"If this does not qualify for the death sentence, then there is no case that would''

[Velociryx]

Not directly, no...quite right.

However, society makes choices about both, by virtue of laws passed, and right now, *today* it would be possible from a technical standpoint to build multi-passenger vehicles that reduce highway fatalities to zero.

But we don't.

We don't because society places more value on speed than safety where autos are concerned.

For the inverse reason, our society (in the states using the death penalty) place more emphasis on certainty than uncertainty.

Same type of issue, and society at large makes its will known, again, by virtue of the types of laws passed.

IF society valued highway safety more than speed of transit, we'd have very differently designed cars.

IF society valued the kinder, gentler approach toward serial or spree killers over the certainty that a death sentence brings, then there would BE no death penalty.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

IF society valued the kinder, gentler approach toward serial or spree killers over the certainty that a death sentence brings, then there would BE no death penalty.

Not quite. Allow me to attempt a rephrase:

"If society preferred to reject the risk of executing innocents, there would be no death penalty."

It's not about being nice to murderers for most of us (in opposition to the DP). It's about the inherent fallibility of the justice system, and the fact that innocents have been executed in the past. That's what many of us wish to avoid.

Life sentence without possibility of parole, that's the way to go. Of course we have to make sure they stay locked up. The "w/o parole" part is to make sure the justice system's fallibility doesn't result in letting a monster back out into society. But not killing the convict allows for appeals, which in some cases may lead to a reversal, and then we - society - haven't gone and murdered an innocent. We've still probably cost them years of their life, but it's better than killing them.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

for Arrian

[Arrian]

Oh dear.

You win Vel.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

I see your point, of course, and if our current justice system were set up such that there were no appeals once a death sentence had been handed down, I'd agree 100%.

But even AFTER a death sentence has been issued, there are appeals, and more appeals, then a few more appeals, and the ever present possiblity of a last minute stay of execution.

Even through all this, mistakes are sometimes made, and innocent people lose their lives, and when that happens, it's a sorrowful event, just like it is when someone dies on our nation's highways.

It is an entirely avoidable, sorrowful event on both counts, but we tend to hear more about aboloshing the death penalty than we do about reducing highway fatalities to zero, even though far more people lose their lives to the latter societal choices than to the former. Why? If both are entirely avoidable, and both can be corrected via legislation, why is it that the lesser (in terms of sheer number of lives lost) gets more press than the former?

I contend that it's because one (being anti-death penalty) is relatively easy from an individual perspective, and the other (reducing highway fatalities to zero) is relatively hard.

All a person has to do to be anti death penalty is say so. That's it. Easy.

But if you're anti-highway death, then you (everybody)have to buy a specially engineered car that'll prolly cost you a hundred grand, and live with low speed vehicles (5-10kph, or thereabouts) and that pinches the ol' wallet.....that's more than most folks care to pay for saving the lives of their fellow highway travellers. It "costs too much" to save those lives, so we don't. We want fast cars and convenience, and if a few people die on the road as a result of that, we're okay with it.

Innocent people who have done NOTHING to us.

People far more innocent than the vast majority who are put to death by the state.

-=Vel=-

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Aeson
So are you then a pacifist who desires torture yavoon? You seem to think killing or torturing people is wrong, so you must be a pacifist... and all pacifists desire to torture as you said.

I was appealing to ur(tho I didnt originally respond to u) pacifism. not my own.

[Aeson]

The methodologies you advocate WERE used in the cases I brought up here. They were used, and used, and used some more.

No they weren't. No more than if "Well we hit him in the back of the head with this club, didn't check if he was dead, and threw him out back of the prison... " would prove that the DP the way you are advocating doesn't work. Completely ludicrous Vel.

The entire prison system needs rework from top to bottom, and if you are suggesting I advocate how it works right now (and in the past) you are sadly mistaken. I've mentioned this several times already, but you seem to think that the state of the prison system is still what I am advocating?

-----------------

You're right Vel. Society advocating needless death in one area is comparable to society advocating needless death in another. That makes the DP alright because other needless death occurs. Oh wait, nobody said that advocating needless death is alright.

Like you said, there is also less personal cost to be anti-death penalty than anti-vehicle. On one hand we forgo frying these people, on the other we upset and restrict our ability to move around. One is hard, or rather impossible (as you formulate it), we don't even have 100% safe cars to choose, and most couldn't afford them if we did. The other is easy (as you say) to implement, but it shouldn't be chosen because the other is hard. Ignore the alternatives that actually are chosen by some in any case (walking, riding bikes, mass transit, even airline travel is much safer). Issue 1 is wrong, so because issue 2 is wrong, issue 1 is right.

Then of course there is the issue of intent. Everyone who is killed by the DP is meant to be killed. Is that the same for all who die in traffic accidents? The difference between not protecting ourselves vs executing someone. Not really a 1:1 relationship there. If you analyze the DP stance posted here, no one says it's impossible that further harm would come from an inmate who otherwise would have been executed. It should be guarded against as much as possible but not if the guarantee means doing what is to be guarded against in the first place (ie. killing someone). The same stance is the one I would take on highway accidents. They should be guarded against as much as possible, but not if that means we should forcefully cause traffic accidents to try and stop them. (I agree traffic safety isn't all it could be, but that's another issue)

We aren't Gods. We aren't perfect. Neither are our systems that we put in place to protect us. That doesn't mean we should just give up and not try the best we can.

(I respect your stance on the DP, I don't respect your attempts to rationalize that stance by comparing it to other issues that need work. All it does is compare one problem to another.)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by yavoon
I was appealing to ur(tho I didnt originally respond to u) pacifism. not my own.

I was appealing to ur pacifism.

(May I ask if there is significance to the fact you only capitalize your references to yourself?)

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Aeson


I was appealing to ur pacifism.

(May I ask if there is significance to the fact you only capitalize your references to yourself?)

i looks silly

and I'm not terribly pacifist.

[Ramo]

You cannot say that a killer who has been sentenced to solitary confinement has never killed again. I have shown you an example of that very thing.

I however, can tell you absolutely that no killer who has ever been hit with an application of the death penalty has ever killed again.

That's not true. Well, it literally is true, but you know it takes time after a death penalty sentence for a person to be executed. Often times, many, many years. The murderer would have plenty of time to escape or kill again from death row, as your Gaskins example demonstrated. So, why don't we not let them have any appeals and just kill 'em the day after the sentence. Since your methodology failed with him, we ought to try something more effecient at stopping murders, right? Isn't that what you're saying about the system I advocate?

As I asked earlier, why don't we go even further, like the needle for every convicted criminal? No, scratch convicted, anyone the police suspects of being a criminal. Surely the murder rate would become insignificant then.

It's interesting that when a convicted murderer kills again, you say that's a fundamental problem with the system and ought to be remedied with the death penalty, while when the state kills an innocent man, it's some sort of force of nature and ought to be dismissed as a problem.

And I am curious. How is lifelong (20+ years....a thing that has been advocated here) solitary confinement (which is torture, no matter how you slice it) "morally better" than death? Not only is it less certain to work (for the reasons mentioned above), but it carries with it the risk that the killer will get loose and do it again.

There's an extremely small chance that it won't work, yes. There's also an extremely small chance that a person would escape from death row.

And I hardly advocate this for every killer, just the relatively few that need it (like Gaskins). Even if it is hard to bear, it's still better than death.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by yavoon

and I'm not terribly pacifist.

So you condone violence as a means to solve disputes?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Aeson


So you condone violence as a means to solve disputes?

depends on the dispute.

[Aeson]

And I am curious. How is lifelong (20+ years....a thing that has been advocated here) solitary confinement (which is torture, no matter how you slice it) "morally better" than death?

I would advocate giving the convict the choice. When society deems it necessary to remove an individual from society, there are only so many options to choose from. Giving the choice (some people do commit suicide in prison, so would prefer death obviously) is the best we could do.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by yavoon

depends on the dispute.

And your solution to the DP/life/X argument would be?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Aeson


And your solution to the DP/life/X argument would be?

interestingly I have very little opinion. I think either provides a reasonable working solution.

I have stronger opinions on more common crimes and conditions.