|
twodot posted:I never said it was their fault. Nude Bog Lurker just doesn't understand how words work. You knew very well the meaning those words communicated, and chose to interpret it as literally as possible to avoid facing to the implications of your argument: You literally see no moral difference between the state fining a wrongfully convicted person and executing them.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:40 |
|
|
Caros posted:I agree wholeheartedly that we can't fully correct this sort of mistake. I don't think there is any way to justly compensate someone for the damage five years in prison would do, let alone thirty. Does that mean that we shouldn't try? Or that we should just leave them in prison if we find out that they are innocent? No, but if part of the argument against the death penalty is that you can't correct the error if it's found out that someone who was executed is innocent, that argument would also have to apply to a lot of other punishments, which are also similarly uncorrectable, yet it is not generally used against anything except the death penalty. Sharkie posted:Yes it can. You can end it by letting them out of prison. That ends future prison time, it does nothing for the years already taken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yes it can. You can end it by letting them out of prison. Nude Bog Lurker posted:You literally see no moral difference between the state fining a wrongfully convicted person and executing them. twodot posted:I'm against the death penalty, but I don't think this argument works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No, but if part of the argument against the death penalty is that you can't correct the error if it's found out that someone who was executed is innocent, that argument would also have to apply to a lot of other punishments, which are also similarly uncorrectable, yet it is not generally used against anything except the death penalty. I don't know, somehow the death penalty cases seem different. Why would that be? It doesn't have to apply to a lot of other punishments unless they are somehow similar to the death penalty. This is a pretty simple concept, the death penalty is not the same thing as anything else in our justice system. Comparing it to anything else is simply absurd. We can in fact tackle the death penalty without breaking the rest of the system, we can do it in simply and effectively. The justice system is not a house of cards that will crash down if we decide that a certain punishment is too hosed up to keep around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sorry you misunderstand, someone goes to prison for a year, after a year they are let out of prison, at this point their prison sentence can't be stopped. They can not be let out of prison again. If you oppose sentences that can't be stopped, you are opposed to finite prison sentences. Also fines. You do realize that you are essentially arguing that the death penalty as it is is fine, because otherwise we may hold an innocent person in prison for life. Welp, they are hosed anyway! Actually, what the gently caress are you arguing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I don't know, somehow the death penalty cases seem different. Why would that be? You can argue that the death penalty is both inefficient and ineffective, there are a lot of good arguments against it, but that there is an irrefutable like between it and other punishments is precisely what I am having trouble understanding, you're going to need to explain why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sorry you misunderstand, someone goes to prison for a year, after a year they are let out of prison, at this point their prison sentence can't be stopped. They can not be let out of prison again. If you oppose sentences that can't be stopped, you are opposed to finite prison sentences. Also fines. Dude there's a difference between stopping something and retroactively causing it to never have happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No, but if part of the argument against the death penalty is that you can't correct the error if it's found out that someone who was executed is innocent, that argument would also have to apply to a lot of other punishments, which are also similarly uncorrectable, yet it is not generally used against anything except the death penalty. Such as? The defining feature of the death penalty that we are discussing is the fact that you can't even make an attempt at restitution or recompense in any form. You can't give them money, or vindicate their name or do anything to give meaningful relief to the person because they are dead. quote:That ends future prison time, it does nothing for the years already taken. Which is still something. It isn't enough, not nearly enough but it is something that you cannot do for someone after you've given them a lethal injection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Pohl posted:You do realize that you are essentially arguing that the death penalty as it is is fine, because otherwise we may hold an innocent person in prison for life. Welp, they are hosed anyway! Pohl posted:I don't know, somehow the death penalty cases seem different. Why would that be? edit: Sharkie posted:Dude there's a difference between stopping something and retroactively causing it to never have happened. twodot fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:Punishments carried out can not be revoked. Time can not be undone. The death penalty is bad, but not because it is uniquely irrevocable. You're equating revoked with stopped. Death is uniquely irrevocable because you can't end death. You can end a prison sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Caros posted:Such as? The defining feature of the death penalty that we are discussing is the fact that you can't even make an attempt at restitution or recompense in any form. You can't give them money, or vindicate their name or do anything to give meaningful relief to the person because they are dead. Well, you could posthumously vindicate someone's name as easily in death as you could in life, if not more easily, as people are often wont to think better of the dead. But how does money fix the kind of prison sentence you would get in lieu of the death penalty? What can you realistically do to make that better? I don't see why making the attempt makes it any better, trying and failing does nothing but salve the conscience of the person trying, it does nothing for the person in need of restitution. Sharkie posted:You're equating revoked with stopped. Death is uniquely irrevocable because you can't end death. You can end a prison sentence. But you cannot revoke it. Thus it is not uniquely irrevocable. That is entirely the point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can argue that the death penalty is both inefficient and ineffective, there are a lot of good arguments against it, but that there is an irrefutable like between it and other punishments is precisely what I am having trouble understanding, you're going to need to explain why. So are you saying if we mistakenly jail someone for 30 years, or we mistakenly put them to death, it is the same thing? So why bother fixing anything, because nothing loving matters? Is that what you are saying? I'm going to say that everyone wanting to end the death penalty cares about those 30 years, probably more than you do. We care about how hosed up it is for innocent people to be in prison. We also have the capacity to tackle the problems involved as a whole and as individual pieces. Yes, it is an overarching problem we face, but it is also mufti-faceted. The home run would be fixing the entire system all at once, the single to left field is fixing the worst aspect of the system now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:Cool straw man, but I started this thread directly stating I'm opposed to the death penalty, so try again: You accept that people should not be punished unless they have committed an offence for which that punishment is the prescribed penalty (or, as neurotypicals might understand it, 'no reason'). You accept that where a person has been punished when they have not committed an offence for which that punishment is the prescribed penalty, the state should seek to compensate that person. You grudgingly accept that the reason that the state should seek to compensate that person is that people should not be punished unless they have committed an offence for which that punishment is the prescribed penalty. Despite this, you see no issue with the state prescribing penalties for which no compensation is possible. You see no inconsistency between this and the principle that where a person has been punished when they have not committed an offence for which that punishment is the prescribed penalty, the state should seek to compensate that person. This is because you are not as clever as you think you are, and rather than face up to this you are going to dance around this post with another tedious attempt at junior attorney reasoning rather than engage with the substance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:I at no point argued that death penalty is fine. What I've been arguing is that the death penalty is not special in the way people are saying. Punishments carried out can not be revoked. Time can not be undone. The death penalty is bad, but not because it is uniquely irrevocable. Also: See, this is where I just say you are a loving idiot. Yes, I realize I lose the argument at that point, but what the gently caress is there to argue? You are a loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Pohl posted:So are you saying if we mistakenly jail someone for 30 years, or we mistakenly put them to death, it is the same thing? So why bother fixing anything, because nothing loving matters? Is that what you are saying? I am saying that there are good reasons to withdraw the death penalty from general use, which could produce demonstrable and marked improvements to the justice system. However, the idea that we are somehow significantly ethically better for not killing people and instead merely irreparably ruining their lives with long term imprisonment, is an indulgent fantasy, both are so far beyond the pale that the distinction seems rather moot. Neither can be made amends for, and 'making an attempt' in the latter case counts for nothing. Save perhaps to make you feel better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:I at no point argued that death penalty is fine. What I've been arguing is that the death penalty is not special in the way people are saying. Punishments carried out can not be revoked. Time can not be undone. The death penalty is bad, but not because it is uniquely irrevocable. Because the death penalty is final you pedant. Here I'll lay it out for you with a goddamned example: Death Penalty Abolished State - Prisoner A is sentenced to life in prison. Fifteen years after his sentence begins DNA evidence comes to light proving his innocence and he is released. Death Penalty State - Prisoner A is sentenced to death. He is executed after fourteen years. One year later DNA evidence comes to light proving his innocence and he is released. Now yes you can argue that evidence might not have come to light, or it might have come to light after his natural death but that is an entirely different argument about our lovely judicial system. quote:And therefore all punishments should last forever so that we always possess the capability of stopping them? Of course not. But if we are talking the difference between life without parole or the death penalty the latter is clearly the worse option when it comes to correcting miscarriages of justice. quote:Are you prepared to argue that death is an eternal punishment? Eternal is a better qualifier as limited since limited would imply that it would end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:You accept that people should not be punished unless they have committed an offence for which that punishment is the prescribed penalty (or, as neurotypicals might understand it, 'no reason').
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yes, and? Someone is in prison, we possess the capability of stopping their sentence. We let them out of prison, at which point we lose the capability of stopping their sentence. Is letting them out a good idea? Of course it is, which means that the ability of a punishment to be stopped isn't a useful thing to talk about. Friend, you're attempting to show off your logic judo but in the process you've just managed to tie your legs in knots and punch yourself in the groin. At this point you're not making sense. It is a good thing to stop a wrong punishment. This can be done with a prison sentence, but not with a carried-out death sentence. The ability of a punishment to be stopped is useful to talk about because you have innocent people in prison who would very much like their punishment to be stopped. I'd sincerely love to see you tell them to their faces that their desire to have their punishment stopped "isn't a useful thing to talk about." OwlFancier posted:However, the idea that we are somehow significantly ethically better for not killing people and instead merely irreparably ruining their lives with long term imprisonment, is an indulgent fantasy, both are so far beyond the pale that the distinction seems rather moot. Neither can be made amends for, and 'making an attempt' in the latter case counts for nothing. Save perhaps to make you feel better. It is better not to kill an innocent person than to kill them = an indulgent fantasy. Got it. Go tell people who are working to release wrongfully imprisoned people and their clients that it counts for nothing. This is some seriously laughable thinking here. It's almost like some people care more about maintaining an internally consistent faux-logical argument than helping people! Sharkie fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
quote:Well, you could posthumously vindicate someone's name as easily in death as you could in life, if not more easily, as people are often wont to think better of the dead. But how does money fix the kind of prison sentence you would get in lieu of the death penalty? What can you realistically do to make that better? When I mentioned clearing the name I was specifically refering to the moral relief a person gets from being declared innocent, but I can see how you'd make the mistake. And again, I'm not arguing that money fixes anything, I'm arguing that the ability to let someone out of prison and offer them some form of restitution is ultimately something that the death penalty cannot offer in any way. Its not a case of life in prison for the innocent being a 'good' option so much as the death penalty being a very, very bad option. If you asked me if I'd rather be in jail for twenty years and then released or killed after fifteen (which is the average wait time), it would be a nobrainer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:I was going to dance around this post, but there isn't an actual argument to dance around. You appear to want me to engage with substance, but the only thing in here is you poorly characterizing what I believe. Where's the substance? Do you seriously expect me to argue with myself? So you seriously think that there's nothing wrong with the state adopting punishments for which it cannot compensate somebody if they have been wrongly inflicted, even though you also think that the state should seek to compensate those wrongfully punished? Honestly, at this point I'm just trying to work out what you actually think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Friend, you're attempting to show off your logic judo but in the process you've just managed to tie your legs in knots and punch yourself in the groin. At this point you're not making sense. It is a good thing to stop a wrong punishment. This can be done with a prison sentence, but not with a carried-out death sentence. Caros posted:Because the death penalty is final you pedant. Here I'll lay it out for you with a goddamned example: quote:Of course not. But if we are talking the difference between life without parole or the death penalty the latter is clearly the worse option when it comes to correcting miscarriages of justice. quote:Eternal is a better qualifier as limited since limited would imply that it would end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:It is better not to kill an innocent person than to kill them = an indulgent fantasy. Got it. Go tell people who are working to release wrongfully imprisoned people and their clients that it counts for nothing. This is some seriously laughable thinking here. It's almost like some people care more about maintaining an internally consistent faux-logical argument than helping people! "It is better not to kill an innocent person than to kill them" isn't the argument. That would be the argument for freeing people who have already been wrongfully convicted, if we are discussing the abolition of the death penalty in general, your choice is between decades of what amounts to torture, or death, because the former is far better than the latter, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:So you seriously think that there's nothing wrong with the state adopting punishments for which it cannot compensate somebody if they have been wrongly inflicted, even though you also think that the state should seek to compensate those wrongfully punished?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"It is better not to kill an innocent person than to kill them" isn't the argument. That would be the argument for freeing people who have already been wrongfully convicted, if we are discussing the abolition of the death penalty in general, your choice is between decades of what amounts to torture, or death, because the former is far better than the latter, apparently. You don't get to make that choice for other people. Also, it isn't like there isn't a massive movement to end lovely sentencing laws and there isn't a lot of support against throwing innocent people in prison. This isn't an all or nothing type thing. We can do both! The best we can do right now is end the death penalty part and then we can work on getting innocent people out of prison. We can also work on stopping lovely cops and District Attorneys from putting innocent people in prison. Goddamn. How about, we just stop killing people first?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:In both cases, the applied punishment is final, you can not unwind 15 years. You really are straight up autistic aren't you? Like not "Funny ha ha look at the silly guy on the forums" but like "This person does not understand the difference between life and death." The person that is released gets to live the rest of his life as a free man. The person that got the death penalty is dead and does not get to live the rest of his life at all, free or not. Do you seriously not understand that the ability to provide relief by ending the punishment is a good thing for our justice system to have. Hell, I'll ask again since you didn't reply last time, do you think we should have an appeals process? Because the whole point of our appeals process is to provide relief in cases, but apparently that isn't interesting so should we just scrap it? quote:Right, but I already explained that if we apply this reasoning generally, we would conclude that fines would preferable to imprisonment. No, because there are plenty of other reasons why we need to use incarceration, such as public safety. And according to you fines wouldn't be preferable because fines are 'final' too and somehow can't be corrected either. quote:I suppose this depends on what you consider the punishment. The execution certainly ends, and I don't believe we can punish dead people, but you could consider the eternity of death to be the punishment. In either case, it doesn't really affect the argument that our capability to stop a punishment isn't an interesting metric in the justness of the punishment. Why is it not interesting? Because you autistically argue that unless we can rewind time people don't gain any benefit from being set free after fifteen years as opposed to being dead and in the ground?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"It is better not to kill an innocent person than to kill them" isn't the argument. That would be the argument for freeing people who have already been wrongfully convicted, if we are discussing the abolition of the death penalty in general, your choice is between decades of what amounts to torture, or death, because the former is far better than the latter, apparently. No, that is the argument we are having here. This whole discussion is specifically talking about the fact that people who are convicted of the death penalty can prove to be innocent after the fact, and that in absence of the death penalty those people would go free once their innocence is proven. There are plenty of other arguments against the death penalty, this one is specifically about the murder of innocent people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:What? I've directly stated what I actually think multiple times. The death penalty is bad, but not because it is uniquely irrevocable (all carried out punishments can not be undone). You're trying to corner me into a poorly constructed logic trap, for reasons I don't understand. What you've oh-so-cutely avoided saying is that you don't think a person can be compensated for being imprisoned. I presume you have avoided saying this because you realise deep down that this position is incompatible with every modern system of justice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:What? I've directly stated what I actually think multiple times. The death penalty is bad, but not because it is uniquely irrevocable (all carried out punishments can not be undone). You're trying to corner me into a poorly constructed logic trap, for reasons I don't understand. So why do you think the death penalty is bad Captain Autism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Caros posted:The person that is released gets to live the rest of his life as a free man. The person that got the death penalty is dead and does not get to live the rest of his life at all, free or not. Do you seriously not understand that the ability to provide relief by ending the punishment is a good thing for our justice system to have. Hell, I'll ask again since you didn't reply last time, do you think we should have an appeals process? Because the whole point of our appeals process is to provide relief in cases, but apparently that isn't interesting so should we just scrap it? quote:No, because there are plenty of other reasons why we need to use incarceration, such as public safety. And according to you fines wouldn't be preferable because fines are 'final' too and somehow can't be corrected either. quote:Why is it not interesting? Because you autistically argue that unless we can rewind time people don't gain any benefit from being set free after fifteen years as opposed to being dead and in the ground? edit: Caros posted:So why do you think the death penalty is bad Captain Autism? edit: Nude Bog Lurker posted:What you've oh-so-cutely avoided saying is that you don't think a person can be compensated for being imprisoned. I presume you have avoided saying this because you realise deep down that this position is incompatible with every modern system of justice. twodot fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:Because it's nonsensical! Can you stop a fine already paid? A prison sentence already served? Of course not, yet we regard those as just punishments.  If I take your money as a fine, I can never make this right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:You aren't paying attention. You can't stop the prison sentence of someone out of prison. You can't stop the payment of a fine that's already been paid. We shouldn't evaluate the justness of punishments on the basis of whether or not they can be stopped. You can prevent them from serving the remainder of their sentence, which is not possible for with an executed person. We recognize that the justice system can make mistakes, so it's better to make a mistake which can be ended than one that can't. Yes it sucks that we can't rewind time to make the lost years never exist, but it's better to mistakenly take away 10 years of a person's life than to take away every year of life they could ever have. Nude Bog Lurker posted:Honestly, at this point I'm just trying to work out what you actually think. twodot posted:What? I've directly stated what I actually think multiple times. The death penalty is bad, but not because it is uniquely irrevocable (all carried out punishments can not be undone). You're trying to corner me into a poorly constructed logic trap, for reasons I don't understand. Your entire argument isn't even about the death penalty, really. It's the ethical and logical equivalent of a physics student going up to engineers working on a project, and telling them it's not satisfying to you because they aren't following the formulas you've used that involve perfect frictionless spheres. OwlFancier posted:Death penalty in general, your choice is between decades of what amounts to torture, or death, because the former is far better than the latter, apparently. So you're saying it doesn't matter if people are wrongfully executed, because otherwise they'll still have served time in prison? Talk about unconvincing arguments!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:You can prevent them from serving the remainder of their sentence, which is not possible for with an executed person. We recognize that the justice system can make mistakes, so it's better to make a mistake which can be ended than one that can't. Yes it sucks that we can't rewind time to make the lost years never exist, but it's better to mistakenly take away 10 years of a person's life than to take away every year of life they could ever have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:We can conceivably compensate you, but we can never give back the loss opportunities missed because of the punishment (otherwise it would not be a punishment). Presumably if I broke into your house and stole your computer, you wouldn't want it back since I could never return the lost opportunities to practice your autism in D&D. twodot posted:Yes it is better to mistakenly take away 10 years of a person's life than to kill them, please see where I already addressed this argument, that following this reasoning implies an infinite regression of softer and softer punishments for the fear of being mistaken. I don't think I've ever seen the slippery slope argument used to explain why we should keep killing innocent people before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
twodot is meeting with Sam, a prisoner, talking to each other over phones between a window of bulletproof glass. Sam says "so, you think you can get me out of here, now that the DNA evidence has exonerated me?" twodot presses a hand-drawn logic tree against the glass and starts shouting "What does it matter?" and babbling about infinite regression, saying "I can never get you out, really, without a time machine..." Sam hangs up and walks off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Kimble: I didn't kill my wife! Special Agent Twodot: Yes, but how will you ever recover the lost opportunities from being in prison? Might as well go back on death row, you realise if we let you go soon we'll start treating prisoners humanely! Kimble: yes i see now there was no point trying to exonerate myself, i might as well get in the chair now
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yes, we should have an appeals process. I never suggested otherwise. Your posts sure do. What does the appeal matter, we can't give these people back the time we've taken from them, and clearly future prospects don't figure into your equations. quote:So you would be in favor of the death penalty if there were other reasons to support it, such as public safety? You realize the people who are in favor of the death penalty, will absolutely argue that we need it just as badly as we need incarceration. If there were sufficient arguments in favor of it, and I mean a LOT of them? Maybe, yeah. My argument against the death penalty isn't purely a moral one, its certainly emboldened by the fact that the death penalty has no redeeming features whatsoever beyond simple vengeance seeking. quote:Because it's nonsensical! Can you stop a fine already paid? A prison sentence already served? Of course not, yet we regard those as just punishments. I'm going to start beating you with this pipe around fifteen times. Now would you like me to stop, or would you prefer I just kill you? You are arguing that there would be no real difference between the two because I've already beaten you with the pipe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
So if killing a killer is sinking society to their level, is arresting them and putting them in prison sinking society to the level of a kidnapper?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Caros posted:
Opportunity cost. Or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:40 |
|
|
Caros posted:Your posts sure do. What does the appeal matter, we can't give these people back the time we've taken from them, and clearly future prospects don't figure into your equations. quote:I'm going to start beating you with this pipe around fifteen times. Now would you like me to stop, or would you prefer I just kill you? You are arguing that there would be no real difference between the two because I've already beaten you with the pipe. edit: There should be a clear difference between "Your reason for thinking these things are categorically different is wrong" and "These things are not categorically different", especially after I made sure my first words were to express that I do believe these things to be categorically different. twodot fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:06
|
|