So, you're a lawyer Don? It's all making sense now. Isn't there another lawyer on these boards? And now Proleteria the professor. Nektu the chef. Sixen the almost Blizz employee programmer student chat gem.
We seem to have quite accomplished fellows in this place. I like it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
You didn't get my point which was pointing how you didn't point out (and you should have) the extreme nature of probability in lottery therefore making it simply a very bad example.
Lottery's nature is obvious enough in my eyes not to require pointing, pointing the obvious is belittling the people that might read what I write.
Huh..ya very bad example. That's what I pointed out and it was.
Pretty crucial in the matter of discussing the sensitivity of people towards the word 'fail' and its derivatives.
You don't 'work' or put any effort towards winning the lottery like you would in proving a hypothesis or perfecting a game. I understand it can be belittling for the ego but not towards the argument/context it was used in.
There is always a great deal of uncertainty and a lot of need for human judgment, and a lot of un-quantifiable elements to judgments.
Like?
Law is language. Language is terribly imprecise and depends on context. Language requires interpretation, context requires evaluation. Sometimes there hasn't been a previous case, sometimes the law is unclear.
A simple example:
If killing a man with one knife stab is manslaughter, and killing a man with a hundred knife stabs is aggravated manslaughter (a more heinous crime), how many stabs mark the difference between the two? What about if some of the stabs fail and some succeed? What about where the stabs hit, surely there is a difference between hitting into the head and hitting to the hand? And so on.
The difference between the two is hard to quantify, and possible only by measuring the case at hand against all the cases that have been and what the law says, and making a judgment based on that.
Punishment A for stabbing leading to death
Punishment B for repeated stabbing leading to death
Punishment C for repeated stabbing leading to death and following death.
Like I said, judges like a computer play with variables. What's more, a computer will have complete and easily accessible data to compare, therefore making judgments essentially more fair.
There is nothing in law that says 1 stab means 2 years, therefore 4 stabbings = 8 years, so quantifying the impact and meaning of the crime will take a different route. The example I mentioned above is a greatly oversimplified one.
A basic computer would able to process much more data than that, like strength of evidence, validity and probability for error.
The facts are always incomplete. If it was possible to know all the facts, a judgment would be a simple logical process, where X = facts, Y = what the law says about those facts, Z = the judgment:
X + Y = Z
But since both X and Y are at best cases unknown (an example about unknown facts: a murder trial with no witnesses, scarce evidence and a suspect that acts innocent, but none of this changing the fact that there's a corpse in the morgue), it's always possible to argue for two opposite results. Facts are always shady, the facts are more akin to probabilities, since everyone could lie, every piece of evidence could be fabricated or incorrectly interpreted, etc.
Sure thing. Fabricating photographic or video evidence is pretty hard and easy to spot. So in the end, it comes down to strength of evidence collected.
In the case you just mentioned, lack of substantial evidence means the guy cannot be convicted.
A pretty easy case for both a machine or man.
It's a common layman's mistake to think that law has one answer to one situation. Oftentimes law is a matter of weighing different possible answers and how they relate to one situation. (Fact: that's why the symbol of law is oftentimes a scale, the symbol of the weighing of various aspects that is necessary in law.)
As such, law is a hopelessly humane process, and I find it hard that a computer complex enough to surpass humans could be made within the next hundred years.
Considering the history of utter failure encompassing human passing judgments which so you kindly pointed out in your previous post, I think it's a process that needs to be put in safer hands or rather..electronic chips.
Man is very limited in his capacity in efficiently weighing different possible answers.
And I won't go into details about how you have a rather skewed and hopelessly incorrect perception of what us lawyers do.
Uh...weren't you the one who pointed out how there were different types of lawyers in a recent thread?
Are you like in a fairy tale or something where you think all criminal lawyers are fighting for truth and justice?
Get real. I'm not talking about ALL YOU lawyers. Don't be so touchy.
Affirmative with respect to what? To your morals? Definitely not. To society's benefit(financial and security-wise)? Then yes, since I think I made a pretty good case.
So we've abandoned the "most humane," approach and we're now looking at it from the numbers. I suppose that makes a better case for your argument, but imo it's still terrible. Personally, i'd rather not do the math on teriminating human lives. All the best.
I am not ignoring this concept at all. My proposition comes from a broader point of view- from individual to society/group.
Furthermore you should have read my earlier posts more carefully. A computerized system has all the merits of incorporating the death penalty if it managers to seriously lower the odds (like it most probably will as compared to a man-driven pathway) of convicting an innocent.
Which goes back to my original standpoint- death penalty for repeat offenders.
Broader point of individual to society.. you realize that's literally gibberish. Can you expound upon that? A computerized system? Are you fucking kidding me? How does a computer account for evidence that has yet to enter the record? How does it account for false testimony that may be overturned? It can't, it won't, and that's an awful suggestion. What's more, repeat offenders are more likely to be wrongly convicted (along with legitimately convicted, of course) than the rest so I don't see where that's supposed to be a positive.
Surely, you can appreciate the fact that a person convicted MULTIPLE times for molesting and abusing children has a very low probability of being innocent.
Or a gang member racketing/killing to gain higher rank within his group to then pass through prison and go back on the streets to target innocents again to push further up the hierarchy?
I am not talking about that possible passion crime where some guy may or may not have killed his wife after the woman had been cheating on him. You would think that was clear enough when i mentioned repeat offenders in my original post.
That kind of emotional appeal is what kills innocent people instead of seeing justice handed out fairly. If someone is a violent repeat offender, they should go away for life. Killing them only opens the door for wrongfully convicted and actually reformed persons to be murdered by an over-zealous D.A.
Empathy is empathy- be it starving humans or convicted ones. It is no re-direct at all. It is a valid parallel in illustrating the hypocrisy of self-righteous folks.
Now you seem to be under the impression that I am empathic towards prisoners…or even the children in Somalia? Read my post again. There is no indication of that in any of what I said. Once again- you’re putting words in my mouth. My point remains- most of the world doesn’t care. That IS reality. What I have been doing is merely presenting the state of matters and comparing it to my proposition. You are inferring from your rather biased perception of the topic and not my actual arguments.
Not to mention that equating the death penalty to murder in an attempt to degrading my point was a rather shallow and poor effort. I am sure you can understand the subtle difference between the two, so let’s leave aside the semantics apt at provoking distress for the religious zealots, shall we?
So you're not empathetic, at all. That would explain your position on the death penalty.
Nothing is perfect- the reason why I proposed a computerized system which is closest to the perfection that we are trying to achieve. This in tandem with the complacency and unwillingness of society to invest in prison reform makes death penalty a valid alternative to eliminate the true dangers (repeat offenders). Providing for food and accommodation for these individuals while producing for them other, much less dangerous prisoners as their victims behind bars is I believe a terrible mistake on top of being a financial burden. There is no distortion unless you are letting your feelings about capital punishment cloud your cognitive means to understand the logical precept I am proposing.
If nothing is perfect, why are you in favor of a punishment that is absolute and cannot be un-done? You have to realize that justice isn't a function that you can computerize. It's data from a plethora of sources that is quite likely to be compromised in some way. That is the nature of the beast and the reason why thousands of people are wrongly convicted each year. Much as I can understand the need to cut costs in a poor economy, I think this is far and away the worst method. Like I said before, a massive majority of our prison costs could be avoided by legalized drugs. There is no need to put barbaric capital punishment laws in, compromising our humanity for the sake of pinching a penny.
Affirmative with respect to what? To your morals? Definitely not. To society's benefit(financial and security-wise)? Then yes, since I think I made a pretty good case.
So we've abandoned the "most humane," approach and we're now looking at it from the numbers. I suppose that makes a better case for your argument, but imo it's still terrible. Personally, i'd rather not do the math on teriminating human lives. All the best.
Oh yes, making society a safer place is so inhumane. Gotcha.
Feeding back gang members and serial rapists to society is also mathematically so right.
Spare me this self-righteousness drama already.
It's akin to someone saying they refuse to use a knife because it has the chance to cut them. Using that knife will help them accomplish a great deal of tasks(cutting vegetables!). They will cut themselves eventually but they will also heal. As time goes on, you learn to wield the knife more effectively.
Just so you don't take this one too out of context-
someone- society
knife- death penalty
cut yourself- innocent people
tasks- ridding of harmful people
heal- the world doesn't and won't stop when you die. they'll get over you sooner than you think, innocent or guilty.
Learning to use the knife- A computer that is constantly updated with a variety of cases gains a superior ability to man in gauging impartially and fairly a person.
Broader point of individual to society.. you realize that's literally gibberish. Can you expound upon that? A computerized system? Are you fucking kidding me? How does a computer account for evidence that has yet to enter the record? How does it account for false testimony that may be overturned? It can't, it won't, and that's an awful suggestion. What's more, repeat offenders are more likely to be wrongly convicted (along with legitimately convicted, of course) than the rest so I don't see where that's supposed to be a positive.
When you consider society as a whole, it has much to gain through filtering out those detrimental to it even if the process isn't 100% reliable- security and money-wise. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. It's only gibberish because, you refuse to contemplate any other perspective but your own.
About the computer part, just wow man. Like seriously?
A case not having enough evidence simply cannot go forward. New evidence? Case reopened. Remember- innocent until proven guilty. Why would a machine struggle with that? Only a man can fuck this up and condemn someone anyway.
(False)Testimony? Is that like the only criteria through which you condemn a person? The evidence needs to be substantial, in which case you VERIFY the testimony. There are human-like things called detectives/investigators that have that job. They then input the sweet data in the computer for a proper decision to take place.
Wrong conviction result from the human factor in the decision process. Most cannot objectively consider new information without heavy bias about past convictions. Which is where Mr computer comes on top. Still not the seeing positive?
That kind of emotional appeal is what kills innocent people instead of seeing justice handed out fairly. If someone is a violent repeat offender, they should go away for life. Killing them only opens the door for wrongfully convicted and actually reformed persons to be murdered by an over-zealous D.A.
The computer will try its best to be impartial, fair and avoid being over-zealous, I promise.
So you're not empathetic, at all. That would explain your position on the death penalty
At this point I feel rather worried that you might have some issues with processing what you read. Is that like the straw man argument you mentioned in that other thread- making something out of nothing and actually using it as a point to refute on?
Anyway to help you-
I said there was no indication I was empathic towards these issues because...I was presenting the state of matters and nothing else. Read, re-read several times if need be. Eventually you will get it(I hope).
I know, quite condescending but you leave me with little choice with your continuous baseless assumptions. I haven't divulged any of my actual feelings towards starving children or prisoners forced to live like animals nor is there any need to, to back up my point.
You have to realize that justice isn't a function that you can computerize. It's data from a plethora of sources that is quite likely to be compromised in some way. That is the nature of the beast and the reason why thousands of people are wrongly convicted each year. Much as I can understand the need to cut costs in a poor economy, I think this is far and away the worst method. Like I said before, a massive majority of our prison costs could be avoided by legalized drugs. There is no need to put barbaric capital punishment laws in, compromising our humanity for the sake of pinching a penny.
It can be compromised yes, but only by humans who fail to synthesize or analyze strong or weak evidence. The thousands you mentioned are an excellent testimony to that.
About 'barbaric' capital punishment...Meh..I did say that I was vouching for it in a specific context. Also I did talk about hypocrisy(or humanity, whichever you prefer), so I won't go at it again.
Most importantly- I AM SKYNET!!! YOU WILL HAND OVER YOUR COOKIES TO ME.
Oh yes, making society a safer place is so inhumane. Gotcha.
Making society safer is not one of the "benefits," of the death penalty, nor was it in your analysis. I like this game where you make up a new reason each post and each one falls flat.
When you consider society as a whole, it has much to gain through filtering out those detrimental to it even if the process isn't 100% reliable- security and money-wise. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
This is still absolute jargon that has nothing to do with justice or the efficacy of the death penalty. Further automation doesn't magically create better data, nor does it eliminate the politics and bias that historically made capital punishment synonymous with racism, classim, and political manuvering. Sorry, but this argument has no weight either.
The computer will try its best to be impartial, fair and avoid being over-zealous, I promise.
Oh, you promise, well that clears that up. Perhaps you are privee to some kind of superior AI i've not been made aware of, but unless your computer can literally see events of the past and future, it's in no position to dictate wether or not a person should be put to death.
At this point I feel rather worried that you might have some issues with processing what you read. Is that like the straw man argument you mentioned in that other thread- making something out of nothing and actually using it as a point to refute on?
Anyway to help you-
I said there was no indication I was empathic towards these issues because...I was presenting the state of matters and nothing else. Read, re-read several times if need be. Eventually you will get it(I hope).
I know, quite condescending but you leave me with little choice with your continuous baseless assumptions. I haven't divulged any of my actual feelings towards starving children or prisoners forced to live like animals nor is there any need to, to back up my point.
You're waffling on the issue and attempting to create a "have it both ways," political position on the matter. The point is simple and just as clear as the first time I made it: Prisons can be reformed, lives cannot be given back. Your argument has no merit. No amount of re-directs changes this and I simply pointed out the irony in your statements.
It can be compromised yes, but only by humans who fail to synthesize or analyze strong or weak evidence. The thousands you mentioned are an excellent testimony to that.
About 'barbaric' capital punishment...Meh..I did say that I was vouching for it in a specific context. Also I did talk about hypocrisy(or humanity, whichever you prefer), so I won't go at it again.
I must have missed the part where these magic machines transcended all problems of human input error and had perfect data to work with. Sorry, it doesn't exist, and I doubt it will in our lifetimes. What I argued was never couched in your contextural pleas. I made the, rather obvious, statement that capital punishment is not a deterrent and that it's enaction is tantamount to killing innocent people since no justice system is perfect. I further argued that it is quite ineffective as a fiscal-reform to the penal code since the vast majority of inmates are incarcerated because of minor drug laws that should be repealed for much greater savings. Anyone with a modicum of ethical self-awareness can see just how flimsy the arguments for the death penalty are once the finality of the action itself is considered.
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Most importantly- I AM SKYNET!!! YOU WILL HAND OVER YOUR COOKIES TO ME.
Is this the part where you loose the argument and pretend you've been trolling the whole time?
:golfclap:
TA-DA.
Here I am again. And no dear, there is no pretending or losing. It was a funny joke that popped in my brain and I just wrote it down. I know you are now desperate for signs of me giving up or losing but that part you quoted from me is not that kind of sign at all. But I suppose in times of need, every little counts. So do take what you can.
But it is also an interesting proposition of losing an argument(this particular one). Logically speaking it is simply not possible for this to happen here. You have failed to prove how a man is better than a machine(at least your examples were very poor) and on my side I do not have quantitative data to back up the contrary. There is data showing man's fallibility and there is no data showing a computer's efficiency. You can't win on speculation but if you insist on doing it, go for it. About your moral conundrum, morals change with time and obviously vary from place to place. But let's not spill all the good stuff in the opening paragraph.
So yes, failing to lose, simply allow me to retort.
Oh yes, making society a safer place is so inhumane. Gotcha.
Making society safer is not one of the "benefits," of the death penalty, nor was it in your analysis. I like this game where you make up a new reason each post and each one falls flat.
How does this one fall flat? I like your self-evident statements. Reminds me of creationists being shown evidence of the earth's age. How no methods for dating is accurate. Not that you are like one! No way.
In my defense, I did mention security in my former posts. I don't know what you understand by it but it does mean safety. Though obviously if you are going back to the very first post, you can find consolation in how incomplete my proposition was.
Of course, if you are playing to win then the validity of the reasons don't matter. It's all about- you didn't say it at first even though it came in later posts and so I ignored it to focus on the money aspect because it's easier.
Furthermore you put benefits in between some pretty sweet parentheses there. Hmm...this is most strange and interesting I must admit. Sure there are no benefits to the death penalty because...there is none. Kickass reason right there.
You are right because...you are right. Magic! I must say, you've made winning into an art. If only all debates could go like that, which brings us to the following part on which I was going to talk about-
This is still absolute jargon that has nothing to do with justice or the efficacy of the death penalty. Further automation doesn't magically create better data, nor does it eliminate the politics and bias that historically made capital punishment synonymous with racism, classim, and political manuvering. Sorry, but this argument has no weight either.
No need to be sorry my good sir. But I do feel truly sad about that data creation part. I fully agree with you- magical creation of data is bad for justice.
It's all about...data management. It is the decision process that is computerized unless you want the computer to be get off its fat ass and go to collect witness reports and crime evidence. Japan is really into creating robots so maybe we could check with them.
I am also worried you think a machine will discriminate upon race, class and politics- something that man has done for countless centuries and continue to do.
That closing line is brilliant by the way. Another tip for me. You win again...because you just win.
The computer will try its best to be impartial, fair and avoid being over-zealous, I promise.
Oh, you promise, well that clears that up. Perhaps you are privee to some kind of superior AI i've not been made aware of, but unless your computer can literally see events of the past and future, it's in no position to dictate wether or not a person should be put to death.
But...but didn't I promise? Doesn't that automatically make me right? Oh wait, that's reserved only for you.
In case you had trouble catching up with the sarcasm, a machine cannot be other than impartial with the data pertaining to a case if you program the required variables it needs to consider for judgment. The lack of guidelines and defined variables has resulted into the utterly ridiculous sentencing of some people involved in the riots here in the UK. And these variables are very much quantifiable which I already spoke about that.
About future predictions, I thought I linked to an article about that. Oh yes, i did. But let's just ignore that because you need to win here.
About the past- that's simply data collected. There are definite limitations in how much man can handle of this and how much of crucial data they can miss. For a computer system, not so much. Reading the past shouldn't be that much of a problem if we manage to develop some search engine. Oh wait...google. Damn the world is moving too fast for me. Ya there is no way we'll be able to get that computer on the road before a looooooooooongggggg time.
You're waffling on the issue and attempting to create a "have it both ways," political position on the matter. The point is simple and just as clear as the first time I made it: Prisons can be reformed, lives cannot be given back. Your argument has no merit. No amount of re-directs changes this and I simply pointed out the irony in your statements.
Oh yes, baby! Fantastic closing again. Your argument has no merit because...it has no merit and also because I am right.
Does me waffling on the issue means you putting words in my mouth just so you can judge me instead of my arguments? My empathy is wholly irrelevant to this matter. You've failed to realize that time and time again.
Re-directs? Please be specific so i can accurately refute. If you meant the starving children of Somalia then I understand it must really be distressful when mankind's hypocrisy is pointed out, especially for those subscribing to a Utopian dogma.
What does lives given back mean? The life of someone permanently scarred by prison and feels overwhelmed and inapt to live in society? Is that a perspective you considered? I am sure the death penalty for repeat offenders I mentioned must feel wrong since the latter are sure to become upstanding, productive and indispensable members of society once reformed.
I actually really like that hopelessly optimistic take on matters though I do prefer them in fairy tales because they seem more real there.
I must have missed the part where these magic machines transcended all problems of human input error and had perfect data to work with.
Magic? Na man, they work on electricity. It might seem like magic but it's actually not. If you join my physics class, i will share some notes with you.
Oh and perfect data now? Hmm...quite different from data creation this one. I wonder where you got that one from. But answer is the same really so it doesn't matter: It's about data management.
I further argued that it is quite ineffective as a fiscal-reform to the penal code since the vast majority of inmates are incarcerated because of minor drug laws that should be repealed for much greater savings.
You mean like marijuana? That I fully agree with. I read about how some 15% of federal inmates was in due to this particular drug. Does that count as a majority?
There are also 40% with drug-related crime(crack, cocaine and all other good stuffs along with killing and thieving associated with it). Is that like the vast majority?
In which case we must redefine majority. Of course the data I had access to may be woefully outdated (i think it was dated 2006(?) or something) so please do correct me in that event. I haven't come across data about those imprisoned for possession of marijuana for personal use.
Do they they constitute the vast majority as well? Just asking.
In any case, let me explain how none of this matters. Saving money through the system I have explained essentially puts the most dangerous criminal out of the picture. Petty ones like you are mentioning even they go back for whatever 'relatively' benign reason, no longer have to be exposed to the hardened criminals, pressured into organized gangs (within prisons) and fucked up the ass.
Society is safer. Prisons are safer. So ya the added bonus of better conditions which am sure is quite substantial.
I know...i know...here's an all brand-new reason I 'came up' with but this was in respect to my lack of 'couching' in my responses to your arguments.
Anyone with a modicum of ethical self-awareness can see just how flimsy the arguments for the death penalty are once the finality of the action itself is considered.
How does this one fall flat? I like your self-evident statements. Reminds me of creationists being shown evidence of the earth's age.
You do sound an awful lot like the creationists who support the death penalty. Except they wouldn't bother with your computer, which is completely superfluous to their barbaric needs.
Furthermore you put benefits in between some pretty sweet parentheses there. Hmm...this is most strange and interesting I must admit. Sure there are no benefits to the death penalty because...there is none. Kickass reason right there.
So you take my coherent arguments and because you can't understand them (or don't want to) you beg the question instead? Not the best plea you could have made considering you're arguging -for- killing people. This is akin to asking, "What about all the good things Hitler did?!"
No need to be sorry my good sir. But I do feel truly sad about that data creation part. I fully agree with you- magical creation of data is bad for justice.
It's all about...data management. It is the decision process that is computerized unless you want the computer to be get off its fat ass and go to collect witness reports and crime evidence. Japan is really into creating robots so maybe we could check with them.
I am also worried you think a machine will discriminate upon race, class and politics- something that man has done for countless centuries and continue to do.
That closing line is brilliant by the way. Another tip for me. You win again...because you just win.
You can't manage data you don't have. Not all witnesses come forward in time for initial trial. Not all evidence is found upon first look. Perhaps Japan has humanoid robots who can profile a criminal, check a crime scene for prints, dna, etc, and logically organize all of that data based on potential suspects. EVEN if they did (they don't), they would still be no better than their human counterparts. They would still face conflicting data. They would still miss witness testimony that was being repressed or simply didn't want to take the stand. Incomplete information would still be a problem.
I think you're under the mistaken impression i'm obliterating your arguments because of clever rhetoric. I'm obliterating your arguments because they're absolutely nonsensical. Literally nothing you've proposed so far could be mis-construed as a good argument for capital punishment.
But...but didn't I promise? Doesn't that automatically make me right? Oh wait, that's reserved only for you.
In case you had trouble catching up with the sarcasm, a machine cannot be other than impartial with the data pertaining to a case if you program the required variables it needs to consider for judgment. The lack of guidelines and defined variables has resulted into the utterly ridiculous sentencing of some people involved in the riots here in the UK. And these variables are very much quantifiable which I already spoke about that.
About future predictions, I thought I linked to an article about that. Oh yes, i did. But let's just ignore that because you need to win here.
About the past- that's simply data collected. There are definite limitations in how much man can handle of this and how much of crucial data they can miss. For a computer system, not so much. Reading the past shouldn't be that much of a problem if we manage to develop some search engine. Oh wait...google. Damn the world is moving too fast for me. Ya there is no way we'll be able to get that computer on the road before a looooooooooongggggg time.
You're literally mocking yourself. I don't understand. This has to be a troll. I've been over the fact evdience doesn't present itself, but this seems to be your only argument. Repeat it all you want, your mythical computer, robots, and search engines don't solve all the problems associated with state execution.
Magic? Na man, they work on electricity. It might seem like magic but it's actually not. If you join my physics class, i will share some notes with you.
Cute. Did they teach you that computers are the solution to the problems of captal punishment in that physics class too?
Oh and perfect data now? Hmm...quite different from data creation this one. I wonder where you got that one from. But answer is the same really so it doesn't matter: It's about data management.
Data managment doesn't cause all the evidence to be made avalible. You'll still kill innocents. You have not even adressed the most basic problem for capital punishment.
I made the, rather obvious, statement that capital punishment is not a deterrent
I agree. Obvious statement is obvious.
I can't tell if you're proving my points for me, or if you just don't know what the words I used there mean. Either way, thanks for making me look good again.
You mean like marijuana? That I fully agree with. I read about how some 15% of federal inmates was in due to this particular drug. Does that count as a majority?
There are also 40% with drug-related crime(crack, cocaine and all other good stuffs along with killing and thieving associated with it). Is that like the vast majority?
In which case we must redefine majority. Of course the data I had access to may be woefully outdated (i think it was dated 2006(?) or something) so please do correct me in that event. I haven't come across data about those imprisoned for possession of marijuana for personal use.
Do they they constitute the vast majority as well? Just asking.
Not just marijuana. All drugs. Now compare those numbers to innmates who could potentially face the death penalty. There is no financial argument for the death penalty before drugs are legalized, that was my -rather obvious- point. I think you missed it.
In any case, let me explain how none of this matters. Saving money through the system I have explained essentially puts the most dangerous criminal out of the picture. Petty ones like you are mentioning even they go back for whatever 'relatively' benign reason, no longer have to be exposed to the hardened criminals, pressured into organized gangs (within prisons) and fucked up the ass.
Society is safer. Prisons are safer. So ya the added bonus of better conditions which am sure is quite substantial.
I know...i know...here's an all brand-new reason I 'came up' with but this was in respect to my lack of 'couching' in my responses to your arguments.
You're abadoning another argument because it failed. That's unfortunate, I was sure this one would be your last-resort. Petty criminals don't stay in maximum security prisons. So your incinuation that billy, the guy with a joint, is going to be sharing a bunk with axe-murderer, ted, is just a fallacy. Since we know that violence in the community outside a prison isn't reduced by capital punishment, what makes you think it would be reduced inside because of it? That doesn't seem to be rational, even if you do assume the most violent person in the prison is removed every so often. You are engerding nihilism and expecting a more empathetic resutling world?
Also, you should look up the words I use before you quote them ironically.
All in all, you present a rather poor case for the death penalty -- a topic which a lot of professionals have failed to defend (and remains mostly a political decision). And you're certainly not a professional, and you're just sounding silly when you clearly have little knowledge of the topic you talk about (which is in essence the core of the postmodern justice system).
So, you're a lawyer Don? It's all making sense now. Isn't there another lawyer on these boards? And now Proleteria the professor. Nektu the chef. Sixen the almost Blizz employee programmer student chat gem.
We seem to have quite accomplished fellows in this place. I like it.
Because I'm lazy and don't want to read the large wall of text even though its interesting (probably can't offer anything unless I do research), I is accountant! Rawr!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing Diablo since 97. I know nothing and having nothing good to say, I be a troll.
So, you're a lawyer Don? It's all making sense now. Isn't there another lawyer on these boards? And now Proleteria the professor. Nektu the chef. Sixen the almost Blizz employee programmer student chat gem.
We seem to have quite accomplished fellows in this place. I like it.
Because I'm lazy and don't want to read the large wall of text even though its interesting (probably can't offer anything unless I do research), I is accountant! Rawr!
aww man, i thought your job was selling kicks to the nuts for 2 bucks...disappointed...:P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We seem to have quite accomplished fellows in this place. I like it.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Huh..ya very bad example. That's what I pointed out and it was.
Pretty crucial in the matter of discussing the sensitivity of people towards the word 'fail' and its derivatives.
You don't 'work' or put any effort towards winning the lottery like you would in proving a hypothesis or perfecting a game. I understand it can be belittling for the ego but not towards the argument/context it was used in.
Punishment A for stabbing leading to death
Punishment B for repeated stabbing leading to death
Punishment C for repeated stabbing leading to death and following death.
Like I said, judges like a computer play with variables. What's more, a computer will have complete and easily accessible data to compare, therefore making judgments essentially more fair.
There is nothing in law that says 1 stab means 2 years, therefore 4 stabbings = 8 years, so quantifying the impact and meaning of the crime will take a different route. The example I mentioned above is a greatly oversimplified one.
A basic computer would able to process much more data than that, like strength of evidence, validity and probability for error.
Sure thing. Fabricating photographic or video evidence is pretty hard and easy to spot. So in the end, it comes down to strength of evidence collected.
In the case you just mentioned, lack of substantial evidence means the guy cannot be convicted.
A pretty easy case for both a machine or man.
Considering the history of utter failure encompassing human passing judgments which so you kindly pointed out in your previous post, I think it's a process that needs to be put in safer hands or rather..electronic chips.
Man is very limited in his capacity in efficiently weighing different possible answers.
Uh...weren't you the one who pointed out how there were different types of lawyers in a recent thread?
Are you like in a fairy tale or something where you think all criminal lawyers are fighting for truth and justice?
Get real. I'm not talking about ALL YOU lawyers. Don't be so touchy.
So we've abandoned the "most humane," approach and we're now looking at it from the numbers. I suppose that makes a better case for your argument, but imo it's still terrible. Personally, i'd rather not do the math on teriminating human lives. All the best.
Broader point of individual to society.. you realize that's literally gibberish. Can you expound upon that? A computerized system? Are you fucking kidding me? How does a computer account for evidence that has yet to enter the record? How does it account for false testimony that may be overturned? It can't, it won't, and that's an awful suggestion. What's more, repeat offenders are more likely to be wrongly convicted (along with legitimately convicted, of course) than the rest so I don't see where that's supposed to be a positive.
That kind of emotional appeal is what kills innocent people instead of seeing justice handed out fairly. If someone is a violent repeat offender, they should go away for life. Killing them only opens the door for wrongfully convicted and actually reformed persons to be murdered by an over-zealous D.A.
So you're not empathetic, at all. That would explain your position on the death penalty.
If nothing is perfect, why are you in favor of a punishment that is absolute and cannot be un-done? You have to realize that justice isn't a function that you can computerize. It's data from a plethora of sources that is quite likely to be compromised in some way. That is the nature of the beast and the reason why thousands of people are wrongly convicted each year. Much as I can understand the need to cut costs in a poor economy, I think this is far and away the worst method. Like I said before, a massive majority of our prison costs could be avoided by legalized drugs. There is no need to put barbaric capital punishment laws in, compromising our humanity for the sake of pinching a penny.
Feeding back gang members and serial rapists to society is also mathematically so right.
Spare me this self-righteousness drama already.
It's akin to someone saying they refuse to use a knife because it has the chance to cut them. Using that knife will help them accomplish a great deal of tasks(cutting vegetables!). They will cut themselves eventually but they will also heal. As time goes on, you learn to wield the knife more effectively.
Just so you don't take this one too out of context-
someone- society
knife- death penalty
cut yourself- innocent people
tasks- ridding of harmful people
heal- the world doesn't and won't stop when you die. they'll get over you sooner than you think, innocent or guilty.
Learning to use the knife- A computer that is constantly updated with a variety of cases gains a superior ability to man in gauging impartially and fairly a person.
When you consider society as a whole, it has much to gain through filtering out those detrimental to it even if the process isn't 100% reliable- security and money-wise. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. It's only gibberish because, you refuse to contemplate any other perspective but your own.
About the computer part, just wow man. Like seriously?
A case not having enough evidence simply cannot go forward. New evidence? Case reopened. Remember- innocent until proven guilty. Why would a machine struggle with that? Only a man can fuck this up and condemn someone anyway.
(False)Testimony? Is that like the only criteria through which you condemn a person? The evidence needs to be substantial, in which case you VERIFY the testimony. There are human-like things called detectives/investigators that have that job. They then input the sweet data in the computer for a proper decision to take place.
Wrong conviction result from the human factor in the decision process. Most cannot objectively consider new information without heavy bias about past convictions. Which is where Mr computer comes on top. Still not the seeing positive?
The computer will try its best to be impartial, fair and avoid being over-zealous, I promise.
At this point I feel rather worried that you might have some issues with processing what you read. Is that like the straw man argument you mentioned in that other thread- making something out of nothing and actually using it as a point to refute on?
Anyway to help you-
I said there was no indication I was empathic towards these issues because...I was presenting the state of matters and nothing else. Read, re-read several times if need be. Eventually you will get it(I hope).
I know, quite condescending but you leave me with little choice with your continuous baseless assumptions. I haven't divulged any of my actual feelings towards starving children or prisoners forced to live like animals nor is there any need to, to back up my point.
I know you haven't been reading or understanding what I have been posting but no need to make it that obvious.
It can be compromised yes, but only by humans who fail to synthesize or analyze strong or weak evidence. The thousands you mentioned are an excellent testimony to that.
About 'barbaric' capital punishment...Meh..I did say that I was vouching for it in a specific context. Also I did talk about hypocrisy(or humanity, whichever you prefer), so I won't go at it again.
Most importantly- I AM SKYNET!!! YOU WILL HAND OVER YOUR COOKIES TO ME.
Making society safer is not one of the "benefits," of the death penalty, nor was it in your analysis. I like this game where you make up a new reason each post and each one falls flat.
This is still absolute jargon that has nothing to do with justice or the efficacy of the death penalty. Further automation doesn't magically create better data, nor does it eliminate the politics and bias that historically made capital punishment synonymous with racism, classim, and political manuvering. Sorry, but this argument has no weight either.
Oh, you promise, well that clears that up. Perhaps you are privee to some kind of superior AI i've not been made aware of, but unless your computer can literally see events of the past and future, it's in no position to dictate wether or not a person should be put to death.
You're waffling on the issue and attempting to create a "have it both ways," political position on the matter. The point is simple and just as clear as the first time I made it: Prisons can be reformed, lives cannot be given back. Your argument has no merit. No amount of re-directs changes this and I simply pointed out the irony in your statements.
I must have missed the part where these magic machines transcended all problems of human input error and had perfect data to work with. Sorry, it doesn't exist, and I doubt it will in our lifetimes. What I argued was never couched in your contextural pleas. I made the, rather obvious, statement that capital punishment is not a deterrent and that it's enaction is tantamount to killing innocent people since no justice system is perfect. I further argued that it is quite ineffective as a fiscal-reform to the penal code since the vast majority of inmates are incarcerated because of minor drug laws that should be repealed for much greater savings. Anyone with a modicum of ethical self-awareness can see just how flimsy the arguments for the death penalty are once the finality of the action itself is considered.
Is this the part where you loose the argument and pretend you've been trolling the whole time?
:golfclap:
I tried to follow along, but I give up.
Basically, I would rather be found guilty by a human then put my luck and faith in a computer.
And as Don said, there are simply too many variables to replace a judge with a computer.
Also, Umpa, I think Apples is a physics student/teacher/something? We got just about every type of smart person on this forum. Lol.
Lol, just poking fun Apples!
I deal with microbiology with Baal. He can be a bit testy at times.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
TA-DA.
Here I am again. And no dear, there is no pretending or losing. It was a funny joke that popped in my brain and I just wrote it down. I know you are now desperate for signs of me giving up or losing but that part you quoted from me is not that kind of sign at all. But I suppose in times of need, every little counts. So do take what you can.
But it is also an interesting proposition of losing an argument(this particular one). Logically speaking it is simply not possible for this to happen here. You have failed to prove how a man is better than a machine(at least your examples were very poor) and on my side I do not have quantitative data to back up the contrary. There is data showing man's fallibility and there is no data showing a computer's efficiency. You can't win on speculation but if you insist on doing it, go for it. About your moral conundrum, morals change with time and obviously vary from place to place. But let's not spill all the good stuff in the opening paragraph.
So yes, failing to lose, simply allow me to retort.
How does this one fall flat? I like your self-evident statements. Reminds me of creationists being shown evidence of the earth's age. How no methods for dating is accurate. Not that you are like one! No way.
In my defense, I did mention security in my former posts. I don't know what you understand by it but it does mean safety. Though obviously if you are going back to the very first post, you can find consolation in how incomplete my proposition was.
Of course, if you are playing to win then the validity of the reasons don't matter. It's all about- you didn't say it at first even though it came in later posts and so I ignored it to focus on the money aspect because it's easier.
Furthermore you put benefits in between some pretty sweet parentheses there. Hmm...this is most strange and interesting I must admit. Sure there are no benefits to the death penalty because...there is none. Kickass reason right there.
You are right because...you are right. Magic! I must say, you've made winning into an art. If only all debates could go like that, which brings us to the following part on which I was going to talk about-
No need to be sorry my good sir. But I do feel truly sad about that data creation part. I fully agree with you- magical creation of data is bad for justice.
It's all about...data management. It is the decision process that is computerized unless you want the computer to be get off its fat ass and go to collect witness reports and crime evidence. Japan is really into creating robots so maybe we could check with them.
I am also worried you think a machine will discriminate upon race, class and politics- something that man has done for countless centuries and continue to do.
That closing line is brilliant by the way. Another tip for me. You win again...because you just win.
But...but didn't I promise? Doesn't that automatically make me right? Oh wait, that's reserved only for you.
In case you had trouble catching up with the sarcasm, a machine cannot be other than impartial with the data pertaining to a case if you program the required variables it needs to consider for judgment. The lack of guidelines and defined variables has resulted into the utterly ridiculous sentencing of some people involved in the riots here in the UK. And these variables are very much quantifiable which I already spoke about that.
About future predictions, I thought I linked to an article about that. Oh yes, i did. But let's just ignore that because you need to win here.
About the past- that's simply data collected. There are definite limitations in how much man can handle of this and how much of crucial data they can miss. For a computer system, not so much. Reading the past shouldn't be that much of a problem if we manage to develop some search engine. Oh wait...google. Damn the world is moving too fast for me. Ya there is no way we'll be able to get that computer on the road before a looooooooooongggggg time.
Oh yes, baby! Fantastic closing again. Your argument has no merit because...it has no merit and also because I am right.
Does me waffling on the issue means you putting words in my mouth just so you can judge me instead of my arguments? My empathy is wholly irrelevant to this matter. You've failed to realize that time and time again.
Re-directs? Please be specific so i can accurately refute. If you meant the starving children of Somalia then I understand it must really be distressful when mankind's hypocrisy is pointed out, especially for those subscribing to a Utopian dogma.
What does lives given back mean? The life of someone permanently scarred by prison and feels overwhelmed and inapt to live in society? Is that a perspective you considered? I am sure the death penalty for repeat offenders I mentioned must feel wrong since the latter are sure to become upstanding, productive and indispensable members of society once reformed.
I actually really like that hopelessly optimistic take on matters though I do prefer them in fairy tales because they seem more real there.
Magic? Na man, they work on electricity. It might seem like magic but it's actually not. If you join my physics class, i will share some notes with you.
Oh and perfect data now? Hmm...quite different from data creation this one. I wonder where you got that one from. But answer is the same really so it doesn't matter: It's about data management.
NOOOOOOooooooooooooooo
I shall happily oblige.
I agree. Obvious statement is obvious.
Refer to my knife example in the previous post.
You mean like marijuana? That I fully agree with. I read about how some 15% of federal inmates was in due to this particular drug. Does that count as a majority?
There are also 40% with drug-related crime(crack, cocaine and all other good stuffs along with killing and thieving associated with it). Is that like the vast majority?
In which case we must redefine majority. Of course the data I had access to may be woefully outdated (i think it was dated 2006(?) or something) so please do correct me in that event. I haven't come across data about those imprisoned for possession of marijuana for personal use.
Do they they constitute the vast majority as well? Just asking.
In any case, let me explain how none of this matters. Saving money through the system I have explained essentially puts the most dangerous criminal out of the picture. Petty ones like you are mentioning even they go back for whatever 'relatively' benign reason, no longer have to be exposed to the hardened criminals, pressured into organized gangs (within prisons) and fucked up the ass.
Society is safer. Prisons are safer. So ya the added bonus of better conditions which am sure is quite substantial.
I know...i know...here's an all brand-new reason I 'came up' with but this was in respect to my lack of 'couching' in my responses to your arguments.
Oh..naughty, naughty you.
It's a new strand of E. coli, don't blame them.
I'll take that incoherent "retort," as an answer in the affirmative.
You do sound an awful lot like the creationists who support the death penalty. Except they wouldn't bother with your computer, which is completely superfluous to their barbaric needs.
So you take my coherent arguments and because you can't understand them (or don't want to) you beg the question instead? Not the best plea you could have made considering you're arguging -for- killing people. This is akin to asking, "What about all the good things Hitler did?!"
You can't manage data you don't have. Not all witnesses come forward in time for initial trial. Not all evidence is found upon first look. Perhaps Japan has humanoid robots who can profile a criminal, check a crime scene for prints, dna, etc, and logically organize all of that data based on potential suspects. EVEN if they did (they don't), they would still be no better than their human counterparts. They would still face conflicting data. They would still miss witness testimony that was being repressed or simply didn't want to take the stand. Incomplete information would still be a problem.
I think you're under the mistaken impression i'm obliterating your arguments because of clever rhetoric. I'm obliterating your arguments because they're absolutely nonsensical. Literally nothing you've proposed so far could be mis-construed as a good argument for capital punishment.
You're literally mocking yourself. I don't understand. This has to be a troll. I've been over the fact evdience doesn't present itself, but this seems to be your only argument. Repeat it all you want, your mythical computer, robots, and search engines don't solve all the problems associated with state execution.
Don't be mad at me. Get a better argument and stop posting nonsense.
Cute. Did they teach you that computers are the solution to the problems of captal punishment in that physics class too?
Data managment doesn't cause all the evidence to be made avalible. You'll still kill innocents. You have not even adressed the most basic problem for capital punishment.
I can't tell if you're proving my points for me, or if you just don't know what the words I used there mean. Either way, thanks for making me look good again.
Not just marijuana. All drugs. Now compare those numbers to innmates who could potentially face the death penalty. There is no financial argument for the death penalty before drugs are legalized, that was my -rather obvious- point. I think you missed it.
You're abadoning another argument because it failed. That's unfortunate, I was sure this one would be your last-resort. Petty criminals don't stay in maximum security prisons. So your incinuation that billy, the guy with a joint, is going to be sharing a bunk with axe-murderer, ted, is just a fallacy. Since we know that violence in the community outside a prison isn't reduced by capital punishment, what makes you think it would be reduced inside because of it? That doesn't seem to be rational, even if you do assume the most violent person in the prison is removed every so often. You are engerding nihilism and expecting a more empathetic resutling world?
Also, you should look up the words I use before you quote them ironically.
Well said.
He doesn't like this conversation.
Because I'm lazy and don't want to read the large wall of text even though its interesting (probably can't offer anything unless I do research), I is accountant! Rawr!
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."