviour, why not execute these 300 000 prisoners then?

I am all in favour of giving somebody a chance.

But when it comes to protecting society vs respecting the right to life and safety of people who show no indication of respecting those same rights in others, the choice seems to me to be fairly self-evident.

On some points we do seem to agree: For instance, the fact that the system should be changed. Also, the fact that society should be protected.

But I still fail to understand why taxpayers should fork out in the region of three-quarters of a million US dollars per felon, while they are freeloading off a system that tries to give them rights that they themselves denied their victims...

As for being a hypocrite - to me, it is the system that is hypocritical, since it is willing to protect the rights of people who show blatant contempt for those same rights their victims had.

I like the notion that people should treat others as they themselves would like to be treated. Therefore, it is my contention that since they violently and brutally robbed their victims of these rights, the same should be done to them.

Are these violent criminals' rights more important than their victims'?

PS. By the way, reading comprehension was always one of my strong points. But then, so is debating, formulating an argument and spotting the weaknesses in other peoples' research and theories... 😈

I'm not upset by the fact that you questioned statistics, I clearly said I had no problem with that. I was "upset" (apparently meaning, calling you on it) that you actually misrepresented what I said in a lazy attempt to increase the ease of countering my arguments.

Again, you don't understand the point I was making about statistics. Question them, do it, that's fine. But what you can't do is ignore valid statistics just because they're covering an area that you happen to disagree with. That doesn't make the statistics false, does it?

Your point wasn't that executions should be increased, your point was that abolishing capital punishment would lead to a large increase of needed funds, by substantially raising the prison population. This was proven false.

As far as only killing repeat offenders. That would be a step in the right direction as far as ensuring that innocents don't accidentally get killed. I'd still disagree with the philosophy of the death penalty. But at this point it simply becomes a philosophical disagreement more than anything else.

However, the idea that we somehow have to make a choice between the safety of society and respecting the rights of the criminals is a huge false dilemma; you can do both. Society is safe by locking criminals up, and their right to live is respected by not killing them.

The system isn't hypocritical (outside of saying that murder is wrong, and then murdering people). The reason there are rules and regulations is because we as a society must stand above the acts that we're condemning. If we don't have regulations that respect everyone's fundamental human rights then we have a mishmash of cruelty and vengeance, rather then justice, and that kind of system has no place in a civilized society.

Lastly, no the criminal's rights aren't more important than their victims'. That doesn't mean that the criminal's rights shouldn't exist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's should not be about punishing someone, it should be about protecting society.

From what, society?

Originally posted by Dreampanther
I don't have a problem with that. As long as they cannot breed, and as long as they no longer do harm to society, I don't care what they do...

I just really like the potential entertainment value of bringing back gladiatorial events - come on, wouldn't you like to see two guys with chainsaws hacking and slashing each other to death?

Or, what about using them in Chuck Norris movies? Instead of faking it with stunt men and actors, just think how much money we would make out of these supposedly prohibitively-expensive executions if Chuck really kicks their heads off! 😈

(With apologies to Bill Hicks, whose idea I stole and changed...)

You might need to lighten up.

No, I have no desire to watch people fighting each other.

Speaking of Chuck Norris, maybe we should lock them in that cell and make them watch every episode of Walker Texas Ranger. Anyone exposed to that much talentlessness and they'll come out of prison in a coma. They're punished and society is safe from them.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm not upset by the fact that you questioned statistics, I clearly said I had no problem with that. I was "upset" (apparently meaning, calling you on it) that you actually misrepresented what I said in a lazy attempt to increase the ease of countering my arguments.

Again, you don't understand the point I was making about statistics. Question them, do it, that's fine. But what you can't do is ignore valid statistics just because they're covering an area that you happen to disagree with. That doesn't make the statistics false, does it?

Your point wasn't that executions should be increased, your point was that abolishing capital punishment would lead to a large increase of needed funds, by substantially raising the prison population. This was proven false.

As far as only killing repeat offenders. That would be a step in the right direction as far as ensuring that innocents don't accidentally get killed. I'd still disagree with the philosophy of the death penalty. But at this point it simply becomes a philosophical disagreement more than anything else.

However, the idea that we somehow have to make a choice between the safety of society and respecting the rights of the criminals is a huge false dilemma; you can do both. Society is safe by locking criminals up, and their right to live is respected by not killing them.

The system isn't hypocritical (outside of saying that murder is wrong, and then murdering people). The reason there are rules and regulations is because we as a society must stand above the acts that we're condemning. If we don't have regulations that respect everyone's fundamental human rights then we have a mishmash of cruelty and vengeance, rather then justice, and that kind of system has no place in a civilized society.

Lastly, no the criminal's rights aren't more important than their victims'. That doesn't mean that the criminal's rights shouldn't exist.

Umm, actually, when statistics are invalid, that DOES make them false. That is the very definition of invalid statistics. I know that since you seem to have based a large part of your argument on these sacrosanct statistics, you feel like you HAVE to defend them, but let me remind you again, these studies "examined the costs of death penalty cases to prosecutor offices, public defender offices, courts, and correctional facilities...", in other words, not the cost of the execution itself, but the legal costs involved based on a system which you yourself stated needs to be reviewed.

What I argued originally, as you conveniently seem to have forgotten, is that these costs were included for the appeals to the death penalty, but since the system does not allow for these same kinds of appeals to a life sentence, the statistics are therefore biased.

As for proving my argument false that more prisoners would need more funds from the taxpayer- just remind me again, how, where and when did you prove that to be false? It IS quite late here, so I might have missed something somewhere...

I like that you seem amenable to my idea of targeting the repeat offenders - I'm quite proud of that idea 😄 . And already we have increased the potential executees from 3 000 to 300 000!

I understand and sympathise with your philosophical stance that all life is sacred. That is probably why I have enjoyed debating with you so much tonight. Not only are your arguments well-thought out, rational and reasonable, but they are passionate and based on high levels of morals and ethical standards.

Unfortunately, I live in a country where one can no longer afford to take a stance like that any more, much as I would like to. Against my will, I have been forced to accept that the current government (which abolished the death penalty) made a mistake. With the best intentions, of course - just like you.

Finally, you say the system should respect everyones basic human rights - but what right do we protect by taking somebody's freedom? By taking their dignity? By taking their freedom of association? By taking away their right to a safe environment (which, as the study I referred to earlier, stated they did not have)?

Is it not cruel and inhumane to lock a person away for life, basically stripping them of their human rights in any case and reducing them to the level of animals? Isn't that what we do with prisoners - afford them the same right as animals?

I believe the system IS hypocritical.

And I also believe that once somebody has willfully, deliberately, maliciously and repeatedly stripped a fellow human being's of their rights, then those rights should not exist for them anymore.

Looking forward to your counter-argument! 😈

Originally posted by Devil King
Isn't the point of going to jail to punish someone? Why should prison be like a really long daycare experience for adults?

hey, i didnt create the theory, but it is in essence kind of a daycare/reeducation. its not meant to be a punishment. keep them out of society and try to get them on the right track because it beats the hypocrisy of committing homicide to combat homicide. thats what our prison system is based upon. what it turned out to be is something entirely different, of course. but how can you deny that punishment=vengeance.

Originally posted by Devil King
The funny part is that the same three hots and a cot in a monastary and they'd find that peace you're talking about.

well, many of them find inner peace through religion. not to answer your facetious rhetoric, but you kinda spoke some truth there.

How in god's holy hell are the statistics biased or invalid? The statistics are based on how things currently work. You have a problem with the system, not the stats. The stats just happen to be covering that system, and they are true according to the current system which is the only thing they can possibly cover. You are not making any sense at all. You seem to think that the stats are invalid because you don't like the system, the stats are still factual. It does cost more to put someone to death, including the costs of the court and appeals, than it does to put them in prison for life. You admit the stats are true, but that you just don't like that it's the way it is, so the stats are invalid. That's not how it works. If the stats are true, then they are valid. If not, please explain how a stat can be true and invalid.

I proved false the idea that abolishing the death penalty would lead to a substantial rise in prisoner population and force new facilities to be built by bringing up the fact that the number of people put to death is relatively small, and that there already is room for them since the people on death row are currently IN prison.

And now you're committing hyperbole. Locking them up is not treating them like animals. They are given clothes, they are given food and a bed and equipment to exercise with, oftentimes they have a job to do and a room to live in, with a toilet. In fact, a prior argument you made was that they are treated TOO good and that you don't want to pay for them. So make up your mind.

By putting people in prison rather than murdering them we are giving them the right to live. If someone kills or rapes them in prison, that's not the government taking anything away, it's another criminal taking it away. And again, that doesn't somehow make it excusable for the government to murder criminals while condemning the very act.

And how does your government abolishing the death penalty hurt your society at all? How was it a mistake? The criminals are still locked up, they're not hurting anyone on the outside. It's the same difference to you as if they're dead, you're just paying less. So what's the problem?

Originally posted by BackFire
How in god's holy hell are the statistics biased or invalid? The statistics are based on how things currently work. You have a problem with the system, not the stats. The stats just happen to be covering that system, and they are true according to the current system which is the only thing they can possibly cover. You are not making any sense at all. You seem to think that the stats are invalid because you don't like the system, the stats are still factual. It does cost more to put someone to death, including the costs of the court and appeals, than it does to put them in prison for life. You admit the stats are true, but that you just don't like that it's the way it is, so the stats are invalid. That's not how it works. If the stats are true, then they are valid. If not, please explain how a stat can be true and invalid.

I proved false the idea that abolishing the death penalty would lead to a substantial rise in prisoner population and force new facilities to be built by bringing up the fact that the number of people put to death is relatively small, and that there already is room for them since the people on death row are currently IN prison.

And now you're committing hyperbole. Locking them up is not treating them like animals. They are given clothes, they are given food and a bed and equipment to exercise with, oftentimes they have a job to do and a room to live in, with a toilet. In fact, a prior argument you made was that they are treated TOO good and that you don't want to pay for them. So make up your mind.

By putting people in prison rather than murdering them we are giving them the right to live. If someone kills or rapes them in prison, that's not the government taking anything away, it's another criminal taking it away. And again, that doesn't somehow make it excusable for the government to murder criminals while condemning the very act.

And how does your government abolishing the death penalty hurt your society at all? How was it a mistake? The criminals are still locked up, they're not hurting anyone on the outside. It's the same difference to you as if they're dead, you're just paying less. So what's the problem?

Ah, okay. Let's take this paragraph for paragraph. About statistics: Once you have worked with statistics extensively, as my fellow-researchers and I have done, it would be easier for you to understand why the phrase 'lies, damned lies and statistics' have become a truism in research, and why the focus of research have now changes from quantitative to qualitative.

But since you don't seem to have developed the same healthy skepticism that other researchers have, I merely refer you back to my earlier refutations. But, I would like to refer you to a link that describes what statistical literacy is: In short, it is 'The set of basic statistical skills (and skepticism) needed by people to deal with information in their everyday lives'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_literacy

As for your second paragraph, I thought we had come to some sort of agreement that the amount of people I wanted executed were 300 000, not 3 000? And that this would not only counteract the problem of overpopulation in prisons, thereby improving their living conditions and health and safety conditions, but also dramatically reduce the funds needed by prisons at the moment, thereby making my proposal much more cost-effective than simply keeping them alive until they die of old age?

Third paragraph. You have just described every animal in every household in every country in the world.

Fourth: The government is taking away their 'basic human right' to a safe environment, as I pointed out earlier. Fairly clearly, I thought.

As for the fifth, final paragraph - ah, well, how much time do you have? Where do I begin to explain to you what is happening here? Let me ask you this: Do you know anything about South Africa? Anything at all?

I am not accusing you of ignorance - I genuinely need to know in order to begin answering your final question...

Originally posted by Dreampanther
Third paragraph. You have just described every animal in every household in every country in the world.

W-what kind of fancy animals do you know?

Originally posted by Bardock42
W-what kind of fancy animals do you know?

"They are given clothes, they are given food and a bed and equipment to exercise with, oftentimes they have a job to do and a room to live in, with a toilet. In fact, a prior argument you made was that they are treated TOO good and that you don't want to pay for them. So make up your mind. "

Our dogs and cats have collars with their names and tags so that if they get lost, hopefully people who find them will call us. They are given (lots of very good) food. They are given warm beds and blankets to sleep in. They are given toys to play with so that they don't get bored. They are played with regularly, to keep them in shape and happy. They have jobs, whether it be guarding the house or hunting rodents. Our rooms are their rooms, and they can decide where they want to sleep. The entire outdoors is their toilet - they can go anytime they feel like it.

In exchange we get affection, love, unconditional acceptance, playmates, guardians and friendship.

Why, what do you do with your animals - tie them with a chain to a pole and beat them if they cry?