Re: Death penalty

> Do not blame me for your strawman.

I'm putting a moratorium on "straw man." You're using it like a "Get
Out of Jail Free" card, and I'm beginning to suspect you don't even
know what it means.

**Oh I do, and the fact that Mike has called you on it as well is telling.  I do
actually know, and when you drop one I will call you on it.  Don’t like it,
don’t do it.  Simply put, stop trying to imply that Mike and I are taking a
position we never have, as you have repeatedly done.


> If you're now
> going to say that the death penalty is a "preventative factor," I'll
> concede your point. So is life imprisonment. I prefer the civilized
> option.
>
> ***Again with the pejorative terms.

*Implied* pejorative terms, but yes. I believe killing people is
uncivilized behavior.

**I regard murdering someone as a crime.  I regard answering that crime with a
just punishment justice.  We just see it different.

**I think the fact that the state applies this rarely and with a huge roadblock
of implementation is what makes it civilized.


>> I'm talking about the thousands of years of evidence which shows that
>> capital punishment doesn't prevent murder.
>>
>> **totally?  Nope, and good thing that neither Mike or I have made that
>> claim.
>
> So if revenge doesn't *work,* why do you support it?
>
> ***I don’t support revenge, I support a just punishment of a crime committed.
> Again with the strawman.

Using a word that offends you doesn't invalidate the argument.

**I am objecting and disagreeing with your use Paul.  Punishment is not the same
as revenge and as long as you try to directly equate the two this is pointless.



 Answer
the question. If capital punishment doesn't work, why do you support
it?


**I didn’t say it does not work.  I said - actually I didn’t say it, I implied
it - that it does not work as good as it could.  And frankly I can accept that
because I think the balance of its preventive qualities and the safety and
integrity of the process needs to be weighted on the side of fairness and
justice...for the accused as well as the victim.

**let me clarify that to avoid another useless exchange.

**if the death penalty was immediate, ala Judge Dred or something, then it would
be a much more effective deterrent.  But that would open the door wide to abuses
and mistakes.  Street justice would be uncivilized.

**Instead, we have a deliberate process from day one.  Prosecutors have a wide
latitude of when to apply to seek it, and often will use it as a bargaining chip
to get closure (see the green river killer for example).  Juries have to
deliberate separately and unanimously on it.  Juries are polled to ensure they
were not coerced into applying it.  Mandatory appeals even when the convicted
wants them waived and wants to die.  Courts that will temporarily stay if an
appeal has merit.  Courts that will overturn when evidence is submitted.  And
finally, a Governor can apply clemency or commute the sentence to spare the
convicted.


> I've already done my homework. I'm not going to do yours for you.
>
> **ditto.  And if you have never seen tehw studies on the
> opposite side, then you obviously have not.

I'm not appealing to any studies, so I don't need to produce any. You
are, so you do. This is basic.

**and yet you are making broad claims about the lack of social value and such.
If you have no backing evidence, where are you getting your facts from?


> Instead of
> addressing that point, you decided to pick on my choice of words.
> Unless you actually address the point, I'm going to take it as a
> concession.
>
>
> ***take it anyway you want it, I concede nothing.  If you ignore the context
you
> can do anything you want.

Which context is that? Here's the entirety of the exchange:

YOU: *** the biggest block to it providing deterrence is
really the fact that it is not a realistic punishment
with the decades of appeals and legal bs.

ME: I wonder how realistic it seemed to the 45 murdered
by the state so far this year.

Please point out the "context" that I'm missing.

**I did above.  I badly implied that the death penalty is not as effective as it
could be.  I accept that my comments were unclear.


>> **To equate murder with execution is boggling.
>
> There is no distinction between the two except the one we've made up.
> Like when a kid insists he didn't *steal* the bicycle, he was only
> *borrowing* it.
>
> ***oh but there is, there is a huge amount of difference, you just are
ignoring
> it.

And that difference is...?

***really?  I mean, really?  So all killings are murder?


> Uh, okay. Were we debating the merits of self-defense?
>
> ***you demanded I show one legitimate way to prevent murder.  I did.  :)

Actually, didn't your story end with a murder? Oh, I suppose you
probably don't count that.

**No I don’t.  A killing in self defense is not a murder.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot