2nd condemned Texas inmate in as many days executed

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I like it when you do my work for me

KH, you still haven't ranked my intelligence

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'd be impressed if my wife was exposed as a CIA agent...

Why? Because she already is?

[Ramo]

Murdurers' lives aren't precious.

The lives of people who grow up in houses with more than 37 bathrooms aren't precious.

[Kuciwalker]

Agreed.

[Kuciwalker]

KH:

I want to clarify that the DP isn't an issue particularly dear to me; while I think there's nothing wrong with it, and see it as some good, I wouldn't be terribly upset if it went away (particularly as part of a compromise for issues I do care more about).

I think it's good because it's the maximum possible punishment we can give*, so it marks some crimes as the worst possible thing you can do in a way that life imprisonment - even if it were restricted to only those crimes - wouldn't. The finality of the DP makes it qualitatively different (in a good way, in this case) from life imprisonment.

*safely. We could tortue people and stuff like that, but there's far more inherent sadism in that, and I think it's a dangerous road even ignoring human rights issues (which I don't think murderers really have or deserve).

[dannubis]

well, the notion that every person (even the most degenerated ones) have basic rights is something I think should at all times be upheld.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What is the point of a death penalty if it is neither:

a) Significantly more protective of society than imprisonment
b) An effective deterrent

Other than simple vengefulness, that is?

KH wins the prize.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And, of course, one of those common values is that these people do not have rights, they've forfeited them, and that this deserves punishment by death.

Absolutely no rights, eh? In a Supreme Court case in 1984 or around there, judges declared that convicted felons have the right to marry, which, before this case, has been denied to them.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by MrFun



Absolutely no rights, eh? In a Supreme Court case in 1984 or around there, judges declared that convicted felons have the right to marry, which, before this case, has been denied to them.

this just shows there is the ability to change the rights prisoners have.

[MRT144]

furthermore can someone marry a prisoner and file jointly for tax purposes? I would assume a prisoner doesnt have an income.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MRT144
furthermore can someone marry a prisoner and file jointly for tax purposes? I would assume a prisoner doesnt have an income.

Yes

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Spec


Costs less than a prisoner.

A prisoner cost 50000$ a year.

Spec.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
Absolutely no rights, eh? In a Supreme Court case in 1984 or around there, judges declared that convicted felons have the right to marry, which, before this case, has been denied to them.

I'm not talking about mere felons and I'm not talking about legal rights, you tool.

[SlowwHand]

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.

This is actually not true.
Think of a man who is known to be violent and the strain of having him in your custody.
Now multiply.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

It's possible and even reasonable to suggest that the moral cost of the DP is sufficiently less than that of abortion or euthanasia, or that the economic costs of sustaining prisoners are sufficiently greater than that of prohibiting abortion and euthanasia, to make the cost-benefit analysis support DP but not euthanasia and abortion.

Either way, though, I suspect that it would take a substantial widening of the DP for it to produce any significant economic benefits. A widening that would have sufficient moral costs to eliminate those economic benefits, IMO.