Okay all you left wingers, explain this.

[El_Capitan]

 

Well, to your point of abortion, I always thought it was quite hypocritical of the "right wing" to want a smaller government, yet impose a law to prevent a woman in making her own choice about what she can or can't do with her own body. That's another off topic discussion, anyway.

 

If you think the judicial system is perfect, that's your prerogative. In my opinion, nothing is perfect, but to strive towards perfection means constant evolution of making things better. That's progress. I said no such thing about getting rid of the judicial system, so I don't even know why you're coming in with that. That is utterly ridiculous even bringing that up.

 

I think your arguments are crap, too, but I'd rather not try to win an internet argument, so you win.

Perhaps you would have a higher opinion of my arguments if you actually read them properly and did not respond with a straw-man argument. I never once used the word 'perfect' to describe the judicial system. I stated that its appeal process and its ability to correct its mistakes are a strengths. Based on your statements you agree with me on this, so how about you stop trying to make an opposite out of your opponents so you can evolve yourself to something more perfect through a better understanding of other people.

My point was that your argument is flawed because identical logic can be applied to a ridiculous notion. Hence why I said, "truly that thinking implies." I never said it to suggest you believe that but to encourage you to reexamine your argument. This is also why I gave an alternative conclusion to that logic.

 

Perhaps you should stop denigrating other people's opinions with your own in which you believe your opinions are better. "Read them properly", "straw-man argument". Really? Just sftu already. 

 

You have no point except you think you're right because you call other people "naive" or insult another person's opinions as being "utter ridiculous" or "crap". 

 

Go fuck yourself.

[JBags]

Your reasoning for getting rid of the death penalty because mistakes can occur in the judicial system is also faulty because truly that thinking implies, with as much strength, to the suggestion that the judicial system itself should be gotten rid of because of the mistakes it has made. That is utterly ridiculous.

 

I'm not one to get into these debates/arguments, but i just had to comment on this, and I'm going to remain neutral on this topic. But I'm sorry, abolishing the death penalty because the system can convict an innocent, is NOT the same as abolishing the system because it can convict an innocent. The Death Penalty, by its very nature is final. Once you're dead, that's it. Once someone's been sentenced and executed and later found to be innocent, well... they cant be brought back, released, and given recompense for the error. The finality of the sentence given to an innocent is the issue here, not necessarily the system's capacity to convict in error.

 

Think of it like programming. You're testing your software, and you find a bug. Do you patch the bug or discard and rewrite the entire program? 

 

Abolishing the death penalty would be one way to patch the bug. It would be completely illogical to discard the entire system over it, as you suggest is being said.

 

 

and IMO that's the same illogical jump as saying gay marriage will open the door to marriage with animals.

[Guest_Jim_*]

Perhaps you should stop denigrating other people's opinions with your own in which you believe your opinions are better. "Read them properly", "straw-man argument". Really? Just sftu already. 

 

You have no point except you think you're right because you call other people "naive" or insult another person's opinions as being "utter ridiculous" or "crap". 

 

Go fuck yourself.

Constructive criticism for you: when accusing someone of denigrating your opinion because they claim you used a straw-man argument, do not then use another straw-man argument within the accusation.

 

Also, offensive language does not help anyone's argument, except your opponent's.

[El_Capitan]

 

Perhaps you should stop denigrating other people's opinions with your own in which you believe your opinions are better. "Read them properly", "straw-man argument". Really? Just sftu already. 

 

You have no point except you think you're right because you call other people "naive" or insult another person's opinions as being "utter ridiculous" or "crap". 

 

Go fuck yourself.

Constructive criticism for you: when accusing someone of denigrating your opinion because they claim you used a straw-man argument, do not then use another straw-man argument within the accusation.

 

Also, offensive language does not help anyone's argument, except your opponent's.

 

I don't give a fuck, except that I think your'e a fucking douchebag. I don't normally get pissed at people, but you manage to do it so gracefully.

[SpeedCrazy]

Sorry i started this. Mods please close this before anyone else gets t'd off.

[Guest_Jim_*]

 

Your reasoning for getting rid of the death penalty because mistakes can occur in the judicial system is also faulty because truly that thinking implies, with as much strength, to the suggestion that the judicial system itself should be gotten rid of because of the mistakes it has made. That is utterly ridiculous.

 

I'm not one to get into these debates/arguments, but i just had to comment on this, and I'm going to remain neutral on this topic. But I'm sorry, abolishing the death penalty because the system can convict an innocent, is NOT the same as abolishing the system because it can convict an innocent. The Death Penalty, by its very nature is final. Once you're dead, that's it. Once someone's been sentenced and executed and later found to be innocent, well... they cant be brought back, released, and given recompense for the error. The finality of the sentence given to an innocent is the issue here, not necessarily the system's capacity to convict in error.

 

Think of it like programming. You're testing your software, and you find a bug. Do you patch the bug or discard and rewrite the entire program? 

 

Abolishing the death penalty would be one way to patch the bug. It would be completely illogical to discard the entire system over it, as you suggest is being said.

 

 

and IMO that's the same illogical jump as saying gay marriage will open the door to marriage with animals.

I never suggested anyone was saying we should abolish the system, which I did state earlier. I said the same logic can be applied to a ridiculous application of the same conclusion in an attempt to point out that conclusion itself is ridiculous. The alternative conclusion I offered is one I believe to be less ridiculous. Also I think it would, to a degree, satisfy your point.

By having an automatic appeal process, which would by necessity delay an execution, the likelihood of an innocent person being executed would drop greatly. Of course there would still be that remote chance that an innocent person would lose every single appeal, but that is a remote chance and one that you can live with, assuming you cannot abolish the death penalty.

[ccokeman]

Can't we all just get along?

 

If the death penalty and Life in prison are not deterrents what are the alternatives?

The judicial system (much like our legislative system are broken) has lost its teeth. Until it has them back there is no deterrent to violent crime for those that chose not to comply with reason. The reality being that violent criminals are the only ones we send to this punishment anyhow!

[JBags]

Okay yeah that was worded poorly, i never intended that you suggested that was being said, even though that's what i typed. my apologies.

 

However, i still feel that that comparison is faulty logic. can it still be applied? Absolutely. Faulty logic has, and will continue to be used by people. See my above on marriage, which has been used, and is still, by opponents to civil equality.

 

 

AS far as the automatic appeals go, i'm no lawyer, but isnt that pretty much the norm? and also why death penalty cases are so expensive? Besides that, if I were mistakenly convicted and given the death penalty, you bet you're ass I'd appeal. probably get a new lawyer too.  I'm not just gonna hand over my life for something I didnt do.

[paulktreg]

The death penalty was abolished in the UK many moons ago, a good thing in my opinion because the innocent do and have been wrongly convicted.

 

What's the answer?

[ivangela]

Kill em all and let God sort it out?

 

 

No, really. One can't murder someone for murdering someone. Am I the only one who sees the inherent flaw there?

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh yeah, and one more thing. Where are all the mods on this thread...must all be Irish, getting drunk for St Patty's,  lol

Edited March 17, 2013 by ivangela

[Guest_Jim_*]

Okay yeah that was worded poorly, i never intended that you suggested that was being said, even though that's what i typed. my apologies.

 

However, i still feel that that comparison is faulty logic. can it still be applied? Absolutely. Faulty logic has, and will continue to be used by people. See my above on marriage, which has been used, and is still, by opponents to civil equality.

 

 

AS far as the automatic appeals go, i'm no lawyer, but isnt that pretty much the norm? and also why death penalty cases are so expensive? Besides that, if I were mistakenly convicted and given the death penalty, you bet you're ass I'd appeal. probably get a new lawyer too.  I'm not just gonna hand over my life for something I didnt do.

Thank you very much! Your second paragraph was essentially the point I was trying to make. It is faulty logic, but the same logic as the earlier argument, and what better way to demonstrate faulty logic than a ridiculous conclusion (such as yours with marriage to animals)?

 

I'm not sure if automatic appeals are the norm, but yes, many people do use them. Only reason I can think of for why death penalty cases are so expensive (speaking of the actual trial part, not the incarceration) is that trying a death penalty case is different from a trying any other case. I was actually almost on a jury for such a case, but because I could not recommend such a sentence, even though it is what the law says should happen, I was not eligible for it. (The defendant ended up pleading guilty and such so he wasn't given a death sentence, but that's beside the point.) There were dozens of potential jurors, possible 100, and we each had to fill out a long survey to determine if we qualified to be on the jury. That alone is an expensive undertaking as each of the surveys had to be reviewed by someone before the end of the day, as we were back the next for interviews. Yes, the jurors were interviewed by the judge, in the presence of both teams of lawyers, and the defendant, all to determine their eligibility.

I don't know if that is normal for all potential jurors, but even then, that is a small portion of a trial and neglects all of the lead up to it, and anything that comes after it.

The system fights hard to keep you from handing over your life too, but because of how law is applied, when the conditions are met for the death penalty, the system must apply it. That was one thing I remember about the questioning to be a juror... you are treated like a computer; apply these rules on the information we are about to give you. Do not interpret the rules, just apply them. Input and output.

[ccokeman]

Death penalty opponents do not have a viable solution either is my point. There are costs for both alternatives that the taxpayers have to pay for.