2nd condemned Texas inmate in as many days executed

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
This is actually the only reasonable argument for the dp: cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately for both conservatives and liberals, it's also an argument for abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church gets this, but hardly anyone else does.

Remind me: what crime has the unborn baby or the terminally ill or the vegetative patient committed to deserve execution???

None, but that's not the point. The point is: once you grant the state the right to kill people based on the perceived needs of the state, how do you put the genie back in the bottle?

[Kuciwalker]

By giving the state the right to kill certain people with cost-benefit analysis, and not others. In this case, the loss of the otherwise inalienable right to life is accompanied only by depriving another of that right.

[SlowwHand]

I have news for you. The state doesn't just snatch people up and execute them.
In every trial, juries have options on the punishment.
Twelve individuals said, "Hey, this guy is a murdering scum, execute him." So the state does as the people wish.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I have news for you. The state doesn't just snatch people up and execute them.
In every trial, juries have options on the punishment.
Twelve individuals said, "Hey, this guy is a murdering scum, execute him." So the state does as the people wish.

I don't know if it's fair to describe "twelve individuals" as The People.

[Kuciwalker]

They are, presumably, a fairly representative sample. We base all other criminal judgements on them. You have a better idea?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They are, presumably, a fairly representative sample.

Twelve people a representive example of The People? You sound like a communist.

[SlowwHand]

Not really. Heard of a term called "voi doir". Pertains to jury selection and rejection?
Big difference. HUGE difference.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Twelve people a representive example of The People? You sound like a communist.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Not really. Heard of a term called "voi doir". Pertains to jury selection and rejection?
Big difference. HUGE difference.

Sloww, this doesn't make any sense at all.

Voir dire is almost certain to skew juries away from a representative sample, not toward it...

[Kuciwalker]

I'll admit that there is almost certainly bias in the population of jurors, but the purpose of trial by jury is that a defendent is judged by his peers. It's the closest you can feasibly get to "The People" in a trial...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse I'm fairly certain that the comparison is usually done relative to other people convicted of crimes which could have been taken capital.

There's still bias, though that decreases it significantly.

Either way there's no possibility that the economic cost/benefit of the DP even approach the moral cost/benefit.

[MRT144]

the moral cost benefit of the death penalty?

which is; we like killing certain people with no consequences or remorse?

moral cost benefit, right.

[Kuciwalker]

Er, the moral cost would be cost of criminals' rights violated (I say this is zero) + the cost of innocents mistakenly executed.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Sloww, this doesn't make any sense at all.

Voir dire is almost certain to skew juries away from a representative sample, not toward it...

Again, untrue.
BOTH sides have their numbers of strikes, and how many ever don't even have to have a reason for striking them.

"Dude's got a blue shirt. I hate blue shirts."

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'll certainly admit that there is almost certainly bias in the population of jurors, but the purpose of trial by jury is that a defendent is judged by his peers. It's the closest you can feasibly get to "The People" in a trial...

I'm not trying to enter into that subargument. I'm simply pointing out that Slowwy is once again throwing out a bunch of nonsequiturs and trying to pretend he's created a cogent argument.