For those against the Death Penalty

[*michaelsean*]

(07-03-2018, 02:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Being a deterrent is not the only way to insure domestic tranquility. That can be insured with removal from society, which can be resolved with imprisonment the same as execution. So perhaps I should have been more specific in my post, but I thought I had gotten wordy enough.

So if removing them from society accomplishes that, then the death penalty accomplishes that.  So we are back to the standard reasons for opposing it.  What I'm trying to say is I think there's a lot of looking into something that isn't there.  

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-03-2018, 02:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But if life in prison is unjustly applied, then you have more time to correct the injustice. Also, I don't agree with life in prison except in extreme circumstances. But one step at a time.


I know that Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison all opposed the death penalty and took measures to limit its use if not eliminate it entirely. It'd be hard to get a poll of all of the framers, but there was a substantial number of them that included some of the more influential thinkers in the group that formed the basis for our government that were opposed to it.

Didn't Washington have some of his officers executed for walking away from their posts because congress wasn't paying them or something like that?

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't answer the question Fred, just asked another one.

I did not really understand your comments.

First you said no one wanted to execute anyone who was mentally ill.  Then you said we need to "draw a line" at this guy who allegedly attacked kids.

So I could not tell if you were in favor of executing this guy even if he was mentally ill because that is where you "draw the line".

To answer your other question about locking up mentally ill people "Yes"  I am in favor of locking them up and giving them treatment, but only as long as they are a danger to society.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-03-2018, 02:39 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Didn't Washington have some of his officers executed for walking away from their posts because congress wasn't paying them or something like that?

He did in "Turn".  That was brutal.

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 02:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks go to trail by a jury of their peers and are found to be guilty or not. For someone that works in the court system you sure don't have much faith in it.  

Working in it is the reason I know enough not to have 100% faith in it.

I know more about the mistakes and flaws than any of you.

[fredtoast]

EVERYONE has heard a story of a person being released from death row due to a mistake in the criminal justice system.  Everyone knows that innocent people get convicted.

So anyone who still supports the death penalty is in favor of killing innocent people.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-03-2018, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Working in it is the reason I know enough not to have 100% faith in it.

I know more about the mistakes and flaws than any of you.

He threw you a softball there.  

Sorry bfine, but everyone saw this answer a mile away. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2018, 02:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So if removing them from society accomplishes that, then the death penalty accomplishes that.  So we are back to the standard reasons for opposing it.  What I'm trying to say is I think there's a lot of looking into something that isn't there.

If two things can have the same effect, but one also violates other values, then the other is preferable. I disagree that I'm looking into something that isn't there. To be fair, life imprisonment wasn't something our founders would have been all in for, either, but that wasn't a typical thing to occur at the time. I forget who it was that said it, but it was either a founder or one of the philosophers they based their thoughts on who said that any punishment more than is necessary is an act of tyranny. If the goal is permanent removal from society, then it can be achieved with life imprisonment and putting them to death is unnecessary, which makes it an act of tyranny.

Edit: I know that this retort was very much a stream of consciousness, so hopefully you can follow it.

(07-03-2018, 02:39 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Didn't Washington have some of his officers executed for walking away from their posts because congress wasn't paying them or something like that?

He did, and then also requested Congress to severely limit the use of capital punishment. The military isn't a democracy, especially at war.

[Benton]

(07-03-2018, 02:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But what if we don't find out about the mistake? You still didn't answer if we should lock people up for being mentally ill. Do you want to answer that or do you want to concede how ignorant your reply about killing folks because of it was?

Folks go to trail by a jury of their peers and are found to be guilty or not. For someone that works in the court system you sure don't have much faith in it.  

Locking some people up is the only way for them to get mental health care. Not that I'm advocating incarcerating people for their own "benefit" but that's our 'deal with the results, not the problem' approach. Like a guy I know in Tennessee, the only time he can afford his bipolar meds is when he's a guest of the state... which happens about once every two years as he ends up not having them and doing something stupid.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-03-2018, 02:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If two things can have the same effect, but one also violates other values, then the other is preferable. I disagree that I'm looking into something that isn't there. To be fair, life imprisonment wasn't something our founders would have been all in for, either, but that wasn't a typical thing to occur at the time. I forget who it was that said it, but it was either a founder or one of the philosophers they based their thoughts on who said that any punishment more than is necessary is an act of tyranny. If the goal is permanent removal from society, then it can be achieved with life imprisonment and putting them to death is unnecessary, which makes it an act of tyranny.

Edit: I know that this retort was very much a stream of consciousness, so hopefully you can follow it.


He did, and then also requested Congress to severely limit the use of capital punishment. The military isn't a democracy, especially at war.

Well you should tell that to some anti-death penalty people who claim life in prison is worse.  Damn tyrants is what they are.  

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 02:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He threw you a softball there.  

Sorry bfine, but everyone saw this answer a mile away. 

Well, I most likely know the flaws of the Military than many here. That doesn't mean I do not trust it as an institution. Seems if I felt differently; I'd look for new profession.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: EVERYONE has heard a story of a person being released from death row due to a mistake in the criminal justice system.  Everyone knows that innocent people get convicted.

So anyone who still supports the death penalty is in favor of killing innocent people.

Anyone that supports life in prison is in favor of locking up innocent people for the rest of their lives.

Anyone that supports locking up anyone for anything is in favor of locking up innocent people.

[GMDino]

(07-03-2018, 03:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anyone that supports life in prison is in favor of locking up innocent people for the rest of their lives.

Anyone that supports locking up anyone for anything is in favor of locking up innocent people.

So if we admit a flawed system is not better to have a chance to correct an error by setting a person free than to find out after the state killed them?

Or should we continue your line of "thought" and say anyone that supports arresting people is in favor or arresting innocent people?

[GMDino]

(07-03-2018, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well, I most likely know the flaws of the Military than many here. That doesn't mean I do not trust it as an institution. Seems if I felt differently; I'd look for new profession.

Are they flaws which can be corrected at a later time?

Because the death penalty is not one of those. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-03-2018, 02:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: EVERYONE has heard a story of a person being released from death row due to a mistake in the criminal justice system.  Everyone knows that innocent people get convicted.

So anyone who still supports the death penalty is in favor of killing innocent people.

Getting the death penalty may have saved them a life of incarceration as death penalty cases get far more attention.  Just saying.

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 03:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well, I most likely know the flaws of the Military than many here. That doesn't mean I do not trust it as an institution. Seems if I felt differently; I'd look for new profession.

I am a criminal defense attorney.  My job is to protect people form the mistakes of the system.

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2018, 03:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anyone that supports life in prison is in favor of locking up innocent people for the rest of their lives.

Wrong.  I am only for locking them up until any mistakes are corrected.

[*bfine32*]

These death case threads always end the same. if you support it in very unique cases, then you are "in favor of killing innocent people."

We have a judicial system, it is not perfect, nothing is or ever will be. By taking the death penalty of the table you take away a deterrent, a chance for closure for many families, and a just punishment in many cases.

Of course these cases should be closely vetted and all ambiguity removed. However; if someone meets a strict set of guidelines I have no problem. The dude in the OP is just one such case

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2018, 03:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  I am only for locking them up until any mistakes are corrected.

And I'm only for the death penalty in cases where mistake is miniscule and/or non-existent.

So you're only in favor of locking an innocent person up for life if the mistake is never found?

[Benton]

(07-03-2018, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: These death case threads always end the same. if you support it in very unique cases, then you are "in favor of killing innocent people."

We have a judicial system, it is not perfect, nothing is or ever will be. By taking the death penalty of the table you take away a deterrent, a chance for closure for many families, and a just punishment in many cases.

Of course these cases should be closely vetted and all ambiguity removed. However; if someone meets a strict set of guidelines I have no problem. The dude in the OP is just one such case

Customer: "I'll take a #2, no pickles."
Cashier: "#2, no pickles."
Cook: [hears #2, pickles; makes sandwich with pickles; serves sandwich]
Customer: [eats pickle-laden sandwich, dies]
Grieving customer: "You bastard, you killed Kenny. You need to have a better system in place.
Observer whose order didn't get messed up: "Quit complaining, no system is perfect."