No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[Stripe]

And were addressed, directly.

Nope. You never even did a simple bit of arithmetic.

You have an emotion-based argument about innocent people being executed.

You ignore the murder rate and the number of people killed by recidivism. You have a proposal that will never be enacted and would do next to nothing to shift either of those numbers.

 

[Town Heretic]

And ignoring every challenge.

Such as?

You can't point to a few instances of life without parole being handed down and ignore all the times it hasn't or has been overturned.

What I can and have done is point out that you were and are wrong on the point. Life without parole can and does happen and so what I'm proposing wouldn't be breaking new ground. It's not ignoring a thing.

Life without parole for the special class of murderers you reckon should have it is never going to happen.

It already has and does, depending on where you live.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope. You never even did a simple bit of arithmetic.

That's your standard. It isn't established that it's reasonable or that any actual math was in dispute.

You have an emotion-based argument about innocent people being executed.

Rather, I have a rational argument/proffer that would eliminate a thing we should desire to eliminate, the death of innocent people at the hands of the state, while doing more to protect the general public.

While there's certainly nothing wrong with having a feeling on the point, it's not motivated by feeling, your declaration notwithstanding.

You ignore the murder rate and the number of people killed by recidivism.

Not at all. In point of fact I've addressed both.

You have a proposal that will never be enacted

An expansion and return (in some jurisdictions) to a thing already in play is by no reasonable evaluation out of the realm of possibility, but proposing the scrapping of a system entirely and a reconfiguration of the legal foundations of our society is.

and would do next to nothing to shift either of those numbers.

Wrong on its face. If you don't execute the innocent you save lives. If you keep murderers behind bars you save lives.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Except that you add up these lives, but ignore the lives lost in areas your proposal can never address (recidivism, the epidemic murder rate).

Pretty sure that's called "special pleading," isn't it?

 

[Stripe]

What I can and have done is point out that you were and are wrong on the point.

Nope.

Life without parole can and does happen and so what I'm proposing wouldn't be breaking new ground.

It will never happen. There will always be lawyers in the way of a law being applied. You can't cite a few cases of life without parole being handed down while ignoring the majority of cases where it isn't or is overturned.

It's not ignoring a thing.

And that's just a complete non sequitur. It's like you're responding to a completely different challenge. :idunno:

It already has and does, depending on where you live.

And it will never be implemented in the manner you propose.

That's your standard. It isn't established that it's reasonable or that any actual math was in dispute.

My standard? :AMR:

My standard is justice. Justice is receiving in kind for a crime. Murderers should be put to death — justice.

"My standard" is not "arithmetic." That's just silly. We haven't "established that it's reasonable or that any actual math was in dispute" because you ignore the numbers.

You use the emotion-based argument of executing innocent people and you cite numbers such as: "In 2018 nine people were exonerated by the Innosense Project alone."

But when it comes to a challenge, you ignore the numbers. The challenges you face are that our proposal would reduce the murder rate to rare from the epidemic it is now and the recidivism rate would drop to zero.

The reduction in the recidivism rate alone would offset your nine many times over.

So if you're interested in citing numbers, be prepared to analyze a complete picture, not just the statistics that seem to paint your proposal in a better light.

Rather, I have a rational argument/proffer that would eliminate a thing we should desire to eliminate, the death of innocent people at the hands of the state, while doing more to protect the general public.

Your proposal would do next to nothing to protect people.

We seek to eliminate the execution of innocent people. That is best achieved by practicing justice. Your proposal is not justice-focused; it's an emotion-based argument with a facade of statistical support.

Not at all. In point of fact I've addressed both.

Nope.

For instance, you say "nine last year," but ignore counts on aspects of the discussion that, if enumerated, would not put your proposal in a good light.

An expansion and return (in some jurisdictions) to a thing already in play is by no reasonable evaluation out of the realm of possibility, but proposing the scrapping of a system entirely and a reconfiguration of the legal foundations of our society is.

Your system will never be implemented.

Wrong on its face. If you don't execute the innocent you save lives. If you keep murderers behind bars you save lives.

You quoted that paragraph, but didn't read it. It says "either." That means there are two things on the table. Neither were the execution of innocent men.

 

[Town Heretic]

Pretty sure that's called "special pleading," isn't it?

Don't be shy, JR. If you want to contend I'm your huckleberry, but don't repeat an error and dress it up as something it isn't. He's wrong. If you think otherwise quote me and make the case, though I'm a bit weary of the efforts to make this about something other than the proffer.

 

[Stripe]

Don't be shy, JR. If you want to contend I'm your huckleberry, but don't repeat an error and dress it up as something it isn't. He's wrong. If you think otherwise quote me and make the case, though I'm a bit weary of the efforts to make this about something other than the proffer.

Special pleading is an "argument in which the speaker ... ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view."

It's the perfect description. You cite numbers that back up a tiny fraction of the bloodshed, but run for the hills when the challenges over the rest of the bodies are presented.

There are tens of thousands of people murdered under a system that is pretty much what you want and you want a minor tweak to it — which will never happen and would do nothing to lower the numbers — because you oppose the death penalty.

You've got a lot of words, but you have nothing of substance to support an emotion-based argument.

 

[Town Heretic]

It will never happen.

It already has in some jurisdictions. Whether it's possible in every jurisdiction will rest with the people, but it's certainly within the realm of the possible, even probable for most, unlike pulling down the system entirely.

It's like you're responding to a completely different challenge.

That's not like, but is in fact your subjective impression. You're entitled to it, but it doesn't mean you're right in it.

And it will never be implemented in the manner you propose.

You are certainly free to believe that. I don't see your belief as reasonable, given all I'm suggesting is an expansion of a thing already in place. And if that's your standard you should abandon your interest in upending the foundation of our legal system, which is decidedly less likely.

My standard?

Yes. Your demand for some unnamed arithmetic.

"My standard" is not "arithmetic."

Yet you keep talking about numbers I'm not addressing, if without actually presenting them.

Go figure.

You use the emotion-based argument of executing innocent people and you cite numbers such as: "In 2018 nine people were exonerated by the Innosense Project alone."

Presenting facts that support/illustrate the idea that we continue to convict the innocent of crimes for which the death penalty exists isn't an appeal to emotion. Neither is my underlying argument, as note prior, your steady declarations notwithstanding. Not that there's anything wrong with a rational argument having an emotional connection. By way of illustration, I have a reasoned objection to abortion. I also feel strongly about it. The one thing needn't compromise the other. It doesn't here, demonstrably.

But when it comes to a challenge, you ignore the numbers.

So you keep saying without saying what numbers and where.

The challenges you face are that our proposal would reduce the murder rate to rare from the epidemic it is now and the recidivism rate would drop to zero.

Your willingness to declare the murder rate here epidemic doesn't make it objectively true. The current rate here is around 5.3 per 100k. It was much higher for a long stretch, as I noted prior, when the Boomers were young. It declined steadily as they aged. As to murders committed by those released on parole, my proffer would solve that particular problem.

Your proposal would do next to nothing to protect people.

It would save the innocent wrongly convicted and protect the population at large from recidivism on the point. If that strikes you as next to nothing in terms of protecting people you're entitled to feel that way about it.

You quoted that paragraph, but didn't read it.

I did, actually. You mean I didn't respond to both of the parts that comprise your advance, not mine. But here's your bit again:

"You ignore the murder rate and the number of people killed by recidivism. You have a proposal that will never be enacted and would do next to nothing to shift either of those numbers."

It says "either." That means there are two things on the table. Neither were the execution of innocent men.

Well I was speaking to the two things on my table, one of which addressed recidivism and the other the execution of innocent men. So we met on the one point. The other is a larger issue I've spoken to briefly in this thread. There's a lot of conflicting data regarding the efficacy of the DP in relation to murders, but it's a separate issue from the one Jacob raised and I addressed and advanced.

 

[Stripe]

It already has in some jurisdictions.

Nope.

Whether it's possible in every jurisdiction will rest with the people, but it's certainly within the realm of the possible, even probable for most, unlike pulling down the system entirely.

It'll never happen.

That's not like, but is in fact your subjective impression. You're entitled to it, but it doesn't mean you're right in it.

Nope.

You messed up. Try to understand what is being said and respond to that.

You are certainly free to believe that. I don't see your belief as reasonable, given all I'm suggesting is an expansion of a thing already in place. And if that's your standard you should abandon your interest in upending the foundation of our legal system, which is decidedly less likely.

The difference being the objective standard of justice. Free accommodation and food for life for murderers is the opposite of justice.

Yes. Your demand for some unnamed arithmetic.

Are you just going to keep making things up? The issue is clear: You presented a numbers-based claim, but will not consider numbers from the challenges you face.

There is no "demand for some unnamed arithmetic." There is a very desperate play on your part to put as many words as possible between the challenge you face and the latest post.

Yet you keep talking about numbers I'm not addressing, if without actually presenting them.

The best math doesn't need numbers.

Go figure.

Quite.

Or better yet, go think.

Presenting facts that support/illustrate the idea that we continue to convict the innocent of crimes for which the death penalty exists isn't an appeal to emotion.

Nobody said it was. The appeal to emotion is that you focus on a narrow field of injustice to keep the discussion away from the broad discussion of justice.

The concept you raise isn't too be ignored, but it is far more important to address it within the context of the murder epidemic. That you want to focus on a numerically insignificant injustice shows that you're only interested in the emotional traction it grants you. We don't see you lamenting the overwhelming numbers in the murder count, in fact you do everything you can to diminish them.

You have an argument from emotion.

Neither is my underlying argument, as note prior, your steady declarations notwithstanding. Not that there's anything wrong with a rational argument having an emotional connection. By way of illustration, I have a reasoned objection to abortion. I also feel strongly about it. The one thing needn't compromise the other. It doesn't here, demonstrably.

Your insistence that you don't have an emotion-based argument is shown false, notwithstanding your protestations otherwise.

So you keep saying without saying what numbers and where.

The best math is done without numbers.

Your willingness to declare the murder rate here epidemic doesn't make it objectively true.

Your willingness to declare the murder rate there not at epidemic levels does not make it true.

But don't feel left out; we have a murder epidemic here, too.

The current rate here is around 5.3 per 100k. It was much higher for a long stretch, as I noted prior, when the Boomers were young. It declined steadily as they aged.

So it's decreased to epidemic levels. Great. lain:

As to murders committed by those released on parole, my proffer would solve that particular problem.

Nope. Lawyers will get them out and they can kill on the inside anyway.

And this side-issue is a distraction. Justice should be done.

It would save the innocent wrongly convicted and protect the population at large from recidivism on the point.

Nope.

Bars don't stop murder. And you don't get to count the number saved by removing justice and ignore all those who are killed.

It's called special pleading.

If that strikes you as next to nothing in terms of protecting people you're entitled to feel that way about it.

And this is emotional manipulation. It should be clear to you what the issue is. You're ignoring the issue of injustice and murder.

I did, actually.

OK, you read it, but misunderstood it.

You mean I didn't respond to both of the parts that comprise your advance, not mine.

No. I mean you responded as if I had been talking about executed innocents. I wasn't, which the words you failed to comprehend made clear.

I was speaking to the two things on my table.

Then don't quote me. :up:

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm continuing to leave off responding to the personal junk...and I'm adding in the "nope"s and likened declarations, mostly. We'll see if it leaves much to comment on.

The issue is clear: You presented a numbers-based claim

What do you mean by numbers based? Are you talking about the illustration of my actual claim/position that we kill innocent people and that we can avoid it?

The best math doesn't need numbers.

You should put that in your signature. I think it's a profound statement.

The appeal to emotion is that you focus on a narrow field of injustice to keep the discussion away from the broad discussion of justice.

That wouldn't constitute an appeal to emotion. An argumentum ad passiones would be trying to get you to feel your way to a conclusion that reason cannot support. That's not what you just set out and it isn't what I've demonstrably done at any point.

For those who might happen by, Jacob asked if I was in favor of the death penalty. I said that I wasn't. My primary objection, but by no means singular one, is that we have and it is reasonable to assume will continue to convict people wrongly and that we should avoid executing people for that reason. There's more, but it's back in those original posts for anyone interested.

Someone then argued released murderers sometimes kill people when they're put back into the population. I noted that in many jurisdictions, historically and to a lesser extent the present, we have had laws in place that allowed and allow for life in prison without the possibility of parole. Traditionally it's used where the crime is premeditated. I would advocate for that application in the case of anyone who has committed murder.

Neither of those two points is an appeal to your emotion, though both are understandably tied to our emotions if we care about the topic.

The concept you raise isn't too be ignored, but it is far more important to address it within the context of the murder epidemic...

Repeatedly addressed. The epidemic is in your head, it's a subjective standard without some comparison/scale to establish it.

Our murder rates have trended down for some time now. It's comparable to the opening period when we had sufficient information to reasonably understand the rate. Again, twenty plus years ago and a bit further he'd have a comparatively strong case to make, when homicide numbers reached double digits. Then, compared to what we knew about the years preceding, it would have been an alarming surge, doubling within a generation. Today, no.

 

[annabenedetti]

For those who might happen by, Jacob asked if I was in favor of the death penalty. I said that I wasn't. My primary objection, but by no means singular one, is that we have and it is reasonable to assume will continue to convict people wrongly and that we should avoid executing people for that reason. There's more, but it's back in those original posts for anyone interested.

Someone then argued released murderers sometimes kill people when they're put back into the population. I noted that in many jurisdictions, historically and to a lesser extent the present, we have had laws in place that allowed and allow for life in prison without the possibility of parole. Traditionally it's used where the crime is premeditated. I would advocate for that application in the case of anyone who has committed murder.

Neither of those two points is an appeal to your emotion, though both are understandably tied to our emotions if we care about the topic.

Well thought out and well said.

 

[Clete]

I'm speaking to things that can be done without that upheaval and which are possible.

You're talking about the advocacy of unjust laws.


Also, you didn't answer my question. Let me ask a different question (two actually)...

Generally speaking:
Do you think that the swift execution of convicted murderers is just?

More specifically:
Do you think that the death penalty as described in God's word is just?

--------------------


By the way, I've been looking into some of the numbers and they're much worse than I thought. I won't go into much detail with it here because it isn't necessary to make the point.

I've been looking at the number of murders in the U.S. vs the number of executions and the percentages are just hideously ridiculous.

The largest annual number of executions carried out in the United States was 197 in 1935.
The largest annual number of murders that were committed in the United Stated was 21,597 in 1995.

Now if we just assume for the sake of argument that these two numbers are associated with each other (which of course they aren't) that gives a percentage of .912%. That is to say that if you executed 197 of the murderers responsible for 21,500+ murders, you'd have executed less than one percent of them.

Now, I know that the executions in 1935 have NOTHING to do with the murders 60 years later in 1995 but I'm just using the two worst numbers in order to make the point. The real numbers are at least twice as bad!

In short, the United States effectively does not have a death penalty and so any argument that even mentions a lack of a deterrent effect is suspect at best if not outright fallacious. In order for criminal justice to have a deterrent effect there has to be an association made in the minds of the public between the offense and the punishment. If execution almost never happens, then of course there will little or no deterrent effect. And to suggest that the executions that were carried out didn't deter murder would be fallacious because it isn't the executions that failed to deter the crime but rather the lack thereof.

If you have a splitting head ache and only take 1% of the recommended dose of Tylenol. When doing so has no discernible effect on your head ache, do you start going around telling people that Tylenol doesn't work?


Lastly, speaking of numbers, how do you reconcile in your mind lamenting the relatively tiny handful of wrongly convicted people who have been executed over the last several decades with the tens of thousands of innocent murder victims that die every single year? Or do you ever do that math?

Clete

 

[Clete]

If it mattered what Jesus scribbled in the dirt, don't you guys think God would have had John include it in the story?

The Creator God, who spoke the universe into existence, had just spoken the words, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”

I don't know about you guys but I sort of doubt that this was a mere suggested course of action.

It doesn't make a hill of beans what Jesus was scribling in the dirt. What He was doing was patiently allowing His spoken word to have it's effect.

 

[ok doser]

If it mattered what Jesus scribbled in the dirt, don't you guys think God would have had John include it in the story?

The Creator God, who spoke the universe into existence, had just spoken the words, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”

I don't know about you guys but I sort of doubt that this was a mere suggested course of action.

It doesn't make a hill of beans what Jesus was scribling in the dirt. What He was doing was patiently allowing His spoken word to have it's effect.

not sure i agree here Clete (and i have to run off to work), but the "He who is without sin" passage opens a whole can of worms, not least of whcih being that that was never a criteria for applying the Law. Moreover, too many people take it to apply to any crime they approve of, whether adultery, homosexuality, etc - it's misused as often as "Judge not..."

i think the passage makes more sense if Jesus is writing a specific sin in the dirt, and i think showing the crowd that they were perverting the very law they were trying to use is a better fit


gotta go! :wave2:

 

[Sherman]

Thread reopened after posts that get too personal are removed to the spammer's wasteland.

 

[Sherman]

​Please keep posts on the topic of the thread and off TOL members. Mocking posts and posts that get too personal are thread killers. There are posts, however in this thread that make keeping this thread going worthwhile. Members that get too personal will just get booted from the thread.

 

[ok doser]

i'd like to continue the conversation with [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], but it doesn't make sense without the context of the preceding discussion with another poster which was moved to the SP thread, so i'll do a quick review that hopefully won't step on any toes:


The discussion was in the context of the woman taken in adultery and Jesus writing on the ground.
The question was asked "What do you think Jesus was writing?"
My answer was "Leviticus 20:10"

I supported that answer with the following analysis:

1. The crowd were trying to use the Law to trap Jesus
2. The crowd was intimately familiar with the Law, having been raised in it and immersed in it, culturally, since birth
3. The crowd were, in effect, slaves to the Law
4. The crowd's use of the Law in this instance was a perversion of the Law, as they were side-stepping justice by bringing only the woman
5. To a Jew of the time, nothing could be more serious than a disregard for, a perversion of, the Law. Nothing could be a greater sin.
6. Therefore, it seems logical to me that the most serious sin of which Jesus could remind them they were guilty of, all of them, at that moment, was that they were perverting the Law. And the simplest way to do that would be by a reference to the scripture that they were violating by their actions.

now, back to Clete:

If it mattered what Jesus scribbled in the dirt, don't you guys think God would have had John include it in the story?

The Creator God, who spoke the universe into existence, had just spoken the words, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”

I don't know about you guys but I sort of doubt that this was a mere suggested course of action.

It doesn't make a hill of beans what Jesus was scribling in the dirt. What He was doing was patiently allowing His spoken word to have it's effect.

not sure i agree here Clete (and i have to run off to work), but the "He who is without sin" passage opens a whole can of worms, not least of which being that that was never a criteria for applying the Law. Moreover, too many people take it to apply to any crime they approve of, whether adultery, homosexuality, etc - it's misused as often as "Judge not..."

i think the passage makes more sense if Jesus is writing a specific sin in the dirt, and i think showing the crowd that they were perverting the very Law they were trying to use is a better fit


gotta go! :wave2:

 

[Town Heretic]

You're talking about the advocacy of unjust laws.

No, I'm not.

Also, you didn't answer my question.

Not an intentional omission. What was it?

Let me ask a different question (two actually)...

Generally speaking:
Do you think that the swift execution of convicted murderers is just?

I think the intention can be. Beyond that it depends on what you mean by "swift." And beyond that consideration is the one I've noted, which invites, and knowingly, injustice, as it is unjust to kill a man innocent of a crime. Execution is unlike any other punishment. Once accomplished there is no manner of recompense, no mitigation, no remedy that can begin to address it.

More specifically:
Do you think that the death penalty as described in God's word is just?

Of course it was just. It wasn't merciful, but it was just. A number of things were necessary and just that are no longer the former, but that's a separate matter.

I've been looking at the number of murders in the U.S. vs the number of executions and the percentages are just hideously ridiculous.

The largest annual number of executions carried out in the United States was 197 in 1935.
The largest annual number of murders that were committed in the United Stated was 21,597 in 1995.

Now if we just assume for the sake of argument that these two numbers are associated with each other (which of course they aren't) that gives a percentage of .912%. That is to say that if you executed 197 of the murderers responsible for 21,500+ murders, you'd have executed less than one percent of them.

You should be looking at the number of murders in relation to the number of arrests and convictions, because a great many murders are never solved. If you commit one it's almost a coin toss as to whether or not you'll leave enough evidence behind to be caught. Any way you look at it, it's alarming. Thankfully, murder rates are no longer what they were, with the Baby Boomers growing long in the tooth.

If you have a splitting head ache and only take 1% of the recommended dose of Tylenol. When doing so has no discernible effect on your head ache, do you start going around telling people that Tylenol doesn't work?

The obvious flaw in your proffer is the "recommended dose," meaning the efficacy has already been determined.

Lastly, speaking of numbers, how do you reconcile in your mind lamenting the relatively tiny handful of wrongly convicted people who have been executed over the last several decades with the tens of thousands of innocent murder victims that die every single year?

Reconcile in what way? Something is missing in your mixture there. I'd half expect the omission to be a charge of an absence of lamentation of the latter. Of course, the problem with that would be its rationality, as it wouldn't make any particular sense to infer indifference to the murder of innocents beyond the state's action to someone whose chief concern in regard to the state's act is the death of innocents.

Or do you ever do that math?

You didn't ask for any, really.

 

[Arthur Brain]

not sure i agree here Clete (and i have to run off to work), but the "He who is without sin" passage opens a whole can of worms, not least of whcih being that that was never a criteria for applying the Law. Moreover, too many people take it to apply to any crime they approve of, whether adultery, homosexuality, etc - it's misused as often as "Judge not..."

i think the passage makes more sense if Jesus is writing a specific sin in the dirt, and i think showing the crowd that they were perverting the very law they were trying to use is a better fit


gotta go! :wave2:

Which specific sin would that be? Adultery? Is that why the whole crowd went away, because they were all guilty of the exact same thing they were accusing the woman of?

If Jesus meant to specify a particular sin it would have been easy enough to clarify it and the passage simply states that if anyone in the crowd was without sin itself then they could cast the first stone. Obviously, none of them were so nobody was in a position to cast one. Arguing that Jesus was writing a passage from Leviticus in light of that makes no sense.

 

[ok doser]

Which specific sin would that be?

i answered that in post 257