The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by truejedi
I don't know if I agree with the death penalty or not. If we were truly about deterrent, we would do to murderers what they do to their victims. THAT would be a deterrent.

And if it isn't about a deterrent, why do it at all?

My main problem is that we let murderers out. Shouldn't all murderers get life? Why is it usually 10-20 and they usually get out with 7 for good behavior?

Research has overwhelmingly indicated that the death penalty, as used, is not a deterrent. It's used too sparsely to truly register as a consequence for most criminals willing to commit the crimes that would qualify for punishment by execution.

Carney on Tuesday also offered more details about bin Laden's burial at sea:
•Aboard the USS Carl Vinson, the burial of bin Laden was done in conformance with Islamic precepts and practices.
•The deceased's body was washed and then placed in a white sheet.
•The body was placed in a weighted bag; a military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a native speaker.
•After the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, and the deceased body eased into the sea

Why the heck would they DO That? why give him a proper religious burial? now all of his martyr buddies think he went to paradise, and they keep fighting.

seriously, if we let it be known that all of our bullets were painted with a mixture of pig blood, how many people do you think would be willing to fight us to the death over there?

Originally posted by truejedi
Why the heck would they DO That? why give him a proper religious burial? now all of his martyr buddies think he went to paradise, and they keep fighting.

seriously, if we let it be known that all of our bullets were painted with a mixture of pig blood, how many people do you think would be willing to fight us to the death over there?

You run a risk either way. If bin Laden's body was desecrated and confirmation of such was released to the public, it might just piss his "buddies" off even more.

Do we even have visual proof of his death? Like, were we shown his body or are we just going to have to trust the government that he's dead and shut up he is?

well it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other, we could simply have thrown his body overboard. It didn't have to be a funeral...

Originally posted by Nephthys
Personally I prefer the Death of Personality. Isn't that right Zam? trololololol.

Terry Schiavo jokes?

Too soon.

I don't know who that is. awewut

I was referring to the Babylon 5 episode I posted a while back. I wanted to talk about how the Death of Personality was an alternative to the death penalty, but you just said I was insane and told me to screw off.

Oh yeah.

I am allergic to BSG and I thought it was affiliated in some way. I'll go ahead and check that out.

Don't forget the follow up episode. Which is where Chuck really talks about the implications and discusses the process. Hell, if you don't care about Bab 5 you can probably just skip the first part.

This guy is trying too hard to sound smart, and if there's one thing the people who try too hard to sound smart hate, it's people who try too hard to sound smart.

I'll try again in about 5 hours. Or tomorrow.

Edit: Hello: prison rape what?

It..... er..... makes sense in context.

And I think thats just his voice that gives that impression. Its just 10 minutes, suck it up.

Yeah that's a hardcore rant, and actually very interesting because death of personality (regardless of bodily status) is much worse, intuitively, than conventional death. Let's pick discussion back up on Friday, after my last university final.

Yeah, I need to write a presentation tonight anyway.

You other dudez should watch it too. Its interesting.

Originally posted by truejedi
I don't know if I agree with the death penalty or not. If we were truly about deterrent, we would do to murderers what they do to their victims. THAT would be a deterrent.

And if it isn't about a deterrent, why do it at all?

My main problem is that we let murderers out. Shouldn't all murderers get life? Why is it usually 10-20 and they usually get out with 7 for good behavior?

If the justification of the death penalty is about deterring criminals, the argument doesn't support itself. Obviously arguments in favor of the death penalty must point out the most important aspect - that it permanently removes the most dangerous and irredeemable of criminals from society, so that they cannot harm us nor can they ever escape from a prison alternative. In this, it does its job.

Here's a question I'd pose to folks: would you feel more comfortable knowing that some serial killer/torture fiend/rapist was living comfortably in a cell with all their basic needs attended (and in some cases, better health care than those outside) on your dollar? Or would you rather see 'em dead and save the time and money?

Knee-jerk arguments against include:

- It's murder. Which is BS, because murder is defined as illegal killing. Already null and void.

- It's unethical. This is also BS, since ethics demand subjective moral arguments to be considered. If you argue that the sicko's life has value, you have to nut up or shut up. If you argue that all life has value in general, then you need to put down the granola bar and make a real good argument.

- It's expensive. BS. Even humane cocktails cost a little over a hundred bucks. A rope and a chair is far cheaper. Cost of execution should never be a successful counter-argument unless we're executing people by sending them into orbit.

- The judicial system is broken. Understandable, but does not effect the act itself. Thousands of drivers every year have preventable accidents due to texting, drinking, speeding, aggressive driving, and road head. These are not successful arguments against driving or roads for that matter.

Oops, I think I covered most everything. There you go.

Here's a question I'd pose to folks: would you feel more comfortable knowing that some serial killer/torture fiend/rapist was living comfortably in a cell with all their basic needs attended (and in some cases, better health care than those outside) on your dollar? Or would you rather see 'em dead and save the time and money?

I wasn't aware we based our legal system around my comfort level.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I wasn't aware we based our legal system around my comfort level.

Usually appealing to emotion is a good way to get people motivated into vesting themselves into an argument.

But that was cute.

Ostensibly, a country's legal system exists to ensure justice. It's become a cliche, but law =/= justice. To me, justice exacted on the worst kind of criminals (murderers, serial killers/rapists etc.) would be cheap, brutal and inhumane torture followed by death. (Canada's) legal system says justice is to put them away for an relatively long time and then eventually release them. My beliefs, feelings, and comfort level is not supported by law and I know it never will be (except perhaps in Saudi Arabia).

Barring that, this:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If the justification of the death penalty is about deterring criminals, the argument doesn't support itself. Obviously arguments in favor of the death penalty must point out the most important aspect - that it permanently removes the most dangerous and irredeemable of criminals from society, so that they cannot harm us nor can they ever escape from a prison alternative. In this, it does its job.

Here's a question I'd pose to folks: would you feel more comfortable knowing that some serial killer/torture fiend/rapist was living comfortably in a cell with all their basic needs attended (and in some cases, better health care than those outside) on your dollar? Or would you rather see 'em dead and save the time and money?

Knee-jerk arguments against include:

- It's murder. Which is BS, because murder is defined as illegal killing. Already null and void.

- It's unethical. This is also BS, since ethics demand subjective moral arguments to be considered. If you argue that the sicko's life has value, you have to nut up or shut up. If you argue that all life has value in general, then you need to put down the granola bar and make a real good argument.

- It's expensive. BS. Even humane cocktails cost a little over a hundred bucks. A rope and a chair is far cheaper. Cost of execution should never be a successful counter-argument unless we're executing people by sending them into orbit.

- The judicial system is broken. Understandable, but does not effect the act itself. Thousands of drivers every year have preventable accidents due to texting, drinking, speeding, aggressive driving, and road head. These are not successful arguments against driving or roads for that matter.

Oops, I think I covered most everything. There you go.

is should be common sense.

There are more practical uses for those sentenced to death than death. The medical field is filled with experiments that could benefit from a live human test subject, maximising their limited utility. Better to spare the animals.

But I guess that falls under cruel and unusual, so sad.

The concept of "cruel and unusual" punishment has always amused me, or at least, what the West's definition of it is.

Like, how is convicting someone of a crime, sentencing them to death, making them rot in a cell for ten years (and spending thousands in the process), then spending 30 minutes tying them to a chair and poisoning them to death, less cruel and unusual then sentencing someone to death, lining them up against a wall and shooting them?

God damn it Janus. I'm still not arguing about DP, but what the hell do you call this:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

- It's unethical. This is also BS, since ethics demand subjective moral arguments to be considered. If you argue that the sicko's life has value, you have to nut up or shut up. If you argue that all life has value in general, then you need to put down the granola bar and make a real good argument.

What. The. Hell.

- It's expensive. BS. Even humane cocktails cost a little over a hundred bucks. A rope and a chair is far cheaper. Cost of execution should never be a successful counter-argument unless we're executing people by sending them into orbit.

love you