Don't forget us important mechanical engineers! Without us, you wouldn't have cars, phones, guns, beer, computers, porn, microwaves, more alcohol, beds, condoms, etc...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just as the Scorpion hunts...
Silently Lurking...
"Nothing is True. Everything is Permitted." ~ Ezio Auditore de Firenze
Don't forget us important mechanical engineers! Without us, you wouldn't have cars, phones, guns, beer, computers, porn, microwaves, more alcohol, beds, condoms, etc...
taking a quote from bbt, "Engineering: where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello, Oompa Loompas of science!"
lol
my guess is the word, so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Dammit I'm so gonna get this used against me this Friday!
Oh and I will get back to you guys soon enough(Don and pro). Haven't read your posts yet- just noticed you replied.
Can't let this one go yet- I think I can make a decent case for death penalty since morals are neither absolute nor impassable and it seems to be the main argument against it. At least that's what I made out of it up to now from you guys.
It's not for controversy and giggles...since me and my group are gonna get marked for it...
My taunting was though and I admit there was too much of it. We are still throwing around a few ideas but I will at some point(not now!) get everything down and try for a reasonable case.
Just a quick note about unfairness and tyranny. My use of the death penalty is for a certain prison population, like for example gang (sub)leaders/henchmen (since the top tier ones are too difficult to frame) running business and ordering killing from inside prisons.
It can turn into a hydra dilemma but it will eventually run out of them heads.
Imprisonment will still be the norm for 'relatively harmless' troublemakers.
Politicians who will abuse such a system are/had already been doing so in dictatorships where their opponents are imprisoned and...just die mysteriously during incarceration. Meaning that you do not require the death penalty for power abuse.
A democracy is very much unlikely to change as a result of the implementation of capital punishment/computerized system since the same rules for the use of power will continue to apply. You can bribe a judge and there might only be moral fiber to counter it should the bribe itself go undetected. For the computer you can have a much higher security, multiple verifications and checks to ensure it's working as intended.
The computer(if it works) should have the same capacity of deliberation minus the flaws of judges(that have been quite well documented in literature). Law would still be man-made but the parameters around which it operates made clear and pathways to a number of punishments made definite in the face of current or surfacing evidence and strength of it. You could see the computer as an extension of the human brain if you want.
Since we do already have a huge record of criminal proceedings, a panel of judges would sit to decide on what punishment is most suited and for which case. Variations to cases represent a substantial figure but in many instances they can be grouped. Our laws already try to cater for that- we won't be making a law for tv stealing and another one for car stealing. However a computer can process far more information and at a much quicker pace than a human and we could potentially refine and increase the number of variables that it operates on to make a decision. In the event of a new case, a panel sits again and decides and the data is uploaded.
Technology moves much faster than morals so if we do arrive at that hypothetical situation where we reach the advancements to computerize our judiciary system, morals would be the main obstacle. Appeals are important but for a world that is moving fast in the era of camera surveillance and DNA evidence, their use or relevancy will decrease since cases will tend to be less ambiguous and more clear-cut.
If you do compare 'my system' against current conditions and circumstances, it definitely is very unappealing.
Just a quick note about unfairness and tyranny. My use of the death penalty is for a certain prison population, like for example gang (sub)leaders/henchmen (since the top tier ones are too difficult to frame) running business and ordering killing from inside prisons.
It can turn into a hydra dilemma but it will eventually run out of them heads.
Imprisonment will still be the norm for 'relatively harmless' troublemakers.
And how do you present those kinds of events to a jury? Who is going to testify? What evidence can you use? These issues plague intra-prison violence and keep it largely un-punished. There may be a good idea of who is at the helm, but it's all speculation. If the state were free to execute someone suspected of being a mob boss in prison they'd only be able to do so by violating that persons' rights completely. Cue the slippery slope arguments.
Politicians who will abuse such a system are/had already been doing so in dictatorships where their opponents are imprisoned and...just die mysteriously during incarceration. Meaning that you do not require the death penalty for power abuse.
Yeah, that's an awful thing. Should be attempt to emulate it legally in our western democratic governments? I don't think so.
A democracy is very much unlikely to change as a result of the implementation of capital punishment/computerized system since the same rules for the use of power will continue to apply. You can bribe a judge and there might only be moral fiber to counter it should the bribe itself go undetected. For the computer you can have a much higher security, multiple verifications and checks to ensure it's working as intended.
[...]
Technology moves much faster than morals so if we do arrive at that hypothetical situation where we reach the advancements to computerize our judiciary system, morals would be the main obstacle. Appeals are important but for a world that is moving fast in the era of camera surveillance and DNA evidence, their use or relevancy will decrease since cases will tend to be less ambiguous and more clear-cut.
I really just hope you're going for a skynet troll. I mean, there's just nothing at all about your computer argument that has any bearing on the use of the death penalty and I can't for the life of me figure out why you're still belaboring this point. I think Don succinctly closes the argument below:
But your case for the death penalty falls apart, because you can't both have an economically efficient death penalty and a fair, just death penalty.
Sure, you can be efficient using the death penalty: limit appeals, force the decisions swiftly, and present official apologies in wrongful cases. Or just imprison the ones that could prove that the system was wrong. I doubt anyone is arguing that for example China is not economically efficient in its use of the death penalty.
But such a system is not just, fair, and instead tyrannical, whimsical, and subject to politicians and government officials abusing it. Using a computer would only allow more window for abuse (shady businessman X pays the computer's maintenance personnel to adjust it's script so that his worst competitor is executed).
Don't forget us important mechanical engineers! Without us, you wouldn't have cars, phones, guns, beer, computers, porn, microwaves, more alcohol, beds, condoms, etc...
taking a quote from bbt, "Engineering: where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello, Oompa Loompas of science!"
Don't forget us important mechanical engineers! Without us, you wouldn't have cars, phones, guns, beer, computers, porn, microwaves, more alcohol, beds, condoms, etc...
taking a quote from bbt, "Engineering: where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello, Oompa Loompas of science!"
lol
my guess is the word, so.
numbers cannot chart the level of awesome you are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Don't forget us important mechanical engineers! Without us, you wouldn't have cars, phones, guns, beer, computers, porn, microwaves, more alcohol, beds, condoms, etc...
taking a quote from bbt, "Engineering: where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello, Oompa Loompas of science!"
lol
my guess is the word, so.
numbers cannot chart the level of awesome you are.
It did seem that fairness would be an issue in any economically-viable model for the death penalty. I read about it and the detailed costings are extremely vague.
A trial involving death penalty have costs that are literally ten times or more than one having imprisonment as sentence.
The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences [1].
At this point, the question is- Are all the extra costs a result of our morals and we condemn much more easily if the punishment is life sentence?
That is most interesting. If you guys can clear that up, that would be tits.
I've rounded some interesting figures around repeat offenders, innocents and prison states. Still looking for some more facts that I could use. Will share it with you guys later on.
At this point, the question is- Are all the extra costs a result of our morals and we condemn much more easily if the punishment is life sentence?
Yes, and why would that not be the case? You can release someone who's been given the longest prison sentence if it's later found he is not guilty. You cannot raise a dead man who was executed because the real criminal was found. One innocent person executed also makes one real criminal get away with it. Frankly, i'd like to think justice is more important than the barbaric blood-lust that drove our ancestors to view the gallows as a spectator's sport.
Yes, and why would that not be the case? You can release someone who's been given the longest prison sentence if it's later found he is not guilty. You cannot raise a dead man who was executed because the real criminal was found. One innocent person executed also makes one real criminal get away with it. Frankly, i'd like to think justice is more important than the barbaric blood-lust that drove our ancestors to view the gallows as a spectator's sport.
I've never seen it put in such simple terms but yah, I've never thought about it that way, good point.
Just a side note, the death penalty won't likely deter crime since most people who commit crimes are stupid, irrational, or desperate (IMO). Due to costs, Proletaria's statement, and lack of determent, I don't see a reason why the death penalty should be considered anymore (I used to be pro death most of my life).
How prisoners should be treated and used are an entirely different can of worms that I have issues with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing Diablo since 97. I know nothing and having nothing good to say, I be a troll.
and why would that not be the case? You can release someone who's been given the longest prison sentence if it's later found he is not guilty. You cannot raise a dead man who was executed because the real criminal was found. One innocent person executed also makes one real criminal get away with it. Frankly, i'd like to think justice is more important than the barbaric blood-lust that drove our ancestors to view the gallows as a spectator's sport.
This is the kind of emotional appeal( ) that clouds the issue.
Thought so. I was waiting for you guys to acknowledge it though. It does seem I had a pretty good picture of the death penalty issue in the end.
Now allow me to explain exactly why our morals not doing us a favor at all.
First of all, the obvious- it's making death penalty not as cost-efficient as a normal trial and creates a double-standard that is quite unnecessary.
Why?
The number of innocent person that is thought to have been convicted is 0.027%[1]. However this number has been believed to be quite inaccurate and a more realistic value has been estimated to be 0.5%[2].
It's for the US, where the vast majority of cases are non-death penalty ones and despite that(shorter sentencing phase and quicker jury selection), the percentage of innocent people convicted is less than 1%.
The current cost and proceedings of a death penalty trial is wholly inefficient and should be reverted to the format of a normal trial since chances of an innocent person being killed remains very low.
That percentage should be further down in my model because I wasn't advocating capital punishment for all inmates.
Now I argued for death penalty for repeat offenders, and it turns out that recidivism affects more than 60% of the prison population[3]
This is more than half the prison population that would presumably be in their grave. Sex offenders with conclusive forensic evidence against them shall also be added to the mix.
Why would that be desirable?
Criminal rates are vastly higher in regions with low socio-economic status. In other words, it's the poor who get the short end of their stick when over half of our prison population find their way back on the streets. Removing these criminals permanently from society will be directly beneficial to the usually affected regions' living conditions and standards.
Now the prison themselves- violence remains a serious problem, with gang assaults, rapes and riots. Additionally, public health threats from inmates with communicable diseases continue to be a serious issue. With less than half of the current population (especially the gang members), the resources that was previously pooled in feeding and accommodating a good portion of them, can now be redirected towards better prison rehabilitation programmes and improved management of convicts in general.
Money- should death penalty trials be reformed to a normal trial. 60 billion dollars(should be higher now- this figure is for 2006) go towards the US penitentiary system currently so it won't just be a few pennies that will be saved.
The chances of an innocent being part of the recidivists population must be even lower than 0.5% and should be closer to zero.
In the unfortunate event of an innocent man being executed, their family will be due compensation and counseling.
I was arguing for a computerized system since the chances of convicting an innocent would be even more drastically reduced in that system but you peeps are evidently not ready to contemplate that idea.
So yes, we keep the appeals and criminal proceedings and the human judiciary system, with the death penalty trial converted to a normal trial.
Fair, cost-effective with the added bonus of freeing the poor from oppression and making society and prison a generally better place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's my job on the side and I don't report the income on my taxes muwhahaha!
ahhh only 30 more mins of work!! freedom!
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Business has been pretty slow, I'm not sure why
One hour and fifty left for me, I hate slow days... causes me to troll on these forums.
lol
my guess is the word, so.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Oh and I will get back to you guys soon enough(Don and pro). Haven't read your posts yet- just noticed you replied.
Can't let this one go yet- I think I can make a decent case for death penalty since morals are neither absolute nor impassable and it seems to be the main argument against it. At least that's what I made out of it up to now from you guys.
See you soon.
It's not for controversy and giggles...since me and my group are gonna get marked for it...
My taunting was though and I admit there was too much of it. We are still throwing around a few ideas but I will at some point(not now!) get everything down and try for a reasonable case.
Just a quick note about unfairness and tyranny. My use of the death penalty is for a certain prison population, like for example gang (sub)leaders/henchmen (since the top tier ones are too difficult to frame) running business and ordering killing from inside prisons.
It can turn into a hydra dilemma but it will eventually run out of them heads.
Imprisonment will still be the norm for 'relatively harmless' troublemakers.
Politicians who will abuse such a system are/had already been doing so in dictatorships where their opponents are imprisoned and...just die mysteriously during incarceration. Meaning that you do not require the death penalty for power abuse.
A democracy is very much unlikely to change as a result of the implementation of capital punishment/computerized system since the same rules for the use of power will continue to apply. You can bribe a judge and there might only be moral fiber to counter it should the bribe itself go undetected. For the computer you can have a much higher security, multiple verifications and checks to ensure it's working as intended.
The computer(if it works) should have the same capacity of deliberation minus the flaws of judges(that have been quite well documented in literature). Law would still be man-made but the parameters around which it operates made clear and pathways to a number of punishments made definite in the face of current or surfacing evidence and strength of it. You could see the computer as an extension of the human brain if you want.
Since we do already have a huge record of criminal proceedings, a panel of judges would sit to decide on what punishment is most suited and for which case. Variations to cases represent a substantial figure but in many instances they can be grouped. Our laws already try to cater for that- we won't be making a law for tv stealing and another one for car stealing. However a computer can process far more information and at a much quicker pace than a human and we could potentially refine and increase the number of variables that it operates on to make a decision. In the event of a new case, a panel sits again and decides and the data is uploaded.
Technology moves much faster than morals so if we do arrive at that hypothetical situation where we reach the advancements to computerize our judiciary system, morals would be the main obstacle. Appeals are important but for a world that is moving fast in the era of camera surveillance and DNA evidence, their use or relevancy will decrease since cases will tend to be less ambiguous and more clear-cut.
If you do compare 'my system' against current conditions and circumstances, it definitely is very unappealing.
I will get back later. Need to go to class.
And how do you present those kinds of events to a jury? Who is going to testify? What evidence can you use? These issues plague intra-prison violence and keep it largely un-punished. There may be a good idea of who is at the helm, but it's all speculation. If the state were free to execute someone suspected of being a mob boss in prison they'd only be able to do so by violating that persons' rights completely. Cue the slippery slope arguments.
Yeah, that's an awful thing. Should be attempt to emulate it legally in our western democratic governments? I don't think so.
I really just hope you're going for a skynet troll. I mean, there's just nothing at all about your computer argument that has any bearing on the use of the death penalty and I can't for the life of me figure out why you're still belaboring this point. I think Don succinctly closes the argument below:
Agreed.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
You should see my chizzled abs.
sorry.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
A trial involving death penalty have costs that are literally ten times or more than one having imprisonment as sentence.
The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences [1].
At this point, the question is- Are all the extra costs a result of our morals and we condemn much more easily if the punishment is life sentence?
That is most interesting. If you guys can clear that up, that would be tits.
I've rounded some interesting figures around repeat offenders, innocents and prison states. Still looking for some more facts that I could use. Will share it with you guys later on.
Yes, and why would that not be the case? You can release someone who's been given the longest prison sentence if it's later found he is not guilty. You cannot raise a dead man who was executed because the real criminal was found. One innocent person executed also makes one real criminal get away with it. Frankly, i'd like to think justice is more important than the barbaric blood-lust that drove our ancestors to view the gallows as a spectator's sport.
I've never seen it put in such simple terms but yah, I've never thought about it that way, good point.
Just a side note, the death penalty won't likely deter crime since most people who commit crimes are stupid, irrational, or desperate (IMO). Due to costs, Proletaria's statement, and lack of determent, I don't see a reason why the death penalty should be considered anymore (I used to be pro death most of my life).
How prisoners should be treated and used are an entirely different can of worms that I have issues with.
Thought so. I was waiting for you guys to acknowledge it though. It does seem I had a pretty good picture of the death penalty issue in the end.
Now allow me to explain exactly why our morals not doing us a favor at all.
First of all, the obvious- it's making death penalty not as cost-efficient as a normal trial and creates a double-standard that is quite unnecessary.
Why?
The number of innocent person that is thought to have been convicted is 0.027%[1]. However this number has been believed to be quite inaccurate and a more realistic value has been estimated to be 0.5%[2].
It's for the US, where the vast majority of cases are non-death penalty ones and despite that(shorter sentencing phase and quicker jury selection), the percentage of innocent people convicted is less than 1%.
The current cost and proceedings of a death penalty trial is wholly inefficient and should be reverted to the format of a normal trial since chances of an innocent person being killed remains very low.
That percentage should be further down in my model because I wasn't advocating capital punishment for all inmates.
Now I argued for death penalty for repeat offenders, and it turns out that recidivism affects more than 60% of the prison population[3]
This is more than half the prison population that would presumably be in their grave. Sex offenders with conclusive forensic evidence against them shall also be added to the mix.
Why would that be desirable?
Criminal rates are vastly higher in regions with low socio-economic status. In other words, it's the poor who get the short end of their stick when over half of our prison population find their way back on the streets. Removing these criminals permanently from society will be directly beneficial to the usually affected regions' living conditions and standards.
Now the prison themselves- violence remains a serious problem, with gang assaults, rapes and riots. Additionally, public health threats from inmates with communicable diseases continue to be a serious issue. With less than half of the current population (especially the gang members), the resources that was previously pooled in feeding and accommodating a good portion of them, can now be redirected towards better prison rehabilitation programmes and improved management of convicts in general.
Money- should death penalty trials be reformed to a normal trial. 60 billion dollars(should be higher now- this figure is for 2006) go towards the US penitentiary system currently so it won't just be a few pennies that will be saved.
The chances of an innocent being part of the recidivists population must be even lower than 0.5% and should be closer to zero.
In the unfortunate event of an innocent man being executed, their family will be due compensation and counseling.
I was arguing for a computerized system since the chances of convicting an innocent would be even more drastically reduced in that system but you peeps are evidently not ready to contemplate that idea.
So yes, we keep the appeals and criminal proceedings and the human judiciary system, with the death penalty trial converted to a normal trial.
Fair, cost-effective with the added bonus of freeing the poor from oppression and making society and prison a generally better place.