DEATH for the DC sniper

[xfer]

it's a poor argument that we should sanction the state to murder people because it costs too much not to.

anyway, because of the lengthy appeals processes death-penalty cases make, it's almost always cheaper to lock the inmate up for life than it is to kill him. unless you suggest limiting appeals and legal process for death-penalty inmates, which i think is horrible idea.

 

[FalseTodd]

This is the classic argument that people use...from a financial standpoint? No, absolutely not. The appeals process for a capital punishment case is typically (I believe) more expensive than a lifetime of crappy food heat and hot water.

Burden as in "Someone has to watch over him and take care of the building and cook, etc"? Weelllll, he's one prisoner amongst hundreds of thousands. I guess I could see that, but I don't think it significant enough to kill somebody over.

 

[FalseTodd]

Wow. We said the same muthafuckin thing.

 

[xfer]

killing someone because you don't want to deal with them is, like, Chinese-level evil.

 

[goatschool]

LOL fucked Liberals

 

[FuSoYa]

I wasn't thinking of it from a financial point of view. From a strictly principled point of view, I wouldn't want even one penny to go towards the life support of certain individuals. Not one half a penny. Not one millionth of a penny. And to decry something as 'evil' just because you disagree with it is worthless. What if in my opinion, that wasn't evil, it was just pragmatic?

And murder? Give me break, it's not the same thing at all.

And personally, I support the killing of motherfuckers for even "lesser" crimes. How about that.

 

[xfer]

There are costs associated with being a civilized, free, equal, enlightened, good cultural system. For example, it's required that we allow Holocaust deniers to say their shit, no matter how galling it is.

Another cost is that we have to pay for the food eaten by a terrible murderer type. It sucks, in a way, but it's one of the many things that makes the society able to say "Yeah, we're a good society, about as good as human society can get. Or at least we're honestly trying."

 

[xfer]

You can rationalize any sort of murder once you accept that some murder can be rationalized. "Oh, that's execution for serial killing, by the state--that's different." "Oh, that's a military incursion--that's different." "Oh, that guy was an abortion provider--that's different."

 

[xfer]

Or, by the same token, an unborn baby.

 

[lizard]

xfer won't stop debating in a non existent debate about the death penalty.

 

[xfer]

hey, goatschool is carrying this thread.

 

[xfer]

and whatever I'll just pull a reverse preppy and compile all my posts in this thread into an LJ post.

 

[FuSoYa]

Alex, it is different. The only reason to think otherwise is to set a rule for yourself never to kill but only just in case you're wrong. At what point can it no longer be rationalized? None, of course. But if you kill an abortion provider because you really really believe it's right, then you should be ready to accept the consequences.

This is why we as a society so feverishly prevent certain people from ever being in the position where they can exercise their true will, because even if on a universal scale they may be right, on a societal scale it'll fuck things up.

 

[xfer]

But the reasoning behind free-speech laws is the same: we don't ban ideas because we know that even though our government today may be honestly interested in banning only Nazi hate speech, by doing so you're saying "Yeah, the government and people can decide what ideas are good and bad, and squelch those that are bad." Today Holocaust denying, tomorrow socialized health care.

(p.s. this thread is crushing proof that Canada is evil)

 

[FalseTodd]

What if in my opinion, that wasn't evil, it was just pragmatic?

If that was your opinion, I'd say it was a shitty one. Also, you said it was a principled decision, not a pragmatic one. Pragmatic would be, what's the cheapest, most efficient way to do this? Given the hundreds of hours of court cases , etc. execution is not pragmatic.

You may not want to give half a penny to pay for this guy to live, but you'll end up giving thousands of them to have people hear all about how he should be allowed to. What's the difference?

You said earlier that this didn't have to involve playing God. What is more playing God than saying "this person doesn't deserve to live"?

And murder? Give me break, it's not the same thing at all.

I agree, it's not precisely the same thing, I just kinda spit that out before I left for work. However, I don't think it's totally invalid either. It's too easy to lose sight of the fact that you are killing a person. It's just that when you start eliminating justifications for the death penalty (finacial costs, deterrment, etc.) you end up at the ugly conclusion that it is vindication and revenge at work.

 

[xfer]

I find that almost every death-penalty argument I have has two parts: the first half, where we argue about whether or not the death penalty is primarily about vengeance, and the second half, where the pro-death person admits that and argues that it's not a bad thing.

I wish I could just skip to the second step all the time. It seems like there's much more room for opinion and debate there, when the first half just seems like a foregone conclusion.

 

[FuSoYa]

Yes, I know. I'm saying that basically you only have opposition because you want to keep your government in check.

It has nothing to do with the morality of it, or the fact that you believe the desire for vengeance to be 'fucked'.

 

[xfer]

Sure it is, but what I'm saying is that there's multiple good reasons against the death penalty. If some ugga-bugga savage from Namibia or Saudi Arabia or Alabama wants to argue that it's moral to exult in vengeful slayings, I can point to objective and accurate reasons why the death penalty is still bad without having to retort NUH UH IT'S WRONG! and no more.

 

[FuSoYa]

You're basically saying that J.A.M. shouldn't have gotten death only because certain other people who have gotten death might not have deserved it.

OR you are saying that J.A.M. shouldn't have gotten death because you have a moral objection to killing, regardless of circumstance.

OR you are saying that J.A.M. shouldn't have gotten death because the government's power ought to be restricted.

The fact remains, the dude would best serve society by dying.

 

[xfer]

your conclusion that his death rules is a total non sequitur.