Jump to content

Death Penalty


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I do always say jokingly that I'm consistently inconsistent. Some things need to be improved by stacking small changes on top of one another. Others need top down reform. You have to evaluate each situation on its own and not go into it with any prejudice, best that you can.  

I realize that you are (once again) trying to joke/banter your way out of a corner, but this actually gets to the very heart of the problem. When people are discussing fundamental changes that are necessary (ex. health care, income inequality) you lecture, belittle, or angrily scream at them (occasionally with all caps) about how slow and steady incrementalism is the only way to go (something that, depending on the topic at hand, I don't necessarly disagree with, btw). 

But then when people are discussing a potential incremental step, such as in this case the elimination of the death penalty as a step towards overall justice reform (or banning tear gas as a step towards police reform, as per that other thread) then all of a sudden you argue that such an incremental step can't be taken on its own and that the complete reform has to be done in one fell swoop.

It feels like you're sandbagging people. If health care is too big and complex to change in one go and needs to be done incrementally (again, I tend to agree) to then argue that complete justice reform (which would require not only the cooperation of all three branches of the federal level, but also the same in every one of all 50 states, all at once!) can be (and according to you needs to be) done all in one single step is completely disingenuous, because you very well know that will never, ever happen. 

If you're fine with the status quo on a particular topic, have the guts to say so. If you're constantly arguing against all proposed changes (because they are either too incremental or not incremental enough), then the status quo remaining in place is the logical outcome of your position anyway. You're actually very consistent on that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

However, this is not likely to stay this way forever. There are advances being made in both mind-machine interfaces and biology which will eventually solve this technological problem. When it is finally solved, we can actually have an extreme degree of confidence more often than not and dispense with the stretched out system of appeals. Would you allow for the death penalty in that case?

This desire to roll back the amount of appeals an individual is allowed to have before government is allowed to kill them always struck me as wrong.

Technology advances all the time to be sure, but mistakes do still occur, those in law enforcement don’t always act professionally.

There have been cases where someone after decades on death row where exonerated due to new technology, or the revelation of incompetence or maliciousness on the part of law enforcement that lead to their convictions.

To want to decrease the amount of appeals makes it more likely for an innocent person to be executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may sound extremely controversial , but I feel a death row inmate should at least have some options on whose allowed to witness their execution.

It should be up to them if their victims’ family 

Their deaths shouldn’t be a spectacle to satisfy a particular blood lust no matter justified such blood lust may seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

However I still have doubts over the very concept of rehabilitative justice. What do we do with an inmate that comes out of the system and back onto the streets a much more hardened criminal than the one we locked up in the first place?

As I understand it Nordic nations have fairly good track records with rehabilitation of criminals with very low recidivism rates.  They also have robust social safety nets to help prevent people from resorting to crime when desperate in the first place.  

The US is among the worst in the world for recidivism because we lock people away to punish, not to correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

I realize that you are (once again) trying to joke/banter your way out of a corner, but this actually gets to the very heart of the problem. When people are discussing fundamental changes that are necessary (ex. health care, income inequality) you lecture, belittle, or angrily scream at them (occasionally with all caps) about how slow and steady incrementalism is the only way to go (something that, depending on the topic at hand, I don't necessarly disagree with, btw). 

But then when people are discussing a potential incremental step, such as in this case the elimination of the death penalty as a step towards overall justice reform (or banning tear gas as a step towards police reform, as per that other thread) then all of a sudden you argue that such an incremental step can't be taken on its own and that the complete reform has to be done in one fell swoop.

It feels like you're sandbagging people. If health care is too big and complex to change in one go and needs to be done incrementally (again, I tend to agree) to then argue that complete justice reform (which would require not only the cooperation of all three branches of the federal level, but also the same in every one of all 50 states, all at once!) can be (and according to you needs to be) done all in one single step is completely disingenuous, because you very well know that will never, ever happen. 

If you're fine with the status quo on a particular topic, have the guts to say so. If you're constantly arguing against all proposed changes (because they are either too incremental or not incremental enough), then the status quo remaining in place is the logical outcome of your position anyway. You're actually very consistent on that

When did I say I was fine with the status quo? I did initially say that the death penalty needs to be reformed, but that it could be a mistake to completely do away with it. And to your third paragraph, it's all about prioritization. Where do you rank the need to reform or eliminate the death penalty in the broader picture of criminal justice reform? Personally I think it's a second or third tier issue, so it's not going to be my main focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

When did I say I was fine with the status quo?

You didn’t, and that was the point. Re-read the first word of my fourth/last paragraph (imagine it in bold, if that helps), and then re-read the rest of it, because you obviously clearly didn’t get the overall meaning the first time around.

Quote

I did initially say that the death penalty needs to be reformed, but that it could be a mistake to completely do away with it. And to your third paragraph, it's all about prioritization. Where do you rank the need to reform or eliminate the death penalty in the broader picture of criminal justice reform? Personally I think it's a second or third tier issue, so it's not going to be my main focus.

That’s a very different argument from what you said earlier.

If you personally feel that eliminating the death penalty is a low priority, just say so from the get-go! It’s a valid personal opinion (even if I strongly disagree with it). But have the guts to own it. Don’t bullshit people with [paraphrasing] ‘that could only be done in conjunction with a thorough, systematic reform of the entire U.S. justice system, which has to all take place at the same moment.’ 

Justice reform (both federally and on the state level) will have to happen incrementally. You know this. You are basically Mr. Incremental personified on this board. You yourself have (in other contexts, such as health care) said yourself that those who push for too much, too soon, will fail, and thereby unwittingly perpetuate the status quo. 

So you suddenly pretending to be a convert to the “go big or go home” crowd seems rather odd. Unless you’re perfectly happy for the status quo to prevail, but are unwilling to say so...? :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is.  It shouldn’t be.  It should be about giving people the skills and education to not be criminals.

You're right, I'm being a bitch. In radical Jaceland we would vote on pretty much everything of import, including individual sentencing, but as you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is.  It shouldn’t be.  It should be about giving people the skills and education to not be criminals.

Exactly- AND it should include prevention. If we had universal coverage for treatment of addiction, universal education access, fewer and smarter drug laws, and a very strong social safety net- we wouldn’t have so many “criminals” to begin with. We are doing it all wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Exactly- AND it should include prevention. If we had universal coverage for treatment of addiction, universal education access, fewer and smarter drug laws, and a very strong social safety net- we wouldn’t have so many “criminals” to begin with. We are doing it all wrong.

that all sounds super neat and all. however, prisons are big business and institutional racism is our national identity. 

golly. what might happen if people were given a chance to beat drugs without prisons and there were societal changes to give everyone a level chance at success? yeah. that sounds crazy. 

easier just to keep filling prisons and when 'justified' state sanctioned murder. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MercenaryChef said:

that all sounds super neat and all. however, prisons are big business and institutional racism is our national identity. 

golly. what might happen if people were given a chance to beat drugs without prisons and there were societal changes to give everyone a level chance at success? yeah. that sounds crazy. 

easier just to keep filling prisons and when 'justified' state sanctioned murder. 

Oh yeah, it’s not going to change, but I think it’d be helpful if people here understood that this isn’t the only way to do it and that we only do it this way to get off on some revenge fantasy about bad guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not against the DP, I think some crimes deserve death, but it isn't something I care deeply about one way or other other.  The last guy the feds executed was convicted, and appears w/out any doubt to be guilty as hell, of systematically beating, burning and torturing his 2 year old daughter and then killing her by banging her head against the dashboard of his truck.  I'm not sure this dude's problem was lack of education or skills.  Some people are bad and some are irredeemable.  My own view is that people who torture and kill small children and animals fit in this category and I do not give two fucks that they executed him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...