No More Death Penalty in New Mexico

[DaShi]

If you think I'm sensitive about you calling me a **** then you've vastly misunderstood me.

I'm annoyed with you because you're demonstrating a complete unwillingness to actually think about this issue at any depth whatsoever. Instead, you've chosen to rely on the arguments that:

1) Human life is priceless, therefore valueless

Well, that was just me blithely ignoring you. Rude, but I never followed through with it.

2) Your position, based on 0 evidence, is correct, therefore all others need to prove you wrong beyond a reasonable doubt

True, I've provided no concrete evidence as to whether capital punishment should be used or not. Instead, I only provided a logical framework in which to apply such evidence. That has been the core of my argument from the beginning. Thus, I have not contested your evidence and have no reason inclination to do so.

[Docfeelgood]

See, DaShi? KH is a jerkoff.

Brokeback Mountain.

[Aeson]

In actuality, one would think that given a number of high-quality studies with differing estimates of deterrence, unless you have specific knowledge as to how one or more may be flawed, a reasonable person would weight them at least somewhat equally. Not lend 10 times more credence to one than the other simply because it reinforced his previous beliefs.

It seems to me a reasonable person would probably disagree with the entire concept of having death meted out by the state based on mathematical formulas which judge the value of people's lives. Especially considering how our political system plays to those who "lend 10 times more credence to one than the other simply because it reinforced [their] previous beliefs" rather than "reasonable people".

[Kuciwalker]

Yep. The reasonable person would instead agree with KH's argument.

[Docfeelgood]

Death penalty debate moves south of the border

06:23 PM CDT on Monday, July 6, 2009

By Angela Kocherga / 11 News

EL PASO, Texas – President Calderon’s pan party felt a backlash at the ballot box over the economy. Voters favored the former ruling party PRI.

In addition to the economy, the other concern Mexicans have is crime. That big issue help the small Green Party garner a surprising number of votes.

The Green Party campaigned actively. They pledged to propose the death penalty to kidnappers and drug traffickers. The result was 10 percent of the vote in a country where the death penalty does not exist.

Of course, the death penalty has been a source of contention when it comes to U.S. Mexico relations. The Mexican government routinely refuses to extradite any citizen who faces capital punishment in the U.S.

But as Mexico copes with rampant kidnappings and a record number of drug related killings, more and more people in the predominately Catholic country want capital punishment for violent criminals.

http://www.khou.com/topstories/stori....1584dfb9.html

[KrazyHorse]

which judge the value of people's lives

If you're going to make an argument based on the cost of the DP then you open yourself up to this question.

By the way, safety regulations in the US really DO use a dollar value for human life. You have to balance safety versus cost. There are tradeoffs to be made. You can't shut your eyes and pretend that price never enters into it.

[SlowwHand]

Yep. The reasonable person would instead agree with KH's argument.

If for no other reason than to shut him up?

[Aeson]

If you're going to make an argument based on the cost of the DP then you open yourself up to this question.

The value of DP as a deterrent are murky at best. The value of DP as it affects legal and housing costs is quite well defined. I don't agree that a known cost necessarily must be addressed in regards to an unknown value.

I do agree with DaShi that the onus should at least be on those who want to kill other people to first prove that it's cost effective to do so. But even more-so, I don't think government should be killing people based on these types of studies... I'll gladly admit I base this position off of my own prejudices and self-interest, since I'd rather not be shot or have my loved ones shot if say, my genetic makeup was deemed too high a statistical chance to be a cost to society, or if some ******* in a lab coat somewhere ****ed up the samples.

By the way, safety regulations in the US really DO use a dollar value for human life. You have to balance safety versus cost. There are tradeoffs to be made. You can't shut your eyes and pretend that price never enters into it.

Of course they do, and I haven't stated otherwise. You are the one with your eyes shut, imagining words which aren't there.

It not the same thing as government sanctioned killing of people based off those cost analyses. I mean, you're a physicist from a foreign country who wants to go into high finance... we'd probably have to kill you several times over to get our money's worth if we judge your value to the US based on those two criteria

[SlowwHand]

Do you need a volunteer from the audience?

[asleepathewheel]

I'm either in favor of getting rid of the DP altogether, or ramping up its usage. Few people these days are going to be executed despite the heinousness of their crimes, and in my view it's lost a lot of it's deterrent value. If only a few people a year are going to be executed, you might as well just LWOP everyone and be done with it, save the county the money of a DP trial, save the state the appeals money, save the prisons the administrative headaches.

I would welcome an expansion to include adults who have intercourse or sodomy with persons under twelve years of age, for example, so long as there is physical corroboration. I think executing a few of the priest pedophiles would have been beneficial to society (and, I think that the church coverup should have led to it's tax exempt status getting yanked). I would also welcome an expansion to include illegal status as an aggravator/enhancement.

i have zero problems with putting to death persons who commit treason during times of war. i have zero problem with putting to death mass murderers such as those convicted at Nuremberg, or Saddam Hussein, or Tim McVeigh. I likely would have been ok with the executions of Spartacus and Jesus as well.

I do not support the execution of anyone under the age of 16 or someone who is mentally retarded, as squishy as that definition may be. I am in favor of providing an adequate defense to defendants including the employment of decent experts which would include forensic review. Prosecutor is pushing for the DP, the blood/hair/semen should be tested at a lab of the defendant's choice on the state's dime. I support the criminalization of intentional Brady violations.

In general, if I were in charge or had any pull, I would push to decriminalize low levels of narcotics and victimless crimes such as prostitution and ramp up punishments for violent crimes, dwi's, and white collar crimes.

[SlowwHand]

I'd vote for that. I would add that "victimless crimes" should be run by the government, at whatever level. Marijuana, sold and taxed. Prostitution, health checks and controlled.

[asleepathewheel]

I'm going to take credit for killing this thread, or was it already gone before I showed up?

[Kuciwalker]

I do agree with DaShi that the onus should at least be on those who want to kill other people to first prove that it's cost effective to do so. But even more-so, I don't think government should be killing people based on these types of studies...

If the government stops executing people and more innocents die as a result, the government has just as much moral responsibility for their deaths.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes.

[SlowwHand]

See, DaShi? KH is a jerkoff.