http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/15/BAGC0N0HHG3.DTL<b>Judge says California's lethal-injection method is flawed</b>

(12-15) 14:24 PST SAN JOSE -- California's method of executing condemned prisoners by lethal injection lacks safeguards, is carried out by poorly trained staff and will be declared unconstitutional unless the state fixes the problems, a federal judge ruled today.

The procedures, in use at San Quentin State Prison since 1996, pose a "undue and unnecessary risk of an Eighth Amendment violation,'' said U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, referring to the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

He said records of executions raised questions about whether prisoners are always rendered unconscious before they are injected with potentially painful drugs that kill them. Testimony also revealed that untrained and unsupervised prison staff performed executions in overcrowded, poorly lit conditions, Fogel said.

He gave state officials 30 days to decide whether they will change the procedures.

Fogel presided over the four-day hearing into lethal injections in September after issuing a stay of execution in February to Michael Morales of Stockton, convicted of raping and fatally battering 17-year-old Terri Winchell of Lodi in 1981.

That ruling, which Fogel issued after the state tried unsuccessfully to recruit doctors to monitor Morales' level of unconsciousness, effectively put executions in California on hold.Let's hope this is the first nail in the coffin of this barbaric practice.

Oh, and for those who think lethal injection is quick, painless, and humane:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/12/14/national/a140243S12.DTL<b>Fla. to Investigate 34-Minute Execution</b>

(12-15) 00:41 PST Jacksonville, Fla. (AP) --

Defense attorneys and death penalty opponents were outraged Thursday over an execution in which the condemned man took more than half an hour to die, needed a rare second dose of lethal chemicals, and appeared to grimace in his final moments.

"I am definitely appalled at what happened. I have no doubt he suffered unduly," Angel Nieves Diaz's attorney, Suzanne Myers Keffer, said after Diaz died by injection.

Executions in Florida normally take about 15 minutes, with the inmate rendered unconscious and motionless within the first three to five minutes. But Diaz took 34 minutes to die and appeared to be moving for most of that time.

Foes of capital punishment seized on the execution to argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, just as they did after two inmates' heads caught fire in Florida's electric chair in 1990 and 1997 and a condemned man suffered a severe nosebleed in 2000 during his electrocution.

Those cases led Florida to get rid of the electric chair and switch to lethal injection, which was portrayed as more humane and more reliable.

"This is paralleling to an extraordinary degree what was happening to the electric chair in Florida," said Deborah Denno, a Fordham University law professor who has written extensively about the death penalty. "But this execution is worse. This inmate was conscious."

Damn!

No medical professional, however, was willing to participate.

"Federal Judge Declares Calif. Executions Unconstitutional"

http://www.kcra.com/news/10548127/detail.html

/raises hand

"He(the judge) ordered anesthesiologists to be on hand, or demanded that a licensed medical professional inject a large, fatal dose of a sedative instead of the additional paralyzing agent and heart-stopping drugs used."

I will help Mike along, for free, and he will feel no pain. Might make him constipated for the next few days, though(hope that is not too much pain for the idiot judge).

I went to school with Terri Winchell. I was friends with Mike's brother Chris. Mike raped, sodomized, bashed her head in with a hammer(and fvcked her with it), then cut off her breasts while she was still alive.

If this society deems that Mike be given a painless death, I will help out for free.

I went to school with Terri Winchell. I was friends with Mike's brother Chris. Mike raped, sodomized, bashed her head in with a hammer(and fvcked her with it), then cut off her breasts while she was still alive.Revenge isn't a justification for brutality.

It's funny though, I expected one of the bloodthirsty Christian zealots (or Texans) to be the first to chime in with the revenge angle.No medical professional, however, was willing to participate.That isn't the reason it was found unconstitutional.I will help Mike along, for free, and he will feel no pain.How do you know? Do you typically inject patients with sedatives, then drugs to stop all muscular activity? Do you register their pain levels? Death from asphyxiation or heart attack can be extremely painful.

Has nothing to do with revenge.

Just an observation about how it is ironic that everyone seems so concerned with a form of punishment which is relatively painless to a man who inflicted about the most pain on a person which is humanly possible.

Not revenge at all, really. I have very little emotion, good or bad, about the whole thing. It would just be a really good opportunity to kill someone who absolutely deserves to be killed.

What is really insane and absurd is using a small phrase in the Constitution, which was never intended the way it is interpreted today, is the rationale for this whole large fecalith that we call Justice.

If someone did that to my daughter, I would just hunt the fvck down and slit his throat, and save you all the hassle and hypocrisy. And just for fun, I would boil the meat off of his skull, lacquer it up, and set it on my fireplace mantle.

Do you typically inject patients with sedatives, then drugs to stop all muscular activity? Do you register their pain levels? Death from asphyxiation or heart attack can be extremely painful.

All the time, actually.

Not to kill them, of course, but to make sure they are not feeling pain.

Besides, after you're dead, you don't feel any pain, anyways. You certainly won't remember it, that much is certain. But what we are talking about is not really about them, is it, it is about us; about the doo goodie good knee jerks and their feelings.

All the time, actually.

Not to kill them, of course, but to make sure they are not feeling pain.You give them medications to stop their heart and all muscle activity, but not to kill them?

The question is not whether you sedate patients. The question is whether you sedate them, then inject them with lethal doses of two medications to stop their heart and other muscles, while insuring they do not suffer pain.

Do you do that all the time?

Has nothing to do with revenge.

Just an observation about how it is ironic that everyone seems so concerned with a form of punishment which is relatively painless to a man who inflicted about the most pain on a person which is humanly possible.

Not revenge at all, really. I have very little emotion, good or bad, about the whole thing. It would just be a really good opportunity to kill someone who absolutely deserves to be killed.If it isn't revenge, then what he did (or what you think he did) is irrelevant. He's in prison, he cannot harm society any longer and an execution protects no one.

The motivation behind executions in these instances is simple bloodlust. It's a convenient, legal channel for your otherwise illegal impulses.

The problem is, it's also barbaric and perpetuates the concept that revenge is an adequate justification for killing.What is really insane and absurd is using a small phrase in the Constitution, which was never intended the way it is interpreted today, is the rationale for this whole large fecalith that we call Justice.The concept of "cruel and unusual" isn't fixed, it depends on the collective views of society, at the time it's applied. If it were otherwise, inquisitions and torture of religious heretics could be considered constitutionally permissible.If someone did that to my daughter, I would just hunt the fvck down and slit his throat, and save you all the hassle and hypocrisy. And just for fun, I would boil the meat off of his skull, lacquer it up, and set it on my fireplace mantle.Yep, that would solve the problem of violence and bring back your daughter. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif> At least you'd have a long time to ponder your actions as you spend the rest of your life behind bars.

You give them medications to stop their heart and all muscle activity, but not to kill them?
No, I thought I was clear.
I give medications to prevent pain, and to sedate patients, and prevent somatic muscle movement. Just in case I was not clear. And I have given hundreds of patients meds to slow their hearts, but not stop them; it is just a matter of dosage to push it to that point.

The question is not whether you sedate patients. The question is whether you sedate them, then inject them with lethal doses of two medications to stop their heart and other muscles, while insuring they do not suffer pain.
I have had plenty of patients who have died; and during the process of dying I have given medications to prevent pain.

I have been present during surgical procedures where a heart was intentionally stopped for over 3 hours. Stopped completely(it was restarted again, of course). This was at the beginning of my schooling and training, and I was merely an observer. But it happens all the time.

And you really don't need 2 different meds, pain meds(opioids) will stop hearts and lungs as well as relieve all pain simultaneously. I could kill Mike with water or oxygen too(and he would not feel any pain), it is just a matter of dosage.

Do you do that all the time?
What that?

And sometimes it takes time for a person to die, if your intent is to help make the process be painless(or less painful). I don't know where the notion of speed enters into the subject, but you brought it up as some form of requirement.

I have had patients who are brain dead, and their heart has stopped beating, but they continue to breath, 30 minutes or more after. I have had brain dead patients who have stopped breathing, and their hearts beat for 15-30 minutes after.

And limbs may move after brain death, heart death, and with no respirations.

It's not like the movies, or your TV shows.

I didn't know California even executed people anymore, I just thought you guys let them rot on Death Row from ages 21 to whenever they die in their 70's in a single cell with fifteen minutes of time in the outdoors. Because you know, that's much more humane.

Hate to say it, but I think the French had it right. Guillotine.
Hmm... but I guess the liberals would probably whine about the head being alive for xx-seconds before the brain died.
I guess the best option at that point would be a 1 ton block of cement dropped right on the head. I don't think they'll feel much pain.

If it isn't revenge, then what he did (or what you think he did) is irrelevant. He's in prison, he cannot harm society any longer and an execution protects no one.
You are entitled to your opinion, even if you are wrong.

The motivation behind executions in these instances is simple bloodlust. It's a convenient, legal channel for your otherwise illegal impulses.
Again, merely your opinion, and it is wrong. I don't lust for blood. I just have no problem with the concept of killing someone who deserves it. Maybe you could call it bloodlike, instead. I would like to kill him, I would love to be given the opportunity, to like to kill him. But not lust.

The problem is, it's also barbaric and perpetuates the concept that revenge is an adequate justification for killing.
Barbaric would be like your friends in Iraq, who pulled people of their cars, set them on fire, then dragged their bodies through the streets, then hung the carcasses up from a bridge over the Tigres river.

Barbaric is what Mike Morales did. An IV is not barbaric. I put IVs in all the time, and while I have had some squirmers and squealers, it is a common occurance which people must endure(if they are to accept healthcare). And the minimal pain is acceptable to the practice.

The concept of "cruel and unusual" isn't fixed, it depends on the collective views of society, at the time it's applied.
And that is why I am willing to have this discussion with you. Your concept of what is cruel and unusual needs to be countered, so that people remain rational about the idea. Big jump from putting an IV line in, then giving pain meds to kill someone to putting someone on the rack or in an Iron Maiden. One could almost say, that it is some form of slippery slope argument, no?

If it were otherwise, inquisitions and torture of religious heretics could be considered constitutionally permissible.
NOW, you see it. That was the intention of the phrase included in the Constitution. Not what we are talking about.

Yep, that would solve the problem of violence and bring back your daughter.
Why would you think that would be my motivation? Those are silly notions.

At least you'd have a long time to ponder your actions as you spend the rest of your life behind bars.
Really? I have pondered those actions for most my life. What difference would it make if the rest of you caught me for doing it(which I would doubt you would do)? Would not change anything.

I don't lust for blood. I just have no problem with the concept of killing someone who deserves it. Maybe you could call it bloodlike, instead. I would like to kill him, I would love to be given the opportunity, to like to kill him. But not lust.Round and round we go with circular reasoning.

Why would you like to kill him? He presents zero danger to society. There is no cost or deterrence benefit.

Don't tell me you'd like to do it, or he "deserves it". Tell me why.Your concept of what is cruel and unusual needs to be countered, so that people remain rational about the idea. Big jump from putting an IV line in, then giving pain meds to kill someone to putting someone on the rack or in an Iron Maiden.Revenge killing is cruel and unusual punishment, even if you find a 100% painless way of doing it.

Execution is only morally and rationally justified in situations where it is impossible to safety imprison a dangerous criminal. That situation does not exist now, has not existed for a long time, and will not exist as long as we are a politically stable nation.

And I have given hundreds of patients meds to slow their hearts, but not stop them; it is just a matter of dosage to push it to that point.You think the pain involved in slowing your heart is the same as the pain involved in stopping it?I have been present during surgical procedures where a heart was intentionally stopped for over 3 hours. Stopped completely(it was restarted again, of course). This was at the beginning of my schooling and training, and I was merely an observer. But it happens all the time.Was the blood artificially circulated? I can't imagine a brain can survive for three hours without oxygen.

The pain in stopping the heart in an execution is the result of your cells being deprived of oxygen, not just of a muscle relaxing.And sometimes it takes time for a person to die, if your intent is to help make the process be painless(or less painful). I don't know where the notion of speed enters into the subject, but you brought it up as some form of requirement.If you're simultaneously causing pain by asphyxiating the prisoner, speed is very relevant.

Execution is only morally and rationally justified in situations where it is impossible to safety imprison a dangerous criminal. That situation does not exist now, has not existed for a long time, and will not exist as long as we are a politically stable nation.
Then you should go ahead and execute anyone in Pelican Bay State Prison, where it is apparently impossible to safely imprison a dangerous criminal. Unsafe to both the criminal and the public.

I didn't know California even executed people anymore, I just thought you guys let them rot on Death Row from ages 21 to whenever they die in their 70's in a single cell with fifteen minutes of time in the outdoors. Because you know, that's much more humane.In most cases, the prisoners would rather live out their lives in prison than be executed. So yes, it's the more humane choice.Then you should go ahead and execute anyone in Pelican Bay State Prison, where it is apparently impossible to safely imprison a dangerous criminal. Unsafe to both the criminal and the public.How so?

Round and round we go with circular reasoning.
What reasoning? We are not discussing reason, we are discussing opinions, that is all.

Why would you like to kill him? He presents zero danger to society. There is no cost or deterrence benefit.
Because I would like to. Of course there is no cost, I would do it for free. Save you all a bunch of money. I would not charge you a dime for the service.

Don't tell me you'd like to do it, or he "deserves it". Tell me why.
That is why. What else do you want me to say? Want me to make something up?

Revenge killing is cruel and unusual punishment, even if you find a 100% painless way of doing it.
Show me. What are you talking about? Cruel and unusual punishment was intended to mean torture, and that is even considering that the writers of the Constitution had no problems with death or removing limbs from offenders of crimes. Cruel and unusual only means 100% painless to you, and those who think like you. The rest of us, need to help prevent more people sharing your opinion, becoming like you, that is all. It is just a game of numbers, really.


Execution is only morally and rationally justified in situations where it is impossible to safety imprison a dangerous criminal.
Says you. Just because you are saying it, does not mean that you aren't wrong. You are wrong. And who says that it has to be justified, justification is merely a defense mechanism to prevent one from internal pain. I would suffer no pain killing Mike Morales.

That situation does not exist now, has not existed for a long time, and will not exist as long as we are a politically stable nation.
I am not a politician. And it is only stable from your perspective, anyways.

That is why. What else do you want me to say? Want me to make something up?You don't know why you want to kill him? You're only able to express it in circular terms, e.g., you want to do it because you would like to, or he deserves it. What is it, some uncontrollable instinct?Cruel and unusual punishment was intended to meanCruel and unusual means just that: cruel, and unusual. The meanings of those words change as society changes, and the framers of the Constitution knew that. That's why they said "cruel and unusual punishment" and not "torture and dismemberment" or some more precise list.

Torture may have been the threshold for cruel and unusual in the 18th century, but it isn't today, and we shouldn't use 18th century standards for solving 21st century problems.Just because you are saying it, does not mean that you aren't wrong. You are wrong.Opinions cannot be right or wrong. And I'm not alone. Most civilized countries have abolished the death penalty, and there is a strong movement in the United States to join them. Look at all of the recent moratoriums on the death penalty, first Illinois, now California and Florida.

Soon, Texas will be the only serial killing state left, and frankly, Texas is kind of a lost cause anyway.

That's ok, most of the rest of the United States considers California a lost cause as well; at least I know that's the sentiment I've normally heard, especially here in New York and most of the other states that I've visited either for work or pleasure. I'm sure if Cali had its way people wouldn't even be in prison since they probably consider forced captivity cruel and unusual too. It's probably the only state where the convicted have more rights than the victimized.

As for Pelican Bay, go do some homework. Find out about the gangs inside and outside its walls - how prisoners who are monitored 24hrs a day can still manage to create shivs an conceal them as well as somehow manage to communicate to and run their external gangs from within a state "Super-Max" prison.

We have had this very same conversation about this very same subject not too long ago, so I wont get into everything I said before. But, as with Fyyr, I too am a critical care nurse. I have hastened people's death with medication more times than I can really remember. It is common practice in the critical care to sedate and paralyze people. There is a monitoring device now called a BiS monitor that can monitor people's reaction to the sedation, pain, and paralytic; to see if they are sufficiently sedated and pain free. This monitoring system is non-invasive - just a sticky strip on the forehead. I say hook these peeps up to a BiS and fire away with the drugs.

Yes I believe in the death penalty. No, I do not think that it is cruel and unusual punishment to kill someone by lethal injection - no matter how long they breathe after giving them the drugs. The people being executed have committed henious crimes and deserve what the sentence is - period. In *MY* opinion, the people who are opposed to the death penalty, have never sustained the severe tradegy of loosing someone they love to the barbaric acts of another.

When that happens, what is the justice? Do you really think that it is Justice to allow someone to spend the rest of their life in a place where they are housed from the elements, fed 3 meals a day, get free healthcare the rest of their lives, can go to school and earn degrees, and use and bog down our legal system with continuous frivolous lawsuits?

Torture may have been the threshold for cruel and unusual in the 18th century, but it isn't today, and we shouldn't use 18th century standards for solving 21st century problems.Opinions cannot be right or wrong. And I'm not alone. Most civilized countries have abolished the death penalty, and there is a strong movement in the United States to join them. Look at all of the recent moratoriums on the death penalty, first Illinois, now California and Florida.

Soon, Texas will be the only serial killing state left, and frankly, Texas is kind of a lost cause anyway.
Since you're such a wont for studies and proof, please quantify this statement, especially since most evidence you will find will contradict you.

A Gallup International poll from 2000 found that "Worldwide support was expressed in favour of the death penalty, with just more than half (52%) indicating that they were in favour of this form of punishment." A break down of the numbers of support versus opposition: Worldwide 52%/39%, North America 66%/27%, Asia 63%/21%, Central and Eastern Europe 60%/29%, Africa 54%/43%, Latin America 37%/55%, Western Europe 34%/60%.

In the U.S., surveys have long shown a majority in favor of capital punishment. An ABC News survey in July 2006 found 65 percent in favor of capital punishment, consistent with other polling since 2000.[3] About half the American public says the death penalty isn't imposed frequently enough and 60 percent believe it is applied fairly, according to a Gallup poll in May 2006.[2] Yet surveys also show the public is more divided when asked to choose between the death penalty and life without parole, or when dealing with juvenile offenders.[3][4] Roughly six in 10 tell Gallup they don't believe capital punishment deters murder and majorities believe at least one innocent person has been executed in the past five years.[5] [6]

You don't know why you want to kill him?
Because it would give me pleasure to kill Mike Morales. Because I will it, perhaps. The same kind of pleasure that it gives me when I squish a black widow spider, really. No more, no less. What I mean is, contrary to your notion, I don't have any blood lust to kill black widow spiders, nor to kill Mike. I regard them virtually equally.

You're only able to express it in circular terms, e.g., you want to do it because you would like to, or he deserves it.
How about you trying to explain his motivations for cutting Terri's breasts off with a knife?

What is it, some uncontrollable instinct?
No, it is very controlled. I want to kill 6 or 7 people a day, but I control that instinct, as I control most of them.

Cruel and unusual means just that: cruel, and unusual.
Well, to me, cruel and unusual would be for me to sedate and relieve all pain from Mike, while I remove all of his skin with an electrical scalpel. Completely skinless, from head to toe, even removing the skin from his face and lips. All completely painless, then giving him a stimulant and then naloxone. That would be unusual and cruel. For the drug would knock every opioid off of every neuron in his body at once, the stimulant would just increase the effect. Even his own endogenous opioids. He would feel so much pain from every nociceptor in his body at once, that the stress and shock alone would kill him, almost instantly.

I would say that is unusual, for I have never heard anyone ever do that before, and it would be just a little bit more cruel than what Mike did to Terri.
Relatively speaking, of course. I have no idea what kind of pain she went through when Mike cut her breasts off with a knife while she was still alive, or after he shoved the handle of the hammer he just bludgeoned her head in with up into her rectum.


The meanings of those words change as society changes, and the framers of the Constitution knew that.
Yes, exactly. When opinions change, the laws change. That is why we are having this discussion. Your opinion needs to be oppressed.

That's why they said "cruel and unusual punishment" and not "torture and dismemberment" or some more precise list.
Well, in context, the Fifth Amendment...
States
nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb
That tells me that the writers of the Constitution explicitly accepted the notion of killing offenders, and removing limbs as punishment.

Torture may have been the threshold for cruel and unusual in the 18th century, but it isn't today, and we shouldn't use 18th century standards for solving 21st century problems.
Again, that is why we are having this discussion(or rather why I am wasting my time in it). Opinions change. And can be changed. For you a hangnail is cruel and unusual. Me, I just think that people who think like you, who share your opinion, are pussies.

Opinions cannot be right or wrong.
Technically correct, but an opinion can be more accurate or less accurate than another. In that vein, they can be right or wrong; which is the case with how I stated it.

And I'm not alone.
Of course you are not. But since when has a majority really ever been right about anything. They seldom are. Just because a number of people hold a similar point of view does not make them right, you Liberals control the house and the Senate right now, for example. Does not mean that they are right. Just that they have a majority, is all.

ost civilized countries have abolished the death penalty,
Depends on how you define civilized, I suppose. If you mean that a civilized society accepts and allows a person like Mike Morales to live, while Terri Winchell is feeding worms, then we just happen to disagree with the definition of the word civilized, I suppose.

and there is a strong movement in the United States to join them.
Numbers of people who share a particular view only means that there are a number of people who share a particular view. Does not mean that that view is right or wrong, or more accurate or less accurate. Merely denotes number. 82 percent of the world population believes in some form of god or another. 52 percent of US doctors believe in some form of a god or another. That does not mean that they are right.

Look at all of the recent moratoriums on the death penalty, first Illinois, now California and Florida.
You are talking about decisions cast by lawyers with robes on. Robes which allow them to hide their penis pumps. What is your point? I hold no esteem for lawyers or judges, they are parasites on society themselves, they produce no product, and their service is usually defective. They are still just opinions.

Soon, Texas will be the only serial killing state left, and frankly, Texas is kind of a lost cause anyway.
Well, the Federal judge's opinion, as I pointed out in a quote up at the top of this thread, requires that a licensed trained professional provide the administration of the medications. In a month I will be a licensed trained professional, and will volunteer for the job as need be, despite what any professional organization requires of my peers or colleagues.

There is a monitoring device now called a BiS monitor that can monitor people's reaction to the sedation, pain, and paralytic;
I've heard about people coming "awake" but being paralyzed during surgery, was this invented for that?

How about you trying to explain his motivations for cutting Terri's breasts off with a knife?

Why? You can't explain yours so you're trying to shift focus or something?

Well, to me, cruel and unusual would be for me to sedate and relieve all pain from Mike, while I remove all of his skin with an electrical scalpel. Completely skinless, from head to toe, even removing the skin from his face and lips. All completely painless, then giving him a stimulant and then naloxone. That would be unusual and cruel. For the drug would knock every opioid off of every neuron in his body at once, the stimulant would just increase the effect. Even his own endogenous opioids. He would feel so much pain from every nociceptor in his body at once, that the stress and shock alone would kill him, almost instantly.

Just because you can descibe how cold it is on the north pole, doesn't mean it's tropical in Alaska. Really, Fyyr, you know better than to try to pass off something as NOT cruel and unusual simply because you're able to think of something even worse.

Of course you are not. But since when has a majority really ever been right about anything. They seldom are. Just because a number of people hold a similar point of view does not make them right

And simply because you hold an opinion about something doesn't make you right. You really have no point you're making here, do you?

Depends on how you define civilized, I suppose. If you mean that a civilized society accepts and allows a person like Mike Morales to live, while Terri Winchell is feeding worms, then we just happen to disagree with the definition of the word civilized, I suppose.

Name one (other than the USA) civilized country (by your definition).

It's funny though, I expected one of the bloodthirsty Christian zealots (or Texans) to be the first to chime in with the revenge angle.

Hey now, no stereotypes. :P

<-- Texan

The people being executed have committed henious crimes and deserve what the sentence is - period. In *MY* opinion, the people who are opposed to the death penalty, have never sustained the severe tradegy of loosing someone they love to the barbaric acts of another.No, we just don't believe in revenge as a state-sponsored form of justice.When that happens, what is the justice?When you execute someone, what is the justice? The victim is still dead. You are not protecting society from anyone. You didn't save any money. No one is deterred from committing a similar crime.

There's no "justice" in an execution. It's simply an excuse for you to exercise your bloodlust without legal consequences.Do you really think that it is Justice to allow someone to spend the rest of their life in a place where they are housed from the elements, fed 3 meals a day, get free healthcare the rest of their lives, can go to school and earn degrees, and use and bog down our legal system with continuous frivolous lawsuits?Yes, it is. Because it says something very important about the rest of us, as compared to that prisoner.

Has nothing to do with revenge.Because it would give me pleasure to kill Mike Morales. Because I will it, perhaps.Right. He hurt you (or someone or something you care about), so you want to hurt him. That's called revenge.

At least the black widow spider poses some threat to you.How about you trying to explain his motivations for cutting Terri's breasts off with a knife?He's an insane killer. Are you?That tells me that the writers of the Constitution explicitly accepted the notion of killing offenders, and removing limbs as punishment.Yes, they did. Most of the modern world doesn't. Times change, and opinions change, and you can't apply 18th century standards to us today.Depends on how you define civilized, I suppose.Developed, prosperous, and democratic. Of such countries, only Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States practice the death penalty. Most countries on par economically and socially with the United States have abolished it. Most of the countries that still practice it are dictatorial and/or undeveloped.Numbers of people who share a particular view only means that there are a number of people who share a particular view. Does not mean that that view is right or wrong, or more accurate or less accurate. Merely denotes number. 82 percent of the world population believes in some form of god or another.An opinion cannot be right or wrong. Only a fact can.

Whether or not a "god" exists is a fact; it's either true, or it isn't. If I could somehow prove that a "god" doesn't exist, then all those who believe in it would be objectively wrong, whether it's 1% or 99%.

Whether or not the death penalty is a good idea is an opinion. It cannot, by definition, be right or wrong, no matter what your view.You are talking about decisions cast by lawyers with robes on.Actually in the case of Illinois and Florida, I'm talking about the chief executive. I can't recall what degrees they have, but I'm pretty sure they don't wear robes, at least not in public. And they are the voice of the majority that votes for them.

Since you're such a wont for studies and proof, please quantify this statement, especially since most evidence you will find will contradict you.Worldwide death penalty map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png). The "red" countries practice it. Notice the company the U.S. keeps. Notice how virtually all of the developed world has abolished it, either by law or by practice.

The Gallup poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm) you cited about American opinion also shows that the answer you get depends on how you ask the question. (As usual, polls say more about the pollster than the pollee.) If you ask "Which punishment do you prefer for people convicted of murder: the death penalty or life in prison with no chance of parole?" then the results are about equally split (look down to the second poll).

As for Texas being the most bloodthirsty state, I'm surprised you doubt that. Since 1976, Texas has executed 366 people (http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/dpusa.htm) (36% of the U.S. total). Texas makes up only 6.9% of the U.S. population. California, by comparison, has executed 13 (1.3% of the U.S. total) and makes up 11.3% of the U.S. population.

Whether or not a "god" exists is a fact; it's either true, or it isn't. If I could somehow prove that a "god" doesn't exist, then all those who believe in it would be objectively wrong, whether it's 1% or 99%.


I was absolutely floored by this comment followed by the next.

Whether or not the death penalty is a good idea is an opinion. It cannot, by definition, be right or wrong, no matter what your view.

Quite obviously, since Tudamorf has acknowledged the existence of God is immutable independent of how many people believe or disbelieve His existence, then the penalty for killing an innocent human being is dependent on the first condition's status.

If God exists, then He created all life. (if a particular god was also created, then you haven't reached God yet. Keep going.) Being said Author of all life, He has the authority over all life. And He probably has an opinion on whether it is right or wrong for us humans to remove a person from the physical plane of existence, who has already, definitively shown he or she is incapable of restraining his or her murderous impulses (by killing someone else). God's opinion on this removal would, by default, be right, and everyone who disagreed with that opinion would be wrong, by default.

If God exists, that is. If He doesn't, then one randomly assembled sack of chemicals cut off parts of another randomly assembled sack of chemicals, and eventually caused the second sack of randomly assembled chemicals to temporarily degrade into their constituent parts (they'll reassemble later as grass, or a tree, or flowers), and it makes no difference one way or the other. Let the first sack of random chemicals free, or let Fyyr disassemble it molecule by molecule; all outcomes are equal.

aybe your opinion on whether the death penalty should be practiced can't be wrong or right,

But the death penalty should be practiced, OR
The death penalty should not be practiced.

One of those two statements makes sense. I.E. one is wrong and one is right.
Saying that neither one can be wrong or neither one can be right makes no sense.

Also, postulating whether or not the death penalty is a good idea IS the very definition of right or wrong.

Either that or you totally failed the analogies part of the SAT, ACT, or whatever dumbed down test they are administering to high school graduates nowadays.

Good is to right as bad is to ______

Tudamorf's answer: I don't know, but the answer isn't "wrong"! It can't be, it just can't!! :rolleyes:

Why? You can't explain yours so you're trying to shift focus or something?
I told you why. Don't blame me because you don't like the answer.

Just because you can descibe how cold it is on the north pole, doesn't mean it's tropical in Alaska. Really, Fyyr, you know better than to try to pass off something as NOT cruel and unusual simply because you're able to think of something even worse.
I mentioned it because that is how I would kill him if I had my choice in the matter. Dropping him onto a sharpened telephone pole would be cool too. Just because you lack imagination and a sense of humor, does not mean that others do too.

Lethal injection is a less painful why of killing someone than the recognized Constitutional methods. All we have to do is go back to hanging or firing squad, if they don't want the IV.

And simply because you hold an opinion about something doesn't make you right. You really have no point you're making here, do you?
The number of people who share an opinion does not give it any more or any less credibility or accuracy to that opinion. Just because 4 out of 5 choosy mothers choose Jiff, does not make Jiff any better than it is.

If it were, we would never ever heard of Celine Dion or Michael Jackson, either.

Name one (other than the USA) civilized country (by your definition).
There are none, you are all brutes. Funny how a previous past cultural relativist is asking a qualitative question regarding cultures/countries.

Also, postulating whether or not the death penalty is a good idea IS the very definition of right or wrong.*sigh* I knew I shouldn't have used a "god" as an example when there were religious zealots lurking in the thread. It pushes all their buttons and logic goes out the window.

You need to learn the difference between fact and opinion.

Facts can be objectively proven true or false.

Opinions can't.

Facts can be correct or incorrect.

Opinions can't.

Learn the difference, then maybe you can contribute something meaningful to the discussion instead of babbling about your "god".

The "god" thing was just a random example that Fyyr brought up. Although you zealots tend to be awfully bloodthirsty, I'm not trying to bring religion into this discussion.

An opinion cannot be right or wrong. Only a fact can.

Name a fact, any fact at all. Cite a single important fact here.

Which is not really an estimation or opinion.

I doubt you could come up with one.

Cue music...
"The sun will come out tomorrow, you can bet your bottom dollar.."

You could probably tell me exactly, without estimation or opinion, how many apples you ate today. But that is not important to anyone.

Statistics are all estimations, every single one of them. Otherwise they are data, which are facts, but they don't include every member of a population-which is why we estimate with statistics(opinions).

How fast is the speed of light? Exactly.
What is pi?
How far away from the Sun is the Earth? Exactly, without estimation.
What is gravity?
What is magnetism?
What is light?
How fast is your internet broadband speed NOW?
How much Morphine is in this syringe? Exactly!?

You would think those are facts, but they are not. They are just estimations and opinions. But you believe they are facts.

ost things which you call facts, are merely accurate opinions.

I've heard about people coming "awake" but being paralyzed during surgery, was this invented for that?

It was developed by an anesthesiologist, but I think more to target exactly how much medication should be given during any particular case. Since everyone metabolizes medication differently, some were being given too much, and some not enough (hence the horror stories of people being "awake and unable to move" during surgery.)

We commonly use it now in the ICU when we have to paralyze someone so that all of their energy goes into healing their wounds vs expending energy breathing, fighting, etc. It really is a mini EEG - measuring brainwaves and has shown to be quite effective and allowing nurses to medicate people sufficiently.

I am curious Tuda... define the word Justice for me. From your posts you keep telling us that killing someone who has committed a henious and unforgivable crime is not Justice. What is Justice to you?

Yes, it is. Because it says something very important about the rest of us, as compared to that prisoner.

What exactly does it say about us?

You would think those are facts, but they are not. They are just estimations and opinions. But you believe they are facts.Just because a fact can't be ascertained with precision doesn't mean it's not a fact. Likewise, an estimate of a fact isn't an opinion; it's just an attempt to uncover the fact.

For example, we may not know, to the nearest meter, how far away the Sun is from the Earth at this moment. But we can agree that it is an exact, absolute number which could theoretically be uncovered if we had more sophisticated technology. It is a fact.

An opinion can never be absolutely right or wrong. An opinion isn't what one thinks about what the facts might be, but rather what one wants to do with the facts as one sees them. For example, a pool of 10 women could agree as to what you look like (fact), but not as to whether they find you appealing (opinion).

An opinion about death penalty cannot be inherently right or wrong. It's not as if we disagree on the facts (number executed, the effect of deterrence, etc.), but agree on the implementation. We can agree 100% on the facts, and still reach different conclusions.

An estimate IS an opinion.

If I put 100mls in a graduated cylinder, you may observe that, and by estimating you will see that 100mls are not really in there, but just a little less or a little more.

Where as, my line of vision may be just a few degrees off from yours, and come up with a slightly different estimate than you.

You form your estimate that the cylinder contains 100.1mls, where as I form an opinion and estimate that there really are 100.2mls in the cylinder.

Two opinions are formed which may be different. Two estimations of how much is in there.

ost facts that you deal with on a day to day basis are really opinions. Even your speedometer telling you how fast you are going, is really just a device to show you an average of velocities that you may be traveling at. And they are not really even that accurate.

But we can agree that it is an exact,

I don't agree with that one bit, for the orbit is elliptical, and wobbling occurs. It is not exact. We can estimate the distance, which is what we do. That is to say, we form an opinion which is 'good enough'. It is NEVER exact.

It is a fact that the Federal judge rendered an opinion that California's lethal injection procedure is unConstitutional. But what he rendered is an opinion, nonetheless. In fact, they are even called opinions, legal opinions.

From your posts you keep telling us that killing someone who has committed a henious and unforgivable crime is not Justice. What is Justice to you?

Would you consider the killing a wrongly convicted man for a crime they did not commit to be justice? Isn't that heinous and unforgivable too?

An opinion can never be absolutely right.

Unless that opinion belongs to your wife.

I am curious Tuda... define the word Justice for me.Heh. Philosophers have been struggling with that question for centuries; I don't think I could answer it in a quick post. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

But I believe "justice" is mainly a system of rules that promotes the harmonious continuation of society. Ideally, it would take the precise measures necessary to combat against the destructive elements of society, but in reality, we cannot possibly hope to achieve this at this point in our development.

Even at our crude level of justice, however, we can establish some rules. If a murderer is dangerous to society, justice demands that we remove him from society to prevent that harm. It also demands that we take appropriate action to deter future murders.

But killing the murderer in an otherwise peaceful and stable society prevents no harm. On the contrary, it causes harm. By sponsoring revenge as punishment, the state perpetuates a cycle of violence.

For example, Fyyr wants to get out his gun and kill Michael Morales. But he can't really explain why. A large part of this is just what society programmed him to believe: revenge is a permissible reaction to a perceived injury. If he had been brought up in a hypothetical society where revenge was <b>never</b> considered acceptable, he would probably think very differently.

I'm not saying that Michael Morales's crime wasn't heinous, or that he should be forgiven. But the way we respond to his crime says something about how far we've advanced as a culture. That we're above his level, and Fyyr's (not that those are the same levels, just that they're both below where we should be). That we're interested in justice, and not merely in finding a convenient shooting target to satisfy our own impulses.

An estimate IS an opinion.No, it's a judgment of what a fact might be, given incomplete data. That's very different from an opinion, which is a judgment of how to react, given a set of facts.I don't agree with that one bit, for the orbit is elliptical, and wobbling occurs. It is not exact. We can estimate the distance, which is what we do. That is to say, we form an opinion which is 'good enough'. It is NEVER exact.You missed the phrase "at this moment" in my discussion. If we freeze time, at any given moment, there is an exact distance between the two. We can both agree that it could, in theory, be measured to the nearest nanometer, if we had the equipment to do so.

The distance is a fact. You might measure it to be 149.6 billion meters, I might measure it to be 149.7. One of us might be right, or, more likely, we would both be wrong. But we would both agree that we're trying to measure the exact same thing, uncover the same fact.

The judge's opinion, or our opinions, about the death penalty are not facts. There is no hidden truth; no absolute quantity to uncover. They are just different judgments as to what to do, given the facts.

For example, Fyyr wants to get out his gun and kill Michael Morales.
Wrong assessment, incorrect.

But he can't really explain why.
Wrong again, I have explained why. You just don't like the answer.

A large part of this is just what society programmed him to believe:
Actually, I was 'programmed' very much like you with your opinion.

revenge is a permissible reaction to a perceived injury.
Really, our society programs this? How did you escape its evil clutches?

If he had been brought up in a hypothetical society where revenge was <b>never</b> considered acceptable, he would probably think very differently.
You keep saying that revenge, whatever that is, is programmed by our society; yet you yourself have been exempt from its grasp.

It almost sounds like you are saying that you are superior, or better for holding your particular opinions. Do you really think that you are superior to everyone else?

That we're above his level, and Fyyr's (not that those are the same levels, just that they're both below where we should be).
ore qualitative opinion. So there is better or worse, a higher level or lower level, as you say? One thing can be superior to another, or inferior to another. This culture is better than that culture because it does this instead of that.

Sounds like you are shedding your cultural relativism there, in exchange for absolutism(the beginnings of it, at least).

That we're interested in justice, and not merely in finding a convenient shooting target to satisfy our own impulses.
Impulses are quick instinctive decisions. My opinion has taken 25 years to come to, that would make it, to most people, hardly impulsive.

there is an exact distance between the two. We can both agree that it could, in theory, be measured to the nearest nanometer, if we had the equipment to do so.

What about smaller than a nanometer?

There is smaller than a nanometer, why are you leaving that more finite accuracy out of your opinion?

No, it's a judgment of what a fact might be, given incomplete data. That's very different from an opinion, which is a judgment of how to react, given a set of facts.

A judgment is an opinion.
An estimate is an opinion.

You are given something to observe, and you make a subjective choice about this or that. You form an opinion of it.

How I react is how I react, that is something completely different. That is behavior, unless you are saying that opinions are behaviors(and that is a new concept to me, I will have to ponder).

Some estimates can still be facts, if properly worded. "The Earth is about 1 AU from the Sun" might not be a fact, but "The center of mass of the Earth is between 0.98 AU and 1.02 AU from the center of mass of the Sun" is. A factual statement does not have to be exact to be true.

Pi is a bad example to use here. There are many ways to define pi exactly. Since pure math is an artificial construct where we define all the rules--axioms and logic to derive facts from those axioms--anything that is mathematically proven (given conventional axioms and anything derived from them) is a fact. Granted, the base axioms are usually left unstated (and changing those axioms results in entirely different facts), but unless explicitly stated otherwise, the appropriate axioms can be assumed for similar reasons that we can assume your posts are written in conventional English.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/topics/Axioms.html
In particular:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FieldAxioms.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zermelo-FraenkelAxioms.html

Now, not all "true" mathematical statements statements can be proven using these or any other systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_undecidable_in_ZFC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
However, "common" axioms (like the ones I listed above) are enough of a foundation to derive any true mathematical statement that is likely to come up on this forum. :P

In any case, pi is (for example) exactly (4/1) - (4/3) + (4/5) - (4/7) + (4/9) - ... Yes, it is an infinite sum, but the value of that sum is exactly pi, and Leibniz proved it centuries ago.

(I wonder what it says about me if most discussions on the death penalty don't interest me, but discussions about philosophy of math/science do...)

(I wonder what it says about me if most discussions on the death penalty don't interest me, but discussions about philosophy of math/science do...)

This thread is pretty dull really. Let's try and derail it. How about natural history?

Are there any other animals that take revenge? Is it a natural animal emotion or is it something that humans have uniquely developed? Most animals seem to defend their young but once the young one dies the parents just look after themselves.

I think plants have a revenge system. You eat a plant and eventually it finds a way to poison you, especially if you're an insect. Or it cultivates friendships with animals (humans) that will kill you. :p

Worldwide death penalty map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png). The "red" countries practice it. Notice the company the U.S. keeps. Notice how virtually all of the developed world has abolished it, either by law or by practice.

The Gallup poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm) you cited about American opinion also shows that the answer you get depends on how you ask the question. (As usual, polls say more about the pollster than the pollee.) If you ask "Which punishment do you prefer for people convicted of murder: the death penalty or life in prison with no chance of parole?" then the results are about equally split (look down to the second poll).

As for Texas being the most bloodthirsty state, I'm surprised you doubt that. Since 1976, Texas has executed 366 people (http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/dpusa.htm) (36% of the U.S. total). Texas makes up only 6.9% of the U.S. population. California, by comparison, has executed 13 (1.3% of the U.S. total) and makes up 11.3% of the U.S. population.
Actually you're still completely incorrect in your initial statement. You like to use words like "most" when every shred of evidence contradicts you. Even your map from Wiki contradicts you - unless of course you're calling the majority of the world's population uncivilized.

While you're comparing the company that the US keeps, why don't you look at the company that your "blue" nations keep. The Western European nations are mostly blue because it is a requirement of entering the European Union and speaking at the Council of Europe. Other than Western Europe, why not start looking at what other countries have "blue" colors and compare their various crime rates and standards of living in general. While many of those countries may not have capital punishment as a form of legal sentencing, well I don't know when the last time you went to Haiti was, but when I went there were several miles of concrete and barbed wire and men with machine guns separating the tourists from the locals.

As for the poll, you can read the other independent survey done by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig which was conducted to try and counter Kleck's initial findings. Even their conclusion found that the numbers reported by the NCVS were vastly under accounted. While they agreed that Kleck's numbers of "2.5 million defensive uses of firearms each year" compared to the numbers from the Justice Department is probably too high, the real number is probably somewhere in between both sets - which they concluded was still much higher than previously accepted.

Oh, and if Texas never becomes like California, I'll be more than happy. In a state where a known gang leader and known murderer can drum up support and statewide sympathy for a clemency plea, well you guys go ahead and keep weeping for guys like Tookie. Also, make sure you give all those Mexican illegals who are hopping the fence and smuggling cocaine, meth, and who knows what else into the country a nice bed with clean sheets, ok?

Even your map from Wiki contradicts you - unless of course you're calling the majority of the world's population uncivilized.Let's see: all of North and South America (except the U.S.), all of Europe, Russia, and Australia. That's most of the civilized countries.While you're comparing the company that the US keeps, why don't you look at the company that your "blue" nations keep.Only nations in red actively practice the death penalty. Blue, orange, and green do not (either by law or by practice).While many of those countries may not have capital punishment as a form of legal sentencing, well I don't know when the last time you went to Haiti was, but when I went there were several miles of concrete and barbed wire and men with machine guns separating the tourists from the locals.What's your point, exactly? That uncivilized countries ban the death penalty, so the U.S., as a civilized country, should be for it? The fact that Haiti is ahead of us morally in terms of the death penalty speaks volumes about how far behind we really are.

Actually, I was 'programmed' very much like you with your opinion.If you were raised in mainstream America, you weren't. Of course, you can get past the programming, but you seem to have chosen not to.So there is better or worse, a higher level or lower level, as you say? One thing can be superior to another, or inferior to another. This culture is better than that culture because it does this instead of that.

Sounds like you are shedding your cultural relativism there, in exchange for absolutism(the beginnings of it, at least).I didn't realize I had any cultural relativism to shed. But, yes, I believe there are certain absolute levels in the evolution of societies.

All other things being equal: A society that provides basic freedoms is superior to a society that doesn't. A democratic society is superior to a dictatorial society. A society that abandons torture is superior to a society that hasn't. A society that provides for the basic welfare of its citizens is superior to a society that doesn't. A society that lives in harmony with its neighbors, and the ecosystem around it, is superior to a society that doesn't.

And add to that, a society that outlaws revenge as a state-sponsored form of punishment is superior to a society that hasn't.An estimate is an opinion.Definitional arguments are tedious. If you want to expand the definition of "opinion" to include estimates, go ahead. As long as you understand the difference between estimates and true opinion and that by "opinion" I only mean true opinion, we'll have no language barrier.

Fair enough.

But I believe "justice" is mainly a system of rules that promotes the harmonious continuation of society. Ideally, it would take the precise measures necessary to combat against the destructive elements of society, but in reality, we cannot possibly hope to achieve this at this point in our development.

Even at our crude level of justice, however, we can establish some rules. If a murderer is dangerous to society, justice demands that we remove him from society to prevent that harm. It also demands that we take appropriate action to deter future murders.

Justice demands that we remove him from society to prevent that harm.... and take appropriate action to deter future murders...

In my opinion, that means if you kill someone, then you should not be allowed to live. You have taken something precious from our society and you must pay the price. You can can call that revenge, but I don't. I call it paying for the crime that you committed.

I know we have already been through how much less money it costs to keep someone in prison for life than it costs to actually put them to death. But, that is because we allow those people years and years and years of appeals, court costs, and the like.

Do I think our current legal system is a deterrent to anyone when they are contemplating killing someone? No. Why? Because we are not swift enough with the sentence. If you are found guilty of killing another, and sentenced to death - that sentence should be carried out immediately. Not 15 years later when everyone has forgotten your story and you have sucked off the public teet for 15 years.

Would you consider the killing a wrongly convicted man for a crime they did not commit to be justice? Isn't that heinous and unforgivable too?

Yes I would consider that henious and injust. Has it happened in the past? Most likely yes. Could it happen today? Maybe, but with the advances in DNA testing and criminal justice it is very much more unlikely to happen than say even 10 years ago.

Because we are not swift enough with the sentence. If you are found guilty of killing another, and sentenced to death - that sentence should be carried out immediately.What if there was police misconduct? What if the trial was unfair? What if the jury was biased or prejudiced? What if the accused's attorney was incompetent?

No, we need the appeal process, especially in the case of the irreversible punishment of death.Maybe, but with the advances in DNA testing and criminal justice it is very much more unlikely to happen than say even 10 years ago.DNA analysis is just a tool. It is open to bias, just as is any investigation technique. DNA analysis does not guarantee objective police, an objective prosecutor, and a fair trial.

Let's see: all of North and South America (except the U.S.), all of Europe, Russia, and Australia. That's most of the civilized countries.Only nations in red actively practice the death penalty. Blue, orange, and green do not (either by law or by practice).What's your point, exactly? That uncivilized countries ban the death penalty, so the U.S., as a civilized country, should be for it? The fact that Haiti is ahead of us morally in terms of the death penalty speaks volumes about how far behind we really are.
Are you really willing to ignore the two most populous areas of the world just to try and make your point? I think the Asian countries would be very surprised to learn that they're not considered civilized. Japan, which pretty much kicked the US off its collective lazy butt in the 80's by surpassing it in almost all the major consumer electronics divisions isn't civilized? So you're saying that uncivilized cavemen can build TVs and cars better than the US? I'm sure many of the Middle Eastern countries (not even thinking Iraq/Iran, but more along the lines of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia) would be surprised to learn that they aren't civilized either. I'm also very sure they'd be interested to hear this from a country who's national history goes back ~250 years, where theirs can be traced back through thousands.

Again, as for Haiti, you go ahead and live there for a while and let me know how "moral" it really is. The same can be said for Mexico. The biggest failure of the Wiki map is that it's trying to show you only facts in a black and white manner. While many of the countries listed may have abolished capital punishment in their supposed national version of a constitution, instead they have military police or frequent coups which execute people en masse without a trial. It doesn't really matter if you can't get tried and sentenced to death in a court of law when you'll get drug out back by the corrupt police system and shot in the alley. It's misleading to say a country has abolished any law when the country has no stable system of justice in the first place. However, that being as it is, although the map may have more blue than red, you're still ignoring the population factor and that in the more/most populous countries, the death penalty is still used.

In my opinion, that means if you kill someone, then you should not be allowed to live. You have taken something precious from our society and you must pay the price. You can can call that revenge, but I don't. I call it paying for the crime that you committed.
Hmmm... an interesting thought occured to me. "Paying for a crime". I think if you're rich enough, famous enough, with access to plenty of good lawyers you're probably fairly unlikely to pay for the crime in the same way a poor person does (with prison time or the death penalty). You've only got to look at a few cases from the media to see that this is true.

Now in the old days in some cultures, you could actually "pay" for your crime. That's where the term blood money came from. Again, the justice is unequal between the rich and the poor.

I guess if you could figure out a way where everyone gets represented equally well and punished in a similar fashion, I'd be less against the death penalty.

JapanJapan is one of the very few exceptions to the rule. That's why I said "most." And Japan only executes a few prisoners each year, a tiny amount when you consider the U.S. executed 60 last year (1/3 being in Texas, of course) and has only double the population.

China is execution-happy, but China is not civilized under my definition because it does not respect basic rights and freedoms to its citizens, and isn't democratic.Middle Eastern countries (not even thinking Iraq/Iran, but more along the lines of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia)Middle Eastern countries are not civilized. While some may be prosperous due to oil, they are not democratic and do not respect basic rights and freedoms.Mexicoinstead they have military police or frequent coups which execute people en masse without a trial.I can see your point on Haiti -- they might not have the stability to seriously ponder the issue -- but Mexico has neither military police roaming around arresting random citizens nor frequent coups which execute people en masse. Neither do the other "civilized" countries I mentioned.

Apparently you've never been to Mexico.

Apparently you've never been to Mexico.Mexico may have slight issues with police corruption, but then again, so do we. It's nowhere near the anarchy you're describing.

Apparently you've never been to Mexico.

Apparently you've never been to Mexico.And apparently you're the silent expert. Whatever.

No matter how much Mexico cleans up its act, it's not likely to suddenly enact a death penalty statute. So, you really have no point.

And I still note that you haven't ever claimed to even step foot in Mexico, so you really have no concept of the real world mechanics inside that country other than the clean little fact sheet you read on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, why don't you try talking to some of those illegal immigrants in California (from what I understand, you can't sneeze without ten of them saying "bless you") and ask them why they left their country. Of the many first and second-generation Mexican families I went to school with in Texas, most will tell you that money was not the only, nor often, the soul reason for leaving. Why don't you ask some friends who've gone down to Mexico City or Cozumel for vacation, or hell, even to a border town to pick up some touristy-crap why they were told never to leave the public roads and to travel in groups whenever possible.

So far, it seems to me the person who has no real point is you - or at least no way to back up your points. Lets see, within the two major capital punishment threads you've been active in, you've:

- Called the majority of the world's population uncivilized
- Claimed that the United States's popular opinion is anti-capital punishment
- Claimed that the world's popular opinion is anti-capital punishment
- Claimed that the majority of civilized countries is anti-capital punishment

And from what I can see, you've been proven wrong on all of your major points not only with nebulous personal experience posts, but also with hard numbers from a wide variety of sources.

Capital Punishment may be "barbaric," but as many have stated, barbarism is a very opinion-based label. Seems to me that there is no proof positive way to prove barbarism one way or another like you've been attempting to do in this thread. My stand on capital punishment is simply that we have no better solution. I could give a rat's arse if the death penalty is moral or not, fact is that prisoner rehabilitation has an abysmal success rate, and I'm not too keen on the idea of paying for serial killers to rot away for the next fifty years in a federally funded facility having more of their needs met than many families who are struggling on minimum wage.

Do I believe in being proof positive about a person on death row being guilty? Absolutely, however for every single media-frenzy case that has been publicized about a wrongfully accused man being set free or worse, killed, I bet that there's probably ten more on death row who are guilty without a shadow of a doubt and have been attempting to prolong their execution by mucking up the judicial system with technicalities and plea bargains. No the system's not perfect, but it seems to me that time and money would be better spent trying to work the kinks out of the current system than to abolish it completely and start over with the initial ideal of letting them rot for the rest of their lives being the best solution we can come up with.

It's funny though, I expected one of the bloodthirsty Christian zealots (or Texans) to be the first to chime in with the revenge angle.
Stereotype much?

The Western European nations are mostly blue because it is a requirement of entering the European Union and speaking at the Council of Europe.

That's historically incorrect. Death penalty was abolished pretty much across Europe prior to the EU becoming The Place To Hang(tm).

But, that is because we allow those people years and years and years of appeals, court costs, and the like.

Given the number of death row prisoners who have later been found innocent (not simply legally "not guilty" - innocent), do you really wish to cut into appeals for the sake of a handful of dollars?

How great a risk of wrongful conviction are you willing to accept? Not just for some faceless stranger, but for yourself? Your spouse? Your child?

Given the number of death row prisoners who have later been found innocent (not simply legally "not guilty" - innocent), do you really wish to cut into appeals for the sake of a handful of dollars?

Well, its not like Mike Morales is innocent, by either my or Aidon's definition.

But I would like to know the number that you mention, regardless.

Re: Tinsi -
The information I found on the European nations and death penalty stated that to join the EU now and to be on the Council, you had to abolish the death penalty as a requirement of joining. I understand that many nations had it abolished before the EU was formed, but was just stating current requirements as well.

Also, just curious on the "found innocent" line.

For those who argue against the death penalty and have the "wrongfully convicted" fear as one of the major reasons as to why they're against it, just curious what you think about those criminals on death row who are guilty without a shadow of a doubt. There are quite a few criminals awaiting execution who have had multiple witnesses to their crimes (think victim who didn't die), have confessed or have some other hard lock evidence against them.

How do you feel about those criminals getting the death penalty? (Note: This is a question specifically for those who feel the death penalty is wrong due to the possibility of the wrongfully accused getting killed, not for those against the death penalty in general - I just haven't heard this particular segment's thoughts on the "rightfully convicted" and I'm just wondering what the stance is.)

For those who argue against the death penalty and have the "wrongfully convicted" fear as one of the major reasons as to why they're against it, just curious what you think about those criminals on death row who are guilty without a shadow of a doubt. There are quite a few criminals awaiting execution who have had multiple witnesses to their crimes (think victim who didn't die), have confessed or have some other hard lock evidence against them.

y personal view, which I've heard nobody else discuss, is for the judge to offer voluntary termination to prisoners with no hope of release. I'd consider this to be preferable to keeping a prisoner interned under suicide watch until they die of old age. I can understand why other people will not conscience that for a variety of reasons. In the UK, even murderers will find release after a few decades in jail so this would only apply to serial killers and similar offenders.

There are quite a few criminals awaiting execution who have had multiple witnesses to their crimes (think victim who didn't die), have confessed or have some other hard lock evidence against them.

How do you feel about those criminals getting the death penalty?
If the evidence against them is that compelling then it's unlikely they'll win an appeal -- let them rot in prison. They may be having their needs met to the extent that they are kept alive but, seriously, living in a prison with no hope of getting out is hardly a walk in the park. As long as they are inside they do not put anyone in imminent danger and I think that imminent danger is a reasonable metric by which to gauge the necessity for the application of lethal force.

Re: Tinsi -
The information I found on the European nations and death penalty stated that to join the EU now and to be on the Council, you had to abolish the death penalty as a requirement of joining. I understand that many nations had it abolished before the EU was formed, but was just stating current requirements as well.

Yes, it is. But you stated it as if it had been - or is - a major reason why capital punishment has been abolished in Europe, and that is incorrect. It's quite the oposite: It's a requirement for joining the EU because that's how we operate here. It's not how we operate here because it's a requirement for joining the EU.

(Blah blah general disclaimer blah blah yes I am aware that a handful of nations blah blah but general point still stands blah blah :) )

Also, just curious on the "found innocent" line.

123 by latest count. Not included in this number are those who have been exhonorated post-execution. (Fyyr: that should answer your question too)

For those who argue against the death penalty and have the "wrongfully convicted" fear as one of the major reasons as to why they're against it, just curious what you think about those criminals on death row who are guilty without a shadow of a doubt. There are quite a few criminals awaiting execution who have had multiple witnesses to their crimes (think victim who didn't die), have confessed or have some other hard lock evidence against them.

y comment regarding wrongful conviction was as a reply to Maddie wanting the appeal possibilities cut down from where it is now, making it even less hard to be wrongfully executed. I don't particularily like crazy killers, but my personal likes and dislikes towards individuals really doesn't factor into it when I weigh the arguments for and against capital punishment. It's morally repulsive, it prevents nothing, it protects nothing and it costs more.

(Derail: sometimes I really wish you'd all remember your regular "Omg but who will pay who will pay omg taxpayers money omg" in these debates as well)

How do you feel about those criminals getting the death penalty? (Note: This is a question specifically for those who feel the death penalty is wrong due to the possibility of the wrongfully accused getting killed, not for those against the death penalty in general - I just haven't heard this particular segment's thoughts on the "rightfully convicted" and I'm just wondering what the stance is.)

I doubt anyone is against capital punishment ONLY because of the risk of wrongful execution. It's one of many factors that all add up to "There is absolutely no reason to do it".

I doubt anyone is against capital punishment ONLY because of the risk of wrongful execution.
True, true. It is only one of my objections.

- Called the majority of the world's population uncivilized
- Claimed that the United States's popular opinion is anti-capital punishment
- Claimed that the world's popular opinion is anti-capital punishment
- Claimed that the majority of civilized countries is anti-capital punishmentLook at the damn map and count the number of developed, democratic, and free countries that practice the death penalty, and compare it to those that don't. The anti-death penalty ones greatly outnumber the pro-death penalty ones. Your little tangent on "civilized" doesn't change the main point one bit.My stand on capital punishment is simply that we have no better solution./boggle. How about <b>not killing them</b>?I could give a rat's arse if the death penalty is moral or not, fact is that prisoner rehabilitation has an abysmal success rate, and I'm not too keen on the idea of paying for serial killers to rot away for the next fifty years in a federally funded facility having more of their needs met than many families who are struggling on minimum wage.You're raising the typical "cost" argument for the death penalty, which is false because the death penalty tends to be more expensive than life imprisonment.There are quite a few criminals awaiting execution who have had multiple witnesses to their crimes (think victim who didn't die), have confessed or have some other hard lock evidence against them.Because we all know witnesses never lie, confessions are never coerced, and "hard lock" evidence can never be tampered with. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

I doubt anyone is against capital punishment ONLY because of the risk of wrongful execution.

I'm conflicted on death penalty, I have no moral problems with the state killing murders etc, but I also know that justice system is imperfect; really, wrongful conviction is really my only problem I have with it, but its big enough of one that if it came up to a vote I'd have to think long and hard, and my vote would probably rest on it.

Look at the damn map and count the number of developed, democratic, and free countries that practice the death penalty, and compare it to those that don't. The anti-death penalty ones greatly outnumber the pro-death penalty ones. Your little tangent on "civilized" doesn't change the main point one bit./boggle. How about <b>not killing them</b>?You're raising the typical "cost" argument for the death penalty, which is false because the death penalty tends to be more expensive than life imprisonment.Because we all know witnesses never lie, confessions are never coerced, and "hard lock" evidence can never be tampered with. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>
Just because the number of nations may be more or less on one side or the other means exactly squat. Landmass has no opinion on the death penalty one way or another, what matters is population. While your little blue countries may have the exact same count or more as the little red countries, the red countries account for more of the world's population. Therefore while the colored blocks on the scale may look exactly the same, one will weigh a lot more than the other. Granted, you've declared that the majority of the Asian and Middle Eastern populations are uncivilized, and thus unable to tell wrong from right, well I guess that's one way to bend the facts to make yourself sound correct.

For the "Found Innocent" group, I have another question for you - if a person is wrongly convicted, is it any better for them to be exonerated after dying in prison after serving a life sentence?

I mean, that's happened in the past too, a person being found innocent years (or whatever) after they've already died in prison while serving a life or some other long-term sentence. Does it make it any less/more worse being that the person died of natural causes while in prison instead of by the hand of the law?

123 by latest count. Not included in this number are those who have been exhonorated post-execution. (Fyyr: that should answer your question too)

No, it doesn't really.

Are you talking about those who get off on appeals?

Are you talking about those who did not really commit the crime, or it was found that some technicality was not followed, and then the murderer was then let off the hook?

I have no idea where you got the number, or what it represents.

I do know that Mike Morales killed, raped, and mutilated Terri Winchell. But that is only because I have inside information. If I did not have that information all these years, I suppose I would still be anti-death penalty(as I was back when this all happened).

It is Mike, himself, this very guy, who helped me change my opinion on the subject, frankly speaking.

For the "Found Innocent" group, I have another question for you - if a person is wrongly convicted, is it any better for them to be exonerated after dying in prison after serving a life sentence?

It's a question about one of the least relevant situations. The law makes a mistake which can't be rectified in the natural lifetime of the people who suffer from it. It's hardly the case upon which to base our legal system.

If the state executes the prisoner, however, we'll never know whether a repreive would have come in time. The state fails the wrongly convicted prisoner when it executes, and that is irrelevant of whether fate fails the prisoner as well.

While your little blue countries may have the exact same count or more as the little red countries, the red countries account for more of the world's population.But your implicit conclusion -- that increased population leads to increased diversity of opinion, and therefore more accurate opinions -- is wrong.

Beyond a certain threshold size, it really doesn't matter how many people you have, if they are culturally homogeneous. China's opinions aren't four times more accurate than America's. India's aren't three times as accurate. And so on.

Back to the point, we shouldn't even be comparing ourselves to these countries. As a developed, free, and democratic "first world" nation, we should be comparing ourselves to other developed, free, and democratic first world nations.

Forget the "civilized" label, I know we disagree on that definition, and definitional arguments are tedious.

Given the number of death row prisoners who have later been found innocent (not simply legally "not guilty" - innocent), do you really wish to cut into appeals for the sake of a handful of dollars?

How great a risk of wrongful conviction are you willing to accept? Not just for some faceless stranger, but for yourself? Your spouse? Your child?

When we had this discussion before (over the summer) I was educated on the amount of money it costs to imprison someone for life vs sentencing them to death. I was quite honestly astounded at how much *more* money it costs the taxpayers for a "death penalty" prisoner.

I like your question Tinsi, because it is one that I had asked before - only slightly different. The problem is, unless you have actually been in the situation, it is extremely difficult to truly understand and comprehend. My question was - what if you had the most precious thing in the world taken from you, in the most henious and disturbing way. Whether it is your parents, your children, or in my case, my sister. Would you really be satisfied if that person was allowed to continue to live and breathe and be supported by tax payer money?

I'm conflicted on death penalty, I have no moral problems with the state killing murders etc, but I also know that justice system is imperfect; really, wrongful conviction is really my only problem I have with it, but its big enough of one that if it came up to a vote I'd have to think long and hard, and my vote would probably rest on it.

I used to have the exact same opinion. However, life has a way of changing your views on things, in the most shocking and horrific ways sometimes.

For the "Found Innocent" group, I have another question for you - if a person is wrongly convicted, is it any better for them to be exonerated after dying in prison after serving a life sentence?

I mean, that's happened in the past too, a person being found innocent years (or whatever) after they've already died in prison while serving a life or some other long-term sentence. Does it make it any less/more worse being that the person died of natural causes while in prison instead of by the hand of the law?

From the wrongfully convicted's - and now deceased - person's point of view, of course not. He's dead, he could not care less anymore. I don't really see your point, perhaps you'd care to elaborate.

No, it doesn't really.

Yes it does - I answered your question directly. Since 1973, 123 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death.

My question was - what if you had the most precious thing in the world taken from you, in the most henious and disturbing way. Whether it is your parents, your children, or in my case, my sister. Would you really be satisfied if that person was allowed to continue to live and breathe and be supported by tax payer money?

Tax payer money issue aside - seing how both solutions cost tax payers money, mine only costs less - yes, I would. I don't really do the revenge thing. That's not really relevant though, seing how even if I would HATE to see such a person live and breathe, even if I'd wish upon him/her the most heinous painful death ever to pay for what he did to me and my family, as a society, we should not lend credence to revenge as an argument. At least not revenge as the ONLY argument.

Let's say - for the sake of the argument - that we accept that "revenge" is an accepted argument when measuring what kind of penalty to inflict on criminals. That leaves us with revenge on one side, rehabilitation up in the air, and every single other argument (deterrence, cost, human right to life (which - by the way - is unconditional, not something you can "earn" or "lose"), morallity and the need to protect society on the other side.

So capital punishment isn't a solution unless you accept that revenge is not only an accepted argument, but one that is so strongly accepted that it outweighs everything else.

Oh and for someone who liked my question, you did a good job at dodging it :P

Re: Tinsi, well yeah, I figure the dead person wouldn't care either way (smarty pants :P)

It was more a morality conundrum for me to ask the people who are against (or on the wall) about capital punishment. I was wondering if it was in their eyes somehow worse for a person to be executed versus dying while serving a life (or other long-term sentence) in prison and then being found not guilty posthumously; and if so, why?

As for the cost aspect, just another curiosity question for the UK'ers in the crowd. Since capital punishment was abolished, has the cost per prisoner for a prisoner serving a life term gone up?

It's probably not going to give a clear answer when compared to the US, but I'm still curious anyway. The majority of the cost factor of a person on death row is not due to taking care of the needs of the prisoner, but rather the legal costs. The various countries in the UK probably don't have as much of a legal appeals maze as the US does by comparison, so I don't know if you could have the same set of circumstances. However, I'm willing to bet that should a life sentence suddenly become the highest form of punishment that the judicial system can give a person, that the legal cost per prisoner will suddenly increase as well.

Re: Tinsi, well yeah, I figure the dead person wouldn't care either way (smarty pants :P)

It was more a morality conundrum for me to ask the people who are against (or on the wall) about capital punishment. I was wondering if it was in their eyes somehow worse for a person to be executed versus dying while serving a life (or other long-term sentence) in prison and then being found not guilty posthumously; and if so, why?

Because you killed someone. Intentionally. Duh? Smarty pants right back at'ya :P

However, I'm willing to bet that should a life sentence suddenly become the highest form of punishment that the judicial system can give a person, that the legal cost per prisoner will suddenly increase as well.

I think you're mistaken. Look at cost per prisoner in US states before and after they abolished (or reinstated) capital punishment. To the best of my knowledge, cost-per-prisoner wasn't affected. (No, I don't have numbers at hand, but neither do you so neer neer :P )

Look, I have no qualms with execution on principle...but it should be as quick and painless as possible...and it should only be an option when there is no question, whatsoever, of possible innocence. ie, caught red handed killing people. Witnesses or DNA are not reliable enough to risk a mistake which cannot be undone.

In effect, virtually noone on death row currently should be there.

I think you're mistaken. Look at cost per prisoner in US states before and after they abolished (or reinstated) capital punishment. To the best of my knowledge, cost-per-prisoner wasn't affected. (No, I don't have numbers at hand, but neither do you so neer neer :P )


Because at least the prisoners are alive for the next n years, giving the people that much more time to overturn the conviction of an innocent man.

Yes it does - I answered your question directly. Since 1973, 123 prisoners have been released in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death.

There are at least two definition of INNOCENCE in the US.

One is that they did not do it.

The other is that a court did not legally prove it, or fvcked up in the process of proving it.

Those are two separate definitions. I know you want to say they are the same, just like Aidon does.

But they are two different meanings.

And that also has a separate deal, that the appeal process is designed correctly, and finds the mistakes. And lets those people off, even if they actually did the crime.

You might as well have said "There are 123 Angels are on the head of this pin." "See, I said so", "There, I have proved that 123 Angels are on the head of this pin."

You have not shown me anything to back up your claim.

I mean, I can't really prove to you that Mike Morales killed Terri Winchell, but he confessed to his family, who I was friends with members of at the time, and they told me that he did it and what he actually did, and why. I know he did it. Because he did it.

I know I can't show you anything, um like some report or study or something, to back up my claim. I know that. But he did it, he is guilty. He did it. If there is only one real guilty person on California's Death Row, it is this one man.

Nut cases admit to things they didn't commit all the time, just look at the guy that admitted to killing the Ramsey girl.

ABOUT THE INNOCENCE PROJECT


The Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law was created by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld in 1992. It was set up as and remains a non-profit legal clinic. This Project only handles cases where postconviction DNA testing of evidence can yield conclusive proof of innocence. As a clinic, students handle the case work while supervised by a team of attorneys and clinic staff.

ost of our clients are poor, forgotten, and have used up all of their legal avenues for relief. The hope they all have is that biological evidence from their cases still exists and can be subjected to DNA testing. All Innocence Project clients go through an extensive screening process to determine whether or not DNA testing of evidence could prove their claims of innocence. Thousands currently await our evaluation of their cases.

DNA testing has been a major factor in changing the criminal justice system. It has provided scientific proof that our system convicts and sentences innocent people -- and that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events. Most importantly, DNA testing has opened a window into wrongful convictions so that we may study the causes and propose remedies that may minimize the chances that more innocent people are convicted.

As forerunners in the field of wrongful convictions, the Innocence Project has grown to become much more than the "court of last resort" for inmates who have exhausted their appeals and their means. We are now helping to organize The Innocence Network, a group of law schools, journalism schools, and public defender offices across the country that assists inmates trying to prove their innocence whether or not the cases involve biological evidence which can be subjected to DNA testing. We consult with legislators and law enforcement officials on the state, local, and federal level, conduct research and training, produce scholarship, and propose a wide range of remedies to prevent wrongful convictions while continuing our work to free innocent inmates through the use of postconviction DNA testing.

We hope that this site will raise awareness and concern about the failings of our criminal justice system. It is a facet of our society that eventually touches all of its citizens. The prospect of innocents languishing in jail or, worse, being put to death for crimes that they did not commit should be intolerable to every American, regardless of race, politics, sex, origin, or creed.


I think the thing that bugs me most is that RICH people don't go to the electric chair. Poor people do. If you've got millions to defend yourself you can do pretty much anything. If you're poor... you're going to fry.

Here's a case-by-case list of those 123 people:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109#1

I have told you, Mike Morales was not poor.

He grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood.

And that had nothing to do with him beating the cheerleader's head in with a hammer, raping and sodomizing her, and cutting her breasts off.

I will admit that he did not have the likes of Johnie Cochran at his disposal, does not change anything.


There is a reason why rich people don't go to the Death Chair because they don't want to lose all their ****. They don't do that **** because they get rich by being smart. If you have stuff, you want to keep it, and not lose it, you hire people even to help you keep it.

You don't go out on a whim, or because your cousin asks you to, and beat in some chicks head with a hammer. Because you will lose all your ****. People don't like losing their ****.

ike Morales' cousin asked him to kill the cheerleader, because she started going out with his boyfriend, and the cousin did not like that. This is not the Ramsey case, you freak. He did it.

If my cousin asked me to kill his boyfriends girlfriend, I sure as **** would not do it, but Mike said "YES", and did it.

Here's a case-by-case list of those 123 people:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=109#1


Thank you.

I will read it after my test, I am going to go take.

I have told you, Mike Morales was not poor.
But he wasn't OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson rich either. How many lower middle class people do you know of that can afford to hire a team of lawyers to represent them, do mock jury panels?

Justice is a commodity in this country but it has a big price tag on it.

There are at least two definition of INNOCENCE in the US.

One is that they did not do it.

The other is that a court did not legally prove it, or fvcked up in the process of proving it.

And that also has a separate deal, that the appeal process is designed correctly, and finds the mistakes. And lets those people off, even if they actually did the crime.If an accused wins a trial, he is found "not guilty," not "innocent." In California there is actually a separate process if you want to be found "innocent."

And if there is some error that was serious enough to screw up the trial, the appeal process does not "let those people off," but orders a new trial. Only in very rare cases, i.e., denial of right to a speedy trial, would a person be "let off."

I think in England, centuries ago, a successful appeal meant you just walked home. For some odd reason, that belief remains popular opinion in the United States, even though it's the furthest from the truth.

I have told you, Mike Morales was not poor.

He grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood.If he couldn't afford at least $1 million for his defense (preferably $5-10 million), he was "poor." In legal terms, at least.I think the thing that bugs me most is that RICH people don't go to the electric chair.Or white people (at least not as often).

If an accused wins a trial, he is found "not guilty," not "innocent."

y point about the word, in this context, is not an argument with you. It is with Aidon.

At least you and I agree on one thing, here, I suppose.

Actually, the phrase "found not guilty in or by a court of law, or by a jury of his/her peers", is the more accurate term.

If he couldn't afford at least $1 million for his defense (preferably $5-10 million), he was "poor."

No, you and I, and the rest of the taxpayers of California have spent 30 MILLION dollars on his defense so far.

Not just a million. ppshaaw. Measley million?

gimme a break

No, you and I, and the rest of the taxpayers of California have spent 30 MILLION dollars on his defense so far.His defense? or his trial? There's a huge difference.

Do you think he was represented as well as OJ Simpson was?

And how much did OJ Simpson's trial cost the taxpayers? Probably about the same if not more. The only difference is that the Taxpayers had to pay a few thousand dollars extra for the court appointed lawyer versus the millions that OJ paid his team.
Los Angeles County spent over $9.2 million in total prosecuting Simpson. [1] Over $3 million was incurred by the sheriff's office, with $1.8 million related to jury sequestration. [2] The district attorney's office spent slightly over $4 million on the 40 people working on the case. [3] The court incurred $2.1 million in costs, with $835,000 being related to jury sequestration. [4] Sheriff Sherman Block suggested that the trial was so cutting into the sheriff's budget that the county might have been forced to release other inmates early. [5]
http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/fal95tex/ojacc.html#F5

There's NO freaking way that taxpayers are paying anything close to the amount that OJ paid his attorneys.
No, you and I, and the rest of the taxpayers of California have spent 30 MILLION dollars on his defense so far.
y bull**** detectors are ringing off the hook.

No, you and I, and the rest of the taxpayers of California have spent 30 MILLION dollars on his defense so far.I'm talking about the money the defendant spends on his attorney, not the money the taxpayers spend on setting up a trial, sequestering jurors, holding the defendant in jail, and so on.

This (http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/news.jsp?key=2358&t=) is interesting:<b>Price of death penalty has many questioning the punishment</b>

News-Sentinel March 14, 2006

Convicted murderers Michael Morales and Ricky Ortega have both spent more than two decades behind bars. But the cost of delivering justice to the two men responsible for the brutal death of Tokay High School student Terri Winchell in 1981 likely differs by millions of dollars.

Sentenced to life in prison without parole, Ortega has cost California taxpayers some $800,000 in prison costs alone since 1983.

State and federal taxpayers have paid some $250 million to unsuccessfully carry out the death sentence handed down to Morales over two decades ago, based on the average costs of 11 executions over 27 years, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.

Well, I was just absolutely wrong on that one, wasn't I?

He's gotten 250 million dollars worth of defense. Little bit more than the one you suggested, or the measly 30 I suggested.

I guess it pays to be poor.

nm, I must have misread the last paragraph, I don't understand what they are doing there.

I'm talking about the money the defendant spends on his attorney, not the money the taxpayers spend on setting up a trial, sequestering jurors, holding the defendant in jail, and so on.

After all his first trial, all the rest of the money is spent trying to get him off Death Row.

That is all in his defense(of his life). All of it.

Moral arguments aside, the increasingly high cost of capital punishment in California has many questioning the worth of having the state carry out death sentences.

This is the next paragraph after the last one you posted.

The questioning is what is costing, of course.

You really can't factor in the cost of that questioning(the appeals process) as a real logical reason for not having executions.

Against the Death Penalty People say, "We demand that you spend all this money proving that this man really should be put to death."
State says, "Ok, we will spend all that money, like you ask."
Against the Death Penalty People say, "Look, you should stop all death penalties because they cost too much."
State says, "Shrug, what do I do now?"

After all his first trial, all the rest of the money is spent trying to get him off Death Row.

That is all in his defense(of his life). All of it.In general defense of his rights, maybe, but not in his actual defense, such as his attorney and expenses. It's mostly prison and other governmental costs, not including his court-appointed attorney, who would earn maybe $75 an hour working on his case.You really can't factor in the cost of that questioning(the appeals process) as a real logical reason for not having executions.Of course you can, because you don't just want random executions. Well, maybe you do, but many in the pro-death penalty camp don't. They want to make sure the trial was fair.

Criminal justice would be cheaper if it consisted of a bunch of vigilantes roaming the streets with Uzis, but it would hardly be fair.

Depends, I suppose.

If it were a Hummer full of Chucks with Uzis, it would be cool.

Chuck Bronson, Chuck Norris, and Chuck Conners.

Place would be a really safe place.

Unless you were a bad guy, then the world would be a scary place.



All you would need is one Chris though. Christopher Walken.

Tax payer money issue aside - seing how both solutions cost tax payers money, mine only costs less - yes, I would. I don't really do the revenge thing. That's not really relevant though, seing how even if I would HATE to see such a person live and breathe, even if I'd wish upon him/her the most heinous painful death ever to pay for what he did to me and my family, as a society, we should not lend credence to revenge as an argument. At least not revenge as the ONLY argument.

See, I don't see paying for the crime you committed as revenge. I don't do the revenge thing either. I am not a vengeful or spiteful person in any realms. However, I do believe that if you commit such a heinous and violent crime, then you should have to pay the ultimate price - that of your life.

Oh and for someone who liked my question, you did a good job at dodging it :P

How great a risk of wrongful conviction are you willing to accept? Not just for some faceless stranger, but for yourself? Your spouse? Your child?

I am not sure exactly what this question is asking I guess. I have always said that I support the death penalty when it has been *proven* that the person accused of the crime actually committed the crime. (No spouse or children, so...) if I had been wrongfully accused and found guilty and sentenced to death, I would do as any person in that situation would - appeal until I couldn't any more. Being put to death by lethal injection for a crime I didn't commit is horrible to think about - but certainly not the most horrible thing I can think of. I do not fear death, not that I want to die, just saying that I would rather die that way - then the way Terri Wenchell did.

Justice is a commodity in this country but it has a big price tag on it.

If you think that the OJ trial was justice, you are a bigger fool than I am.

That was the LEGAL system at work, not the Justice System at work, Pan.

And if Mike Morales gets to live, that will be the LEGAL system at work, again. There is no Justice in him being allowed to live. Not with what he did.

I mean, you can't really believe that everybody who is on Death Row is innocent, can you. People are killed all the time by ruthless killers. They can't all be innocent, can they? If they are all innocent, does that mean that all the real brutal murderers are still walking among us?

Alleged.

This man kidnapped a 17 year old girl. Drove the car out into a vineyard. And spent all night raping and sodomizing her, then hit her in the head with a hammer over and over again, then fvcked her with the hammer handle, then cut her tits off, just to spite her.

And you think this person should be allowed to live? Why?

Because of some white liberal guilt, perhaps? Because you empathize with him? Because it could be you there, accidentally convicted, instead of him?

No, I don't think so. I don't think that you have it in you, to cut the tits off of your worst female enemy. I don't think you could do that, even if I put a gun to your head, I don't think you would do it. I don't. I don't understand why you want this guy to breath the same air as you, I just don't get it.

I tell you what, it was Mike, this Mike, who changed my mind on this subject. He changed my opinion about the whole deal, this dude. Cuz he did it. He's not one of your 123 guys. He did it. He's a bad muthafvcka.

And you think this person should be allowed to live? Why?The better question is, why not?

No, that is not a better question.

Why
Do
You
Think
He
Should
Live
?

What reason.

Why.

I can think of no reason.

Help me out here.

What do I, or You, gain, by him living?

Why should he live?

Answer that question. You're as big an Atheist as I am.

'Splain it to meh, Lucy.

There are at least two definition of INNOCENCE in the US.

No there isn't. "innocence" and "not guilty" are two completely different things. You're aware of that, and so am I.

Those are two separate definitions. I know you want to say they are the same, just like Aidon does.

You're mistaken, sir, so your "knowledge" is somewhat lacking.

You have not shown me anything to back up your claim.

I got my number from a simple google-jump to Amnesty. If you want to dispute the number 123, please go ahead and provide your own sources.

Pan gave me your link.

Thank her for doing your job.


edit:
1) The list shows that the system works. Sorta, read number 2.
2) There are a bunch of these guys who got off on technicalities
3) There are even a couple on the list not up for death penalty.

And 4, there was a whole lotta this
"Moreover, the attorney elicited damaging testimony against his own client during cross examination of a witness."

I guess if you are gonna get off, it makes a whole lotta sense that it is because your own lawyer asks you if you did it, and you say yes, that you should get off because of that.

Pan gave me your link.

Thank her for doing your job.

OK, I can accept that it's the one making the claim that has to provide the documentation, and I am sorry for being asleep when Pan googled. I expect no less from you of course.


1) The list shows that the system works. Sorta, read number 2.
2) There are a bunch of these guys who got off on technicalities
3) There are even a couple on the list not up for death penalty.

And 4, there was a whole lotta this
"Moreover, the attorney elicited damaging testimony against his own client during cross examination of a witness."

We're not discussing wether or not the "system works" or wether "technicalities" are a good enough reason not to kill someone. We're adressing Ari's idea of cutting down on appeals for death row prisoners. Try again.

, and I am sorry for being asleep when Pan googled
That almost sounds obscene!

That almost sounds obscene!

Aye, you really shouldn't google without explisit consent!! I feel violated!

If an accused wins a trial, he is found "not guilty," not "innocent." In California there is actually a separate process if you want to be found "innocent."

Up until your conviction, not guilty = innocent. If you are found guilty, the burden of proof shifts from the state to yourself, and then you must prove you are innocent...or that there was an unconstitional violation of your rights which played a proximal role in your arrest and/or conviction.

And if there is some error that was serious enough to screw up the trial, the appeal process does not "let those people off," but orders a new trial. Only in very rare cases, i.e., denial of right to a speedy trial, would a person be "let off."

If its a procedural error...generally, yes, its sent back for retrial. On some issues (generally constitutional questions regarding key evidence, or the law itself), there is no retrial because the higher court determined you shouldn't have been tried in the first place, essentially.

Pan gave me your link.

Thank her for doing your job.


edit:
1) The list shows that the system works. Sorta, read number 2.
2) There are a bunch of these guys who got off on technicalities
3) There are even a couple on the list not up for death penalty.

And 4, there was a whole lotta this
"Moreover, the attorney elicited damaging testimony against his own client during cross examination of a witness."

I guess if you are gonna get off, it makes a whole lotta sense that it is because your own lawyer asks you if you did it, and you say yes, that you should get off because of that.

The "procedure" and "technicalities" are every bit as important as the evidence...those procedures and technicalities are there to protect the public from the abusive nature which is endemic in prosecutors the world over.

And if your attorney is incompetant, that is grounds for appeal (if difficult grounds), every person in America has the right to counsel...and with that right is the presumption that your counsel will not be grossly incompetant.

What reason.
Why.
I can think of no reason.You could say that about a large percentage of the population. What reason is there not to kill them? The drunk homeless guy, the senior on social security, the severely mentally retarded child. These people won't contribute to society, and cost us money to keep alive. Then you can move on to the poor, they pay so little in taxes, so unless they're performing an essential job, why not kill them? And so on.

No, this is not a slippery slope argument. I don't believe that those things will happen as a consequence of letting the first execution happen.

What it shows that you're asking the wrong question. The question should always be, "what monumental justification should we, as a society, have for forcibly extinguishing a member's right to life?"

So tell me, why should we kill him?

Where is this right to life that you speak of?

There is one in the Declaration of Independence, but that is not a law.

I say that it comes from The Social Contract, honestly. That is not a law either, but a philosophical concept.

'Don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you.'
It is a fair, simple, just, and egalitarian morality.

He broke the contract.

And the price for his breach, is his life.

Where do you get your morality from, Tuda? That forces you to believe that he must live. God? Guilt? Fear? Perhaps you dated a girl who turned you on to being an Anti-Death Penalty dude, and think that it will score you more chicks in the future?

The "procedure" and "technicalities" are every bit as important as the evidence...those procedures and technicalities are there to protect the public from the abusive nature which is endemic in prosecutors the world over.
Right, it is a system which proves that the original verdict was correct. Or for those 123 that Pan listed, it shows that the verdict was incorrect. The Appeals process is part of the whole process. And that list, shows that the system is working, not that the system does not work.

And if your attorney is incompetant, that is grounds for appeal (if difficult grounds), every person in America has the right to counsel...and with that right is the presumption that your counsel will not be grossly incompetant.
The whole appeals process is set in motion, at least in our state, regardless of any reason. It happens automatically in capital cases.

We're not discussing wether or not the "system works" or wether "technicalities" are a good enough reason not to kill someone. We're adressing Ari's idea of cutting down on appeals for death row prisoners. Try again.
Oh, I misunderstood that point, then.

Sorry.

I don't want to cut down on the appeals process at all.
I don't care how expensive it is.

I got my number from a simple google-jump to Amnesty. If you want to dispute the number 123, please go ahead and provide your own sources.

No, I did not want to dispute the number at all.
Actually considering, I thought that the number was kinda low.

I just wanted to know the minor details of who you spoke is all.

I understand your point now, and agree with it.
No, I like the appeals process as it is, when it gets innocent people off death row, that is a great thing. A very great thing.

But Mike is guilty. And he so far is getting off not because he is innocent, but because lawyers have been fairly good at arguing, essentially, that death itself is painful, and thus is cruel and unusual, not just the means of death.

I thought that everyone already knew that natural dying was a painful process. Just the mere act of body systems shutting down. Even the founding fathers knew that, that is why the put the clauses in the Bill of Rights as they did, they did not want people to be tortured, to make the process more painful than normal.

He broke the contract.

And the price for his breach, is his life.Who set the cost of a breach of contract at death, and why? And more importantly, why can't it be changed?Where do you get your morality from, Tuda?Morality is an innate concept of right and wrong. It doesn't come from a book, or a preacher, or any specific person. If you lack the concept, I don't doubt that you have trouble understanding it in others.

If you lack the concept, I don't doubt that you have trouble understanding it in others.

That would make me the perfect executioner then, wouldn't it?



I don't have a problem with death, it is a natural part of living. You break the contract, you lose your rights to the protection from that contract. Simple concept, but it is fair and just, and morally sound.

Logical, and without Gods or dead dudes on sticks. Or guilt, which is a very pathetic motivation, and one that I don't have.

You break the contract, you lose your rights to the protection from that contract. Simple concept, but it is fair and just, and morally sound.Ok. But why does that mean death? You can lose your rights by exile or incarceration.

Besides, losing your right to protection from death (the "contract") is totally different than being forced to die.

Where is this right to life that you speak of?

There is one in the Declaration of Independence, but that is not a law.

I say that it comes from The Social Contract, honestly. That is not a law either, but a philosophical concept.

'Don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you.'
It is a fair, simple, just, and egalitarian morality.

He broke the contract.

And the price for his breach, is his life.

Where do you get your morality from, Tuda? That forces you to believe that he must live. God? Guilt? Fear? Perhaps you dated a girl who turned you on to being an Anti-Death Penalty dude, and think that it will score you more chicks in the future?

The social contract does not stipulate that all eyes must be paid for with eyes and all teeth paid for with teeth. It simply states that we all agree certain acts are unacceptable by any society which does not wish to revert to an anarchic morass.

oral ideologies aside...the notion that death demands death, per se is fallacious and has been, in western civilization, for a good 3600 years or so.

If going, purely, by social contract, rather than seeking punitive measures, the appropriate response would simply be exile (an appropriate response for many social infractions, though the nature and harshness of the exile can be adjusted for the crime...ie, refusal to pay taxes for the common good might merit exile after ninety days to liquidate assets and purchase goods and materials required to exist outside society...while exile for murder might consist of being dropped off outside of the society with the clothes on your back and told you have an hour to get outside of firing range).

I read once that there should be only one commandment:

"You are responsible."

With that in mind, what kind of excuse can you have for murder (or rape)? When does the punishment fit the crime?

I was drunk when I crashed into that schoolbus? I was so angry when I caught them in bed with each other? The dog told me to kill those women? I didn't know the gun was loaded? I didn't know the consequenses of my actions?

You are responsible. Save your excuse. There is no insanity plea.

You took a life, and you were not justified in doing it. You weren't protecting yourself, defending an innocent, or fighting for your country. You murdered. You deserve a fair trial and enough time to ensure that your trial was fair. Appeals complete, you deserve be punished.

Not rehabilitated. Punished.

Cruel and inhumane punishment for murder? If we were talking about stoning a woman for adultery, I would argue that that is clearly not a punishment that fits the crime. But some unknown amount of pain and discomfort for a person who wantonly took the life of his fellow man?

Please.

I read once that there should be only one commandment:

"You are responsible."

With that in mind, what kind of excuse can you have for murder (or rape)? When does the punishment fit the crime?

I was drunk when I crashed into that schoolbus? I was so angry when I caught them in bed with each other? The dog told me to kill those women? I didn't know the gun was loaded? I didn't know the consequenses of my actions?

You are responsible. Save your excuse. There is no insanity plea.

You took a life, and you were not justified in doing it. You weren't protecting yourself, defending an innocent, or fighting for your country. You murdered. You deserve a fair trial and enough time to ensure that your trial was fair. Appeals complete, you deserve be punished.

Not rehabilitated. Punished.

Cruel and inhumane punishment for murder? If we were talking about stoning a woman for adultery, I would argue that that is clearly not a punishment that fits the crime. But some unknown amount of pain and discomfort for a person who wantonly took the life of his fellow man?

Please.

As a civilization we have moved beyond such simplistic and childish ideas as "they did something bad, we must punish them without consideration of the circumstances".

Under your system the punishment for the man who plots to kill his boss for three months, because he didn't get a promotion would be the same as the guy who shoots down a cop who just killed his father for pulling out his wallet..

Responsibility is not black and white, cut and dry. A merciful system of justice realizes this. It goes back to the traditional example of the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving children...

Responsibility IS cut and dry. Is the cop responsible when he makes the error and shoots the man who pulled his wallet out? Is the son responsible when he takes out a gun and kills the cop for killing his father? While the situation is tragic, the answer is to both is ABSOLUTELY.

Police have to "justify" shootings, especially when they are wrongful, and often get the benefit of the doubt that they thought their life was in danger. In a case where the cop survives, the officer would probably be found not guilty of any crime, depending on the evidence presented.

The young man, he would be arrested and could be found not guilty of murder because "he was out of his mind with grief."

Both cases would be dependent on the type of situation that they were in, time of day, reputation of the victims, etc. In both cases, whether it was a mistake, an accident, negligent, wanton, self defense or bad luck, the responsibility is clear, at least to me. They made choices, no one made either of them pull the trigger.

The point I am driving to is our society allows people to give excuses for everything that they do. No one is responsible for their actions. Then we get angry when we can't hold people accountable for wrongs that they do.

Capital Punishment in America is a clear case of trying to hold people accountable for their actions and being unable to do so, because we are being inhumane when we do.

Responsibility IS cut and dry.

No it isn't. For instance, your "there is no insanity plea"-comment: Surely, you would not hold a child too young to comprehend what he is doing responsible for the results of his actions, would you? Is your example cut and dry if the son that shot his father was 5 years old? But you seem to want to do so with adults with the comprehension level of a five year old. Why do you want to punish people for something they cannot help? It's not like ill people ASKED to be sick.

When does the punishment fit the crime?

When the punishment reaches the point where it's effective - measured against whatever society at any point decides to be "the goal(s)" of the punishment. No point in grounding your teenager for 2 weeks if a simple saturday night in his room will meet your family's goal for the punishment - that'd only put you and your spouse through 13 wasted days of hell. No point in killing someone when keeping them out of society's way will suffice, that'll only put society through a lot of **** with no up-side at all.

With that in mind, what kind of excuse can you have for murder (or rape)? When does the punishment fit the crime?Why does the punishment of death "fit" the crime of murder?

(And think before you say something silly such as, "well, it just does" or "an eye for an eye.")

I am going to assume that the father is responsible for his own death, for allowing the gun to fall into his childs hands. But at what age do we decide that a child knows enough to be responsible for their own actions? 10? 13? 15? When does a child know what is real and what is fantasy, what is right and what is wrong? At what point does a child truly know better?

Those are rhetorical questions, no one need quote me to stand on their soapbox.

Tinsi was talking about an accidental homicide by someone who does not know the consequences of their actions. I wasn't. I was talking about people who make decisions, perhaps under emotional stress, that cause someone else to lose their life. That emotional stress does not absolve them of the responsibility. They aren't sick.

The mechanisms that have been put in place to protect people like children and people with true mental disabilites have been abused by those who just are unwilling to be held accountable for their actions.

"I was drunk." "I was temporarily insane." Those are excuses meaning, "I am not responsible for my actions".

We can give examples all day, make situations what we want them to be, and it won't change a single fact that our society takes responsiblity away from the individual. We look for the reason to excuse them for their behavior, to let them get off.

I just read about this in New Scientist. Responsibility implies you have total control over your actions. I would argue we have less control over our actions than we think. You can induce chemical changes in people or animals in a variety of ways, genetic, hormonal, tumours, chemical, that will radically change their behavior.

In 2003, the Archives of Neurology carried a startling clinical report. A middle-aged Virginian man with no history of any misdemeanour began to stash child ****ography and sexually molest his 8-year-old stepdaughter. Placed in the court system, his sexual behaviour became increasingly compulsive. Eventually, after repeatedly complaining of headaches and vertigo, he was sent for a brain scan. It showed a large but benign tumour in the frontal area of his brain, invading the septum and hypothalmus - regions known to regulate sexual behaviour.

After removal of the tumour, his sexual interests returned to normal. Months later, his sexual focus on young girls rekindled, and a new scan revealed that bits of tissue missed in the surgery had grown into a sizeable tumour. Surgery once again restored his behavioural profile to "normal".
...
Neuroscience, and behavioural biology more generally, are gradually revealing the mechanisms that make us who we are: how we make decisions and control our impulses, how our genes shape our social desires and how our reward system adapts in response to satisfying experiences. We know for example that maternal-offspring attachment in mammals is mediated by the peptide oxytocin, released in the brains of both mother and child during lactation and cuddling. Oxytocin binds to neurons, and the reward pathways record and reinforce the interaction. Mate attachment in females is also mediated by oxytocin, and in males by a similar peptide, vasopressin. In non-human mammals, the density of peptide binding sites in the brain predicts whether the species is monogamous or polygamous. Male prairie voles with lots of vasopressin binding sites are monogamous while montane voles, with few, are promiscuous. What determines the density of binding sites? Genes. Granting the effects of cultural complexity, something similar probably holds for humans too.

As neuroscience uncovers these and other mechanisms regulating choices and social behaviour, we cannot help but wonder whether anyone truly chooses anything (though see "Is the universe deterministic?"). As a result, profound questions about responsibility are inescapable, not just regarding criminal justice, but in the day-to-day business of life. Given that, I suggest that free will, as traditionally understood, needs modification. Because of its importance in society, any description of free will updated to fit what we know about the nervous system must also reflect our social need for a working concept of responsibility.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19225780.070-the-big-questions-do-we-have-free-will.html
(Just a snippet, but lots of other examples about the science of the brain and behavior).
Having been at the mercy of a crazy thyroid gland, I can assure you that we have far less free will than most people suspect. Our personality is hugely determined by the chemicals in our blood stream and the construction of our brain.

This web site has tests that uncover unconscious attitudes you're not even aware you hold: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/

Now, I don't think it is realistic to let everyone go because they couldn't help themselves, but I think we need to understand that we don't give people very good tools to deal with their anger and impulses. We don't teach people what to do and sometimes parents and adults are pretty awful role models.

Of course, if someone is a danger to society they've gotten to be put where they can't harm others.

Responsibility implies you have total control over your actions.

Since when?

People are held accountable even for other people's actions today.

People must take responsibility for even unintended actions, say accidents for example.

Responsibility has no such implications from its definition, it must have gotten there, if you got that implication, from yourself. I suppose.

Why does the punishment of death "fit" the crime of murder?


Because I want it to.

Just like the only reason you have for the opposite, when it comes down to it, is that you don't.

So then you and I are just at an impasse. And then we must only convince enough people to our side, to put our wills in action.

You have no good reason, at all, why these murderers must live. That is only just what you want.

So then it's just a game of numbers.

You have no good reason, at all, why these murderers must live. That is only just what you want.Every civilized society presumes that it should not kill without reason. Life is the default choice, and the burden is on society to counter it.

If we lived in a society where death were the default rule, and we had to justify not being killed, it wouldn't be a society at all. It would just be anarchy, with people running around taking what they can and never accomplishing anything meaningful. We'd be as socially evolved as bacteria.

All those guns and provisions you're storing in your basement for the big libertarian revolution (using my imagination here) are the product of a society where life is the default rule. My view is what permits you to have them in the first place.

That why your view and my view aren't just flip sides of the same coin, justified by the same reasons.

That is how you define civilized.

I have no problem with death.

Death happens all the time.

I can easily imagine a very civilized culture where all punishment is in the form of death. I would act very very very civil in such a culture. Very civil.

Imagine how nice and pleasant everyone would be, if the death penalty were the only form of punishment for crime.


No, you have already set up the straw man, wherein, 'civilized' equals no death penalty. And such, it is de facto for you. But that is only you. And who are you to decide for everyone else?


Premise
All countries which are civilized have abolished the death penalty.
Statement
The US has not abolished the death penalty
Conclusion
The US in uncivilized.

Your premise is unproven and unsubstantiated. It is an opinion that someone sold to you, and you bought it. That is all it is.

That is how you define civilized.

I have no problem with death.

Death happens all the time.

All countries which are civilized have abolished the death penalty.Did you even read what I wrote?

<b>Every civilized society presumes that it should not kill without reason.</b>

I said nothing about death in general, or civilization requiring no death penalty. I said that every civilized society has required some reason to kill. (Hint: homicide is a small subset of all death.)

That's why your statement -- that the death penalty is a good idea because, well, it just is -- is invalid. If you want our society to kill, justify it. Say it's payback, or that it creates a controlled bloodlust outlet for the populace, or that you're afraid Michael Morales will break out of prison and kill you. Give some reason.I can easily imagine a very civilized culture where all punishment is in the form of death. I would act very very very civil in such a culture. Very civil.The fact that such a society has never existed should clue you in to the reality: such a society will never exist so long as humans have free will, because people will not choose such a society.

Every civilized society presumes that it should not kill without reason.

What is reasonable is subjective and opinion. Definitionally.

And your premise after that is unproven, and I really see no example in the real world that backs up your claim.

Our society is very uncivil, I will grant you that. But there is nothing in your argument which says that it will become more civil if you have your way(over mine). Other than by your own opinion.

For me, it is very reasonable to kill Mike Morales. And that reason would make our society MORE civilized.
For you, it is unreasonable. And such for you, the killing without reason would make your society LESS civilized.

erely a difference of opinion.

If you want our society to kill, justify it. Say it's payback, or that it creates a controlled bloodlust outlet for the populace, or that you're afraid Michael Morales will break out of prison and kill you.

I have justified it. You just don't like the answer.

It is NOT payback.
I don't lust for blood.
I am not afraid of Mike Morales ever breaking out of prison.

And I admit that it's not a convincing argument. It's not. Doesn't have to be. I am not trying to convince you, I am only thinking out loud, so to speak, here with these words I type.

But your argument is no more convincing. And you are trying to convince people.

The fact that such a society has never existed should clue you in to the reality: such a society will never exist so long as humans have free will, because people will not choose such a society.

I don't know if you are correct about that.

I rant and rave all the time about people giving up freedoms. Giving up free will tends to be the trend.

And I know you love slippery slopes...But the number of freedoms we have as members of this society are finite. We are giving them away, and not getting any new ones.

Eventually, you will run out of freedom. I don't know when, 50, 100, 200 years. Sumthin. And people will like it when they get there. It won't be like 1984, Fahrenheit 451, or Brave New World. People will like living there, because they have became accustomed to living like that along the way. They will not only ask for it, but choose it, when the time comes. There will be no Winston Smiths, Guy Montags, or John Savages; people don't listen to us.

A society which executed every criminal transgressor would be a VERY civilized and polite society. There is NO question about that.

What is reasonable is subjective and opinion.I said <b>reason</b> not reasonable. A reason does not have to be reasonable. It is just a motive, a purpose, an intent.

Show me one society that systematically kills people without reason. It doesn't exist. Any society that kills, does so for specific reasons. Even if I or you may not agree with the reasons, they exist.

You have stated no reason to kill Michael Morales. Not one.

I said <b>reason</b> not reasonable. A reason does not have to be reasonable. It is just a motive, a purpose, an intent.
Come on now. Reason means reason, right? I am sure there are multiple meanings of the word, but I assumed that we were working with the same one, up until now.

Show me one society that systematically kills people without reason.
That would not be social, of course.
It doesn't exist. Any society that kills, does so for specific reasons. Even if I or you may not agree with the reasons, they exist.
Ya, I suppose.

You have stated no reason to kill Michael Morales. Not one.
I HAVE stated a reason. You just don't find it reasonable, that's all.

It is just a difference of opinion, of what reason is.

In nature, killing is perfectly natural. And reasonable and acceptable. Kinda fun too.
People come along, and form social groups, ...society.
And they(we) say, you can't kill anymore, and the trade off, is that no one can kill you anymore.
Social Contract. You give up this right(to kill) in exchange for another(the right to not be killed).

Now remember that 'killing' was what came first. Not not killing.

I abide by the Social Contract. I don't kill. In hopes that I won't be killed. It is a deal I make. Sounds fair and equitable to me, I accept it. I don't kill, even though killing is a perfectly natural action. But I don't. I don't break deals. And I have no sympathy for those who do.

So then some guy comes along, and says, "Fvck the deal, I'm going to kill anyway."

Killing is the natural state, or in the natural state. In nature it IS right to kill, and in nature I have a right to kill.

Society is what is unnatural and artificial. Because the contract changes the requirements, now.

And now he broke the deal, I get to kill him. Because he broke his end of the bargain, he gets no protection from the Social Contract. It is simple to me, I don't know why you are having such a big problem with it.

But the number of freedoms we have as members of this society are finite. We are giving them away, and not getting any new ones.We get new ones all the time or, more precisely, we redistribute them. You just refuse to recognize them, because you are fixated on a finite set of rights from the 18th century.

Ask a woman, black man, or poor person if they have more or less rights today than they did 50, 100, or 200 years ago.

Also consider that one man's loss of freedom can be another's gain. For example, tobacco addicts have fewer rights today than they did 20 years ago, but we non-addicts have gained greater rights, to prevent the addicts from spewing out toxins in our proximity.A society which executed every criminal transgressor would be a VERY civilized and polite society. There is NO question about that.No, it wouldn't, since it wouldn't exist. It would never form in the first place, and if somehow it did, a group of people will get together and overthrow the corrupt leaders who will commit crimes with no punishment.

Because he broke his end of the bargain, he gets no protection from the Social Contract. It is simple to me, I don't know why you are having such a big problem with it.Let's say we contract to have you install an alarm system for me, and I don't pay you. I've breached the contract. You now have the right to not install the alarm system and leave me to fend for myself. But you do not have the right to go burglarize my home.

If Michael Morales breaks the contract, he isn't entitled to the benefits of society. But there is a huge difference between society ending its protection from death, and doing the actual killing.

The best remedy for a heinous crime would be exile. But, exile is an impractical remedy today because so much of the planet is developed. So we incarcerate, which is the next best thing.

Let's say we contract to have you install an alarm system for me, and I don't pay you. I've breached the contract. You now have the right to not install the alarm system and leave me to fend for myself. But you do not have the right to go burglarize my home.

I have the right to remove my equipment from your home.

With a small caveat.
There is a law in california, the '3 day right of rescission' which states that I can't(remove my equipment if you break the deal, and the stuff is installed) if you change your mind within 3 days. That is why I did not install systems until after 3 days after you signed our contract.

Did not really have a single problem with that actual law, because it protected me, other legitimate alarm companies, and it especially protected consumers. Trunkslammers hated the law.

And I had a form for those in a hurry or emergency which allowed them to waive that right.

It would never form in the first place, and if somehow it did, a group of people will get together and overthrow the corrupt leaders who will commit crimes with no punishment.

It has formed in my imagination.

Just like Democracy, something that never existed before, formed in the imagination of the Founding Fathers. They just had a opportunity to implement it, and they did. For better or worse.

It still is an experiment, as to whether or not it is a good idea.

Redistribution of freedoms?

What an inglorious and ignoble why of putting things.

So, when I finally buy my HD, and want to ride without a helmet on, who was redistributed that freedom?

And for 500 years(however long Europeans have had access to tobacco) you have already had the freedom to stay away from tobacco smoking people.

You just wanted the ability to go where they were, and force them stop smoking because of your mere presence, that's all. Because it annoyed you.

Nothing was, or is, forcing you to go to where smokers are and breath their cigarette smoke.

What a silly notion.

A simple test is the Nose Fist test.
Your rights end when your fist hits my nose. As do mine in the converse.
If you ram your nose into my fist, then you really can't cry foul.

But you do,,,cry. Crybabies sometimes win, even when they should not.

Just like Democracy, something that never existed before, formed in the imagination of the Founding Fathers.Sorry to disappoint you, but democracy long predated the Founding Fathers. It's likely that some of the very first human cultures were democratic.So, when I finally buy my HD, and want to ride without a helmet on, who was redistributed that freedom?The taxpayers, who won't have to bear the burden of your medical bill when you crash.Nothing was, or is, forcing you to go to where smokers are and breath their cigarette smoke.Twenty years ago, tobacco smoke was everywhere, in just about every public area. A non-addict's freedom was severely restricted, in that he had to either compromise his health, or not go out in public. In this case, your rights end when your toxic garbage gets near my lungs, and those rights were redistributed to me.

Notice, you've still dodged the main point, which is the difference between removing protection from death, and performing the actual killing. Probably because it's an obvious, unexplainable flaw in your social contract theory.

The taxpayers, who won't have to bear the burden of your medical bill when you crash.

Or the medical bill because you eat trans fats, or any other reason because YOU don't take care of yourself.

Where does it end? The protecting ourselves from ourselves. And saying "it costs me monies to let you do as you wish."

And if money is the issue.... lets try and control the wasteful Gov spending which costs all of us way more than having to pay medical bills for the smokers and non-helmet motor cycle drives, etc. Lets start at the top a target the largest wasters of my cash and then we might not feel so bad about having to help others with medical bills, even if they may not deserve it in some peoples opinion.

Lets start with corn/soy subsidies and see how the nation screams when it has to pay the real price of meat and grains, rather than the one vastly subsidized by the government. :p

heh - it's possible the Government saves me more money than it costs me or wastes. I have no way to know and I really doubt it.

But when I hear about a 2.5 million study that results in a revalation that we have 2,000 homeless in my area I think 1) why did it cost 2.5 million to figure this out? Who are we paying to figure this out? I think I might want their salary to count the homeless 2) for 2.5 million we prolly could have housed some of them.

EDIT: and 3) if we housed them this time it might not cost so much next time to figure how many are left, lol

Or the medical bill because you eat trans fats, or any other reason because YOU don't take care of yourself.Precisely. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. When you have excessive freedom at the cost of my freedom, it's time to redistribute them in favor of me.And if money is the issue.... lets try and control the wasteful Gov spendingEveryone purports to control wasteful spending, but it's easier said than done. Bureaucracy is expensive. Also, very little of government spending is directly in control of the government. For example, in California, the governor only has control over less than 10% of the budget; the rest is automatic spending which he can't do anything about without breaking the law.

Precisely. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. When you have excessive freedom at the cost of my freedom, it's time to redistribute them in favor of me.Everyone purports to control wasteful spending, but it's easier said than done. Bureaucracy is expensive. Also, very little of government spending is directly in control of the government. For example, in California, the governor only has control over less than 10% of the budget; the rest is automatic spending which he can't do anything about without breaking the law.

Hehe, I didnt say it would be easy, or even possible at this point. As is with most of these topics on these forums (which again I'd like to thank those that post here - I really enjoy reading the threads here) there are just too dang many varying opinions to be able to make us all happy. We can no longer just move to the next continent and start things over 'our' way.

But I think """those that control everything""" have the rest of us just hog tied and we can't easily get un-hog tied. So, as with the wag-the-dog technique, we all argue over the lesser things like trans fats, etc, while """those that control everything""" keep us that way.

any of us could come up with a better world to live in - within each persons views - and with that you could prolly combine many of them together with compromises that enough would be happy with and go make a place to live. But there are others that will not allow this to happen (for their own benefit and reasons) even if it wasn't ...

Bah - just had a call from my father and totally forgot what I was going to finish with.

Oh well, maybe later - happy holidays :)

Where does it end? The protecting ourselves from ourselves. And saying "it costs me monies to let you do as you wish."

If people like Tudamorf have their way, it will not end.

Until we are all nice and safe in tight little safe padded cages, where we would run little risk of hurting ourselves, ever.

Chemically restrained, of course, just in case of any Libertarian outbursts.

Tinsi was talking about an accidental homicide by someone who does not know the consequences of their actions. I wasn't. I was talking about people who make decisions, perhaps under emotional stress, that cause someone else to lose their life. That emotional stress does not absolve them of the responsibility. They aren't sick.

Then we do not disagree, except perhaps on the punishment - people who DO know the consequences of their actions and DO know that it is wrong, should be punished. As they do. Now, I'm sure that someone at some point in time managed to fake it and convince a judge and jury that they were sick when they weren't, but surely that's no excuse for tossing the whole idea that you have to actually be aware of your actions in order to be responsible out the window.

Responsibility IS cut and dry.

No, it rarely is cut and dry. Responsibility is only cut and dry in the minds of those who do not wish to strain and expand their intellectual ability to see that very little in this world is cut and dry, that human's have the ability and responsibility to view situations from multiple perspectives, and in the case of criminal questions, to view the situation through a lens of mercy and understanding.

Is the cop responsible when he makes the error and shoots the man who pulled his wallet out? Is the son responsible when he takes out a gun and kills the cop for killing his father? While the situation is tragic, the answer is to both is ABSOLUTELY.

Police have to "justify" shootings, especially when they are wrongful, and often get the benefit of the doubt that they thought their life was in danger. In a case where the cop survives, the officer would probably be found not guilty of any crime, depending on the evidence presented.

The young man, he would be arrested and could be found not guilty of murder because "he was out of his mind with grief."

Both cases would be dependent on the type of situation that they were in, time of day, reputation of the victims, etc. In both cases, whether it was a mistake, an accident, negligent, wanton, self defense or bad luck, the responsibility is clear, at least to me. They made choices, no one made either of them pull the trigger.

First of all, police should be held to dramatically higher standards than the people. Police have been entrusted with authority, deadly force, and our safety. They have a responsibility to ensure a shooting is justified before firing, even at the risk of their own life and injury. This idea that cops are justified in shooting a person just because they feel threatened is ridiculous.

The people should never be held to a higher criminal standard than the police...and that is currently the case, pretty much across the board, from murder down through traffic laws. The police should always be held to a higher standard than the people, for they are supposed to be paragons of the law.

Secondly, intent is key, it always has been. From the earliest days of the Jews, intent has has basis in our western system. There has always been dispensation for those who did not intend criminal behavior...that is extrapolated to those who are incapable of intent by stint of diminished capacity.

Oh, and for the record, even being "overcome with grief" will not allow you to escape murder. It will, however, keep you from being guilty of 1st degree murder. 2nd degree murder is still a life sentence (though the judge can offer you a chance of parole...).

yself, I think if the cops shoot a member of your family without justification, you should be permitted to personally execute every last mother****ing pig who fired their gun. That is the only thing that will get cops to stop shooting people first and trying to justify it later.

The point I am driving to is our society allows people to give excuses for everything that they do. No one is responsible for their actions. Then we get angry when we can't hold people accountable for wrongs that they do.

Capital Punishment in America is a clear case of trying to hold people accountable for their actions and being unable to do so, because we are being inhumane when we do.

We have more people in prison in the United State than any other two nations on the planet, combined. I don't think we're letting people escape responsibility, despite what Reader's Digest tells you.

Capital Punishment is a clear case of trying to exact vengence on people by uninformed people who like to armchair quarterback with a system they are completely unfamiliar with.

I am going to assume that the father is responsible for his own death, for allowing the gun to fall into his childs hands. But at what age do we decide that a child knows enough to be responsible for their own actions? 10? 13? 15? When does a child know what is real and what is fantasy, what is right and what is wrong? At what point does a child truly know better?

Whatever age we determine a child becomes an adult, for that is when society has deemed that a child is, or should be, responsible enough to join adult society. Until such time, they are not responsible for their own actions to the extent that an adult is.

Those are rhetorical questions, no one need quote me to stand on their soapbox.

Tough ****.

Tinsi was talking about an accidental homicide by someone who does not know the consequences of their actions. I wasn't. I was talking about people who make decisions, perhaps under emotional stress, that cause someone else to lose their life. That emotional stress does not absolve them of the responsibility. They aren't sick.

Emotional stress will absolve you of nothing in our criminal justice system. It will, however, protect you from being killed by the state, since we've determined that only two crimes are heinous enough to warrant execution. Pre-meditated cold blooded murder...and high treason (high treason being treason during a time of declared war).

I don't believe in executing people because they were in a killing rage.

However, there are times when, yes, emotional stress should absolve you of criminal responsibility, depending on the crime. There was a time when our system recognized the idea of "fighting words". That we no longer do is horrible. It shouldn't be a criminal offense for a black man to deck the KKK member who calls him a nigger. It shouldn't be a crime for me to beat a neo-nazi wearing a swastika. It shouldn't be a crime for John Smith to punch a man who keeps making unwanted advances and inappropriate comments about his wife.

The mechanisms that have been put in place to protect people like children and people with true mental disabilites have been abused by those who just are unwilling to be held accountable for their actions.

"I was drunk." "I was temporarily insane." Those are excuses meaning, "I am not responsible for my actions".

They are not abused nearly so much as you'd like to believe. Regardless, however, their abuse is not sufficient cause to restrict the rights of those who make legitimate claim. It is better to leave a small loophole open, than to close it at the expense of the innocent.


We can give examples all day, make situations what we want them to be, and it won't change a single fact that our society takes responsiblity away from the individual. We look for the reason to excuse them for their behavior, to let them get off.

I would suggest, rather, that our society is beset by people like yourself who are constantly attempting to find ways to circumvent our system of justice in order to punish those whom you perceive to be guilty. Your opinion is not just cause for jack ****.

Society should be looking for reasons to maintain a persons innocence, for when society colludes with the Government no man, woman, or child, is safe from the predations of a tyrannical State.

Tyranny is also a lack of mercy or understanding...

However, there are times when, yes, emotional stress should absolve you of criminal responsibility, depending on the crime. There was a time when our system recognized the idea of "fighting words". That we no longer do is horrible. It shouldn't be a criminal offense for a black man to deck the KKK member who calls him a nigger. It shouldn't be a crime for me to beat a neo-nazi wearing a swastika. It shouldn't be a crime for John Smith to punch a man who keeps making unwanted advances and inappropriate comments about his wife.
Of course it should be a crime. There's not much of a gap between that and beating people up because you don't like the way they looked at you. Besides, there are non-violent means of dealing with situations like this. They are just words and if your only threat is a verbal one, all you have to do is get out of hearing distance and the threat is gone.

And anyone not under the influence of excessive testosterone would realize that there's always the possibility of the other person hitting back harder than you hit them.

However, there are times when, yes, emotional stress should absolve you of criminal responsibility, depending on the crime. There was a time when our system recognized the idea of "fighting words". That we no longer do is horrible.

Perhaps you'd like the return of duelling?

since we've determined that only two crimes are heinous enough to warrant execution. Pre-meditated cold blooded murder...and high treason (high treason being treason during a time of declared war).Some states execute for other crimes. For example (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp04.pdf), aggravated sexual battery in Florida (essentially, rape) can be punished by death.

It used to be pretty common to execute rapists, especially in the South were the accused were blacks and the victims were white. They just took Stormhaven's approach: we have a good white witness, so she couldn't possibly be lying, it's a slam dunk case, and let's get it over with.

Perhaps you'd like the return of duelling?We should have never gotten rid of duels. They're an excellent way of culling stupidity from the gene pool.

You know, Aidon's right. I don't know what I was thinking.

Of course it should be a crime. There's not much of a gap between that and beating people up because you don't like the way they looked at you. Besides, there are non-violent means of dealing with situations like this. They are just words and if your only threat is a verbal one, all you have to do is get out of hearing distance and the threat is gone.

As I said, there was a time when we recognized that certain words, while not criminal, could be considered provocation enough, in and of themselves, to warrant a physical response.

It is appropriate. It should not be criminal. There are no means sufficient, without ignoring our Constitution, for dealing with certain statements.

And anyone not under the influence of excessive testosterone would realize that there's always the possibility of the other person hitting back harder than you hit them.

Every man who gets into a fight, does so realizing there's a chance he could get his ass kicked. We accept that risk when the situation warrants it.

Perhaps you'd like the return of duelling?


How do you compare duelling with getting into a fist fight with a guy who was stupid enough to call some guy's wife a whore to her face, in front of her husband?

Some states execute for other crimes. For example (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp04.pdf), aggravated sexual battery in Florida (essentially, rape) can be punished by death.

It used to be pretty common to execute rapists, especially in the South were the accused were blacks and the victims were white. They just took Stormhaven's approach: we have a good white witness, so she couldn't possibly be lying, it's a slam dunk case, and let's get it over with.

Yes, but right minded folks realize that those are the works of idiot men...rape is not sufficient grounds for death, even in principle.

You know, Aidon's right. I don't know what I was thinking.


Of course I am. Its good for you to realize this though.

Given more time, young padawan, you might even become worthy of discipleship.

How do you compare duelling with getting into a fist fight with a guy who was stupid enough to call some guy's wife a whore to her face, in front of her husband?
How do you not? You're not using pistols or swords (or canons in the case of The Blackadder and the Duke of Wellington), not following any formal rules, but the basics are the same. You're fighting over the perception of honor.

How do you not? You're not using pistols or swords (or canons in the case of The Blackadder and the Duke of Wellington), not following any formal rules, but the basics are the same. You're fighting over the perception of honor.

You nailed it right there.

You're not using pistols or swords...you're using fists which generally speaking means the loser gets a black eye, maybe a broken nose, rather than a trip to the ICU or the morgue.

You're not using pistols or swords...you're using fists which generally speaking means the loser gets a black eye, maybe a broken nose, rather than a trip to the ICU or the morgue.

So assault is fine? I'm not sure how you can justify vigilante assaults over petty insults when you refuse to accept any notion of guilt without a full court case and due legal process.

You nailed it right there.

You're not using pistols or swords...you're using fists which generally speaking means the loser gets a black eye, maybe a broken nose, rather than a trip to the ICU or the morgue.
All duels weren't fought to the death, as I'm sure you'd remember if it weren't so convienent to over look that fact just now. :p

Besides with reasonable knowledge of martial arts a well weilded human body is pretty danged lethal.

So assault is fine? I'm not sure how you can justify vigilante assaults over petty insults when you refuse to accept any notion of guilt without a full court case and due legal process.

Its not vigilante assaults. Its fighting words. While I realize, by now, that you must secretly be a Frenchman living in Britain, surely you still at least understand the concept?

This isn't a matter of criminal justice. This is a matter of :

"If you want to call a black man a nigger to his face...you have the right to do so under US law...a very important right. A vital right. Doing so, however, must be done with the realization that he is likely going to kick your ass...and has every right to do so."

All duels weren't fought to the death, as I'm sure you'd remember if it weren't so convienent to over look that fact just now. :p

Besides with reasonable knowledge of martial arts a well weilded human body is pretty danged lethal.

Eh...when engaging in combat with firearms or long, sharp, pointy pieces of metal...the risk of death or serious injury is quite significant. Regardless of whether the duel was fought to the death...death was a significant risk.

As for l33t martial art skillz....the law already deals with that. Using leet martial art skills in self defense to such an extent as you cause serious injury or death has to be justified by the situation. If you kill someone using your kung fu grip...you have to meet the same standard as if you claimed self-defense in shooting a person.

My $0.02 -
Duels to the death were actually pretty uncommon, or at least less common than popularized by the media. First blood duels were much more commonplace.

As far as deaths from injuries pre-and-post guns (ie: sword fights vs. gunfights) from what I've read it's about even. While guns caused internal injuries and often infection because of the odd shape of the entry wound, the removal of the bullet usually caused more trauma than the actual shot (you have to remember that pistols had much lower yields back then, so the bullet wouldn't penetrate through). And while the ten-paces at the OK Corral single shot duel was popular in movies, from what I read, the instances where each participant fired and hit nothing but dirt were much more likely, and in many of those cases they went to fist fights or called the argument settled in a "God's Will" sort of way (ie: no one got hurt, God’s Will be done).

In Japanese history I know that after the Shogun’s peace came on the land and many samurai were out of a job, duels of personal honor or just tests of skill became very common, but they were usually done with the bokken (wooden sword) rather than the metal blades. However when the actual swords were used the results were usually deadly and the death prolonged. Eviscerations were common as well as (as one book put it) “loss of globules of flesh and many various extremities”. Combine the type of wound with the lack of medical advancement and you usually died due to blood loss or gangrene-type of infections.

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with the current conversation in the thread because I haven’t been reading it, but I just thought the above would be useful :P

"If you want to call a black man a nigger to his face...you have the right to do so under US law...a very important right. A vital right. Doing so, however, must be done with the realization that he is likely going to kick your ass...and has every right to do so."

Exactly where is the thing that marks the difference between an infringement on freedom of speech where the govt punishes you directly for saying something and where the govt punishes you indirectly via giving someone else a legal right to physically attack you for something you said?

Exactly where is the thing that marks the difference between an infringement on freedom of speech where the govt punishes you directly for saying something and where the govt punishes you indirectly via giving someone else a legal right to physically attack you for something you said?

One is two citizens dealing with a philosophical disagreement between themselves.

The other is the State dictating what you may or may not say.

Futher, it is similar in theory to the notion of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The freedom of speech does not permit you unfettered permission to speak anything you like without fear of repurcussion.

If you intentionally speak lies about a person...you can be held accountable. If your words can be reasonably expected to lead to public disturbance and riots, and you speak them anyways, you can be held accountable (though it is much touchier).
If you say something which reasonable men would take as grounds sufficient for physical retribution (of a reasonable degree), you are not held accountable...but neither should the person who enacts said reasonable degree of physical retribution.

Reasonable men tend to agree that if you walk up to a couple and call the woman a cunt...you deserve the black eye you'll probably get from the man (or, nowdays, from the woman herself...not that any woman would ever be prosecuted for assaulting a man who called her a cunt, only men get prosecuted for such things).

One is two citizens dealing with a philosophical disagreement between themselves.

The other is the State dictating what you may or may not say.

And in reality, the difference is.. nonexistant.

Futher, it is similar in theory to the notion of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Really, no it isn't. You cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre because doing so would potentially harm people. There's no harm in your example.

The freedom of speech does not permit you unfettered permission to speak anything you like without fear of repurcussion.

I am aware of this, and of course all the exceptions to freedom of speech are based on explanations why - even if free speech is implemented in principle - it'd be a rotten idea to implement it in those specific cases. I simply do not agree that calling someone names has such extreme (potential) risk to it in and of itself that it's safer not to permit it. Directly or indirectly.

If you intentionally speak lies about a person...you can be held accountable.

Well there you go then. If you're called an asshole and your girl is called a cunt, go sue and have them prove their words or pay.

Reasonable men tend to agree that if you walk up to a couple and call the woman a cunt.

I've been called worse. Even by you. Left or right eye, hobbit?

And in reality, the difference is.. nonexistant.



Really, no it isn't. You cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre because doing so would potentially harm people. There's no harm in your example.



I am aware of this, and of course all the exceptions to freedom of speech are based on explanations why - even if free speech is implemented in principle - it'd be a rotten idea to implement it in those specific cases. I simply do not agree that calling someone names has such extreme (potential) risk to it in and of itself that it's safer not to permit it. Directly or indirectly.

I dispute the notion that permitting people reasonable physical retaliation for "fighting words" is the State limiting free speech in any way. We'll simply continue to disagree on that.

Regarding the harm in calling people names...I would suggest there is very real harm and danger in prohibiting people from retaliation for racial/ethnic/religious slurs.

Every persecution of a people starts with slurs and words. Be it the Nightriders standing outside a black home calling the family a bunch of coons and tarbabies, or the Christian calling a Jewish kid "Christ-Killer" and kike.

To such statements there must be the legal option of physical retaliation, so that people realize there is risk in even voicing it, that the targets of their terror will fight back at even the hint of such persecutions, so that they hopefully realize more serious actions will be met with more serious force.

And a nation which outlaws a man from defending the honor of his wife with mere fistfighting, is a nation in dire straits.

Finally, I firmly believe that our...increased criminalization of common fist fights, with the likelihood of arrest and incarceration if you get into a fight, plays a proximal role to the increase in more serious violence.

There are times when men must state "You've crossed a line" in no uncertain terms, with his fists. When men are disallowed this...whatever incident led to this situation simple festers and gnaws away...and eventually a man can snap and when that happens, lord only knows what he'll do, but at that point it is frequently something which really should be criminal.



Well there you go then. If you're called an asshole and your girl is called a cunt, go sue and have them prove their words or pay.

That isn't grounds for slander, btw. And suing someone for calling you a cunt is ridiculous...its a waste of time and money for both parties. The much more reasonable solution is a fistfight, which generally lasts about 30 seconds with the worst injury being a black eye or a bloody nose.



I've been called worse. Even by you. Left or right eye, hobbit?

I don't think there is a worse thing to call a women here in the US...for reasons surpassing my comprehension, womenfolk consider the word cunt to be akin to pissing in the urn holding their mother's ashes and then painting a playboy bunny ears with the resultant mud.

Regarding the harm in calling people names...I would suggest there is very real harm and danger in prohibiting people from retaliation for racial/ethnic/religious slurs.

Every persecution of a people starts with slurs and words. Be it the Nightriders standing outside a black home calling the family a bunch of coons and tarbabies, or the Christian calling a Jewish kid "Christ-Killer" and kike.

To such statements there must be the legal option of physical retaliation, so that people realize there is risk in even voicing it, that the targets of their terror will fight back at even the hint of such persecutions, so that they hopefully realize more serious actions will be met with more serious force.

We'll agree to disagree - to me, freedom of speech means that yes, I will have to endure hearing stuff I do not like. Even stuff that makes my skin crawl. That's an extremely low price to pay for the freedom I have to say (basically) what I like. If and when words end and actions take over, I've got no problem prosecuting the people from your examples and tossing their behinds behind bars.

Oh - and you didn't answer the question - left or right eye? It's not up to YOU, is it, to decide what -I- deem to be "fighting words"?

We'll agree to disagree - to me, freedom of speech means that yes, I will have to endure hearing stuff I do not like. Even stuff that makes my skin crawl. That's an extremely low price to pay for the freedom I have to say (basically) what I like. If and when words end and actions take over, I've got no problem prosecuting the people from your examples and tossing their behinds behind bars.

Oh - and you didn't answer the question - left or right eye? It's not up to YOU, is it, to decide what -I- deem to be "fighting words"?

Actually its up to community standards to determine what qualifies.

As a community, we have no standards. we're a bunch of ill-bred literary roughians.