Death Penalty

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Death Penalty

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:45 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:02 pm You really are clueless, pitifully naive, with no grasp of human nature.
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:15 pmIf that were true, what good would it do to just tell me? I wouldn't have the ability to distinguish between the know nothing fuckwit posting barely coherent ad homs to derail a discussion that I think you are, and whatever you are if you're not that - would I?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:02 pmIt's hardly unknown for the the police to tamper with evidence, and the police are notorious for fixating on a suspect no matter what and building their case around that one person--which often has disastrous consequences.
In a capital crime? Fitted up for a noose? With all the attention such crimes draw - forensics crawling all over, superintendent called in, and PC Whatsisface is going to tamper with the crime scene to implicate an innocent party? And the CPS, prosecution, judge, jury and death panel - are all going buy into this? And despite protestations of innocence, the defence will be unable to cast reasonable doubt? If that were the script for a TV crime drama - it wouldn't get made because it would be insulting to the audience!
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:21 pmWell done on the self-awareness. You really are a know-nothing fuckwit. Doesn't matter what examples I give, you will only come up with an excuse like 'oh, but that was BEFORE advanced DNA testing blah blah' as if that has miraculously made the police 100 percent honest and beyond reproach. Fuckwit.
Is it the death penalty you dislike, or is it me, or the police and the courts, because casting aspersions in such a wide arc - adds nothing. I'm stupid, the police are corrupt, the courts are gullible - all to justify your opposition? I don't think so. Why not just say you oppose it on principle - as it's probably nearer the truth. I could respect that; I'd respectfully disagree - but this is not respectable. Nor is it interesting. Do you have to agree with everything you discuss? Is that how limited you are? Are you aware that in structured debate, you are often required to adopt the position with which you disagree? Your principled objection is noted. Have you anything to add?
I'm not responsible for your complete lack of reading comprehension skills.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Death Penalty

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:45 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:02 pm You really are clueless, pitifully naive, with no grasp of human nature.
Vitruvius wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:15 pmIf that were true, what good would it do to just tell me? I wouldn't have the ability to distinguish between the know nothing fuckwit posting barely coherent ad homs to derail a discussion that I think you are, and whatever you are if you're not that - would I?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:02 pmIt's hardly unknown for the the police to tamper with evidence, and the police are notorious for fixating on a suspect no matter what and building their case around that one person--which often has disastrous consequences.
In a capital crime? Fitted up for a noose? With all the attention such crimes draw - forensics crawling all over, superintendent called in, and PC Whatsisface is going to tamper with the crime scene to implicate an innocent party? And the CPS, prosecution, judge, jury and death panel - are all going buy into this? And despite protestations of innocence, the defence will be unable to cast reasonable doubt? If that were the script for a TV crime drama - it wouldn't get made because it would be insulting to the audience!
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:21 pmWell done on the self-awareness. You really are a know-nothing fuckwit. Doesn't matter what examples I give, you will only come up with an excuse like 'oh, but that was BEFORE advanced DNA testing blah blah' as if that has miraculously made the police 100 percent honest and beyond reproach. Fuckwit.
Is it the death penalty you dislike, or is it me, or the police and the courts, because casting aspersions in such a wide arc - adds nothing. I'm stupid, the police are corrupt, the courts are gullible - all to justify your opposition? I don't think so. Why not just say you oppose it on principle - as it's probably nearer the truth. I could respect that; I'd respectfully disagree - but this is not respectable. Nor is it interesting. Do you have to agree with everything you discuss? Is that how limited you are? Are you aware that in structured debate, you are often required to adopt the position with which you disagree? Your principled objection is noted. Have you anything to add?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 2:59 amI'm not responsible for your complete lack of reading comprehension skills.
You're responsible for derailing my thread; and putting quite a lot of effort into doing so. Why? Do you not think this issue should be discussed? Keir Starmer discussed it in his 11,000 word essay. He put the matter in the public domain. I'm giving my take on the question he raised. What's wrong with that? Am I influential? If I am it's not apparent to me. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm shouting into the void. No one seems to listen no matter how much I think they should; all I get back is ...you! Low grade Larry and his big bag of ad homs!
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Death Penalty

Post by Walker »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:51 am You're responsible for derailing my thread; and putting quite a lot of effort into doing so. Why?
I figure it’s to afford you the opportunity to bend the reality you perceive (derailing your thread) into the shape of your intent, your intent being a discussion of Death Penalty aspects selected and guided by you, an intent which you sometimes forget. The way to do this is to take anything tossed at you and relate it to your purpose, or a specific aspect of the death penalty. Of course, this may not be your way, which is so well known to you. Are you familiar with J. Krishnamurti’s, “Freedom From the Known”?

What was the question you referenced from the 11K essay?

Near as I can figure from a brief review, the question is to define the elements of an “inhuman crime.”

The term is confusing because any crime committed by a human is a human crime, and animals don’t commit crimes.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Death Penalty

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:51 am You're responsible for derailing my thread; and putting quite a lot of effort into doing so. Why?
Walker wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 4:10 amI figure it’s to afford you the opportunity to bend the reality you perceive (derailing your thread) into the shape of your intent, your intent being a discussion of Death Penalty aspects selected and guided by you, an intent which you sometimes forget. The way to do this is to take anything tossed at you and relate it to your purpose, or a specific aspect of the death penalty. Of course, this may not be your way, which is so well known to you. Are you familiar with J. Krishnamurti’s, “Freedom From the Known”?

What was the question you referenced from the 11K essay?

Near as I can figure from a brief review, the question is to define the elements of an “inhuman crime.”

The term is confusing because any crime committed by a human is a human crime, and animals don’t commit crimes.
Are you saying that pain in my ass is lobbing me low balls on purpose? I'm insulted. I think you are mistaking my skilful use of him against his wishes, for his intent. He's been absolutely against the death penalty from the start - and now is ruining the thread because I dismissed all his objections, and he's got nowhere to go but down.

I am not at all familiar with Krishnamurti - and glancing at the blurb on wiki, it doesn't seem like my kind of thing. I'm a philosopher. I don't have any social relationships to effect - nor do I want any. What I have is ideas. My relationships are to ideas. My intent is bent toward truth and the good - regardless of social relationships.

In his essay, Keir Starmer bemoaned an epidemic of violence against women - and celebrated Labour's role in ending the death penalty. I found this contradictory. Perhaps I should have titled this thread: Human Rights and Inhuman Crimes. My core contention is that human rights - being inalienable, require no reciprocal responsibilities; and this is wrong. It's all too frequent, some wretched animal commits some stomach churning criminal act that utterly disregards and violates the human rights of their victims, and then complains their cell is too cold, or some such thing under the Human Rights Act.

To my mind, if you have human rights you have human responsibilities; and if you don't respect those rights in others, potentially, in the worst of the worst cases, you may forfeit your human rights. Specifically, the right to life.

Despite a constant barrage of no, no, no from low grade Larry et al; that hasn't helped at all in developing this as a concept, I have sought the means to define and apply this principle, because I need to know what I think - whether anyone else does or not. People with social relationships can decide if its a good idea. If they notice and/or care. I have seen no evidence of either.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Death Penalty

Post by Walker »

Oh, don’t worry about them. Jousting elicits one thing or another.

I make a respectful, sincere offering of feedback regarding your thoughts, fed in e-prime, for you to clarify in case I may have wrong-read your writing* and if I did not … we may have evidence of a Vulcan mind meld … or not. If not, for you to clarify now, at your convenience before proceeding further, discourages both meandering and expounding disparate premises.

Feedback:

- Anti-death penalty asserts that the murderer bears no responsibility for his or her actions, because “inalienable rights,” justify those actions.

- Pro-death penalty asserts that murder requires violating the inalienable rights of another human being, therefore the murderer forfeits his or her human rights upon committing the act, just as the victim choicelessly forfeited their human rights, specifically because of the murderer.

- Where should society draw the line of forfeiture? Answer: a committee will determine that line, based on criteria as yet undefined … and so, you invite some brain-storming for discussion, to define those criteria, based on philosophical premises.

Si?

* Cause concerning wrong reading due to garbled reception or garbled transmission does not matter, for feedback narrows the arc of each pendulum swing until the point finally stills over the clarified principle, and so the message gets fine-tuned.

*
“Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning at all? He sees the enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the revolts, the wars, the endless divisions of religion, ideology and nationality, and with a sense of deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing we call living, is there anything beyond?

“And not finding this nameless thing of a thousand names which he has always sought, he has cultivated faith – faith in a savior or an ideal – and faith invariably breeds violence**.”

- Jiddu Krishnamurti, Freedom From The Known
Commentary: I ask the thinking you, does this not sound like a philosopher?

** I added the underline.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Death Penalty

Post by Vitruvius »

Walker wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:36 pm Oh, don’t worry about them. Jousting elicits one thing or another.

I make a respectful, sincere offering of feedback regarding your thoughts, fed in e-prime, for you to clarify in case I may have wrong-read your writing* and if I did not … we may have evidence of a Vulcan mind meld … or not. If not, for you to clarify now, at your convenience before proceeding further, discourages both meandering and expounding disparate premises.

Feedback:

- Anti-death penalty asserts that the murderer bears no responsibility for his or her actions, because “inalienable rights,” justify those actions.

- Pro-death penalty asserts that murder requires violating the inalienable rights of another human being, therefore the murderer forfeits his or her human rights upon committing the act, just as the victim choicelessly forfeited their human rights, specifically because of the murderer.

- Where should society draw the line of forfeiture? Answer: a committee will determine that line, based on criteria as yet undefined … and so, you invite some brain-storming for discussion, to define those criteria, based on philosophical premises.

Si?

* Cause concerning wrong reading due to garbled reception or garbled transmission does not matter, for feedback narrows the arc of each pendulum swing until the point finally stills over the clarified principle, and so the message gets fine-tuned.

*
“Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning at all? He sees the enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the revolts, the wars, the endless divisions of religion, ideology and nationality, and with a sense of deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing we call living, is there anything beyond?

“And not finding this nameless thing of a thousand names which he has always sought, he has cultivated faith – faith in a savior or an ideal – and faith invariably breeds violence**.”

- Jiddu Krishnamurti, Freedom From The Known
Commentary: I ask the thinking you, does this not sound like a philosopher?

** I added the underline.
I'm in the UK. We haven't had the death penalty since 1965. It's not currently an issue. Human rights are currently an issue; but in relation to other things. No anti-death penalty advocate here has argued a murderer bears no responsibility for their actions; only that such actions should not incur the death penalty.

I haven't spoken to any pro death penalty advocates, so I don't know what they think, but you say: "murder requires violating the inalienable rights of another human being, therefore the murderer forfeits his or her human rights upon committing the act" ... but it depends what you mean by murder. Two blokes get into a fight, one punches the other, who falls down bangs his head and dies - that's murder, but it's not death penalty. Woman assists her terminally ill husband die. It's murder, but it's not a death penalty. So, no. I'm not saying that.

I've been trying to define something quite difficult to capture - a crime of inhumanity. It might be murder, but not necessarily. Keeping someone in a cage and putting your cigarettes out on them - that would be a crime of inhumanity, and deserving of the death penalty - even if the victim survives. Do you see? It pitiless, cruel - inhuman. That which, via the Human Rights Act, debases a reasonable definition of what is to be human. That's what I'm trying to get at.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Death Penalty

Post by Walker »

(mindfully riding the e-prime train …)

I see. The counter-argument to the death penalty, so far presented in your thread with other thoughts, goes: because of death’s finality, and because of imperfections in prosecution, an innocent human could suffer a wrongful execution. The risk of error outweighs instituting the death penalty in places where it currently does not exist, and revoking it in places where it does exist.

In answer to that, you contend that modern forensics has minimized the possibility of wrongful execution, however that possibility still does exist.

Si?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A question

Post by Walker »

Relevant to “inhumane acts,” resulting from violence:

Why does faith invariably lead to violence of body, voice, or mind?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Death Penalty

Post by Walker »

Vit wrote:Are you saying that pain in my ass is lobbing me low balls on purpose?
You may call it the purpose of the universe, and without the I, VT is merely an agent.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Death Penalty

Post by Vitruvius »

Walker wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:01 pm (mindfully riding the e-prime train …)

I see. The counter-argument to the death penalty, so far presented in your thread with other thoughts, goes: because of death’s finality, and because of imperfections in prosecution, an innocent human could suffer a wrongful execution. The risk of error outweighs instituting the death penalty in places where it currently does not exist, and revoking it in places where it does exist.

In answer to that, you contend that modern forensics has minimized the possibility of wrongful execution, however that possibility still does exist.

Si?
The only counter argument offered so far has been the possibility of wrongful conviction. In response, I found a post that summarises statistics, that show wrongful convictions run at 0.2% - for all crimes, from petty theft to paedophile killers. With regard to the latter end of that spectrum, those would be rare crimes in relation to all crimes, so another relatively small percentage of 0.2% - and additionally, after long consideration - I arrived at the idea of a Death Panel that would re-examine the case in order to determine if it were an Inhuman Crime, and that would also serve as a safeguard against executing the wrong person. So in short, no - there's zero possibility of executing an innocent person.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Death Penalty.

Post by Vitruvius »

Walker wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:11 pm Relevant to “inhumane acts,” resulting from violence:

Why does faith invariably lead to violence of body, voice, or mind?
I was really upset seeing another young woman slaughtered on our streets - but at the time speculated that the criminal was wearing prison clothes and had killed a woman in order to go back to jail. I think now it may be something else and I've amended the OP to clear up any confusion about the issue I was seeking to address. 81 women killed in 28 weeks.

Image

This has to stop.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... n-28-weeks
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Death Penalty.

Post by Walker »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 5:32 pm
This has to stop.
e-prime feedback:

You premise that the threat of the death penalty will deter future heinous crimes, crimes such as those displayed, but crimes not necessarily restricted to murder, those other crimes definable by a committee, according to as yet unspecified criteria.

In effect, this says that the possible benefit of innocent lives saved as a result of the deterrence, saved lives that may have been victims without the deterrence, outweighs the risk of a wrongful execution.

In effect, this reasoning asserts that society needs to tolerate the small possibility of wrongful execution, and thus excuse wrongful executions, for the societal benefit of possibly stopping what must stop.*

Si?

* edited to swat a be.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Death Penalty.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Walker wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 5:23 am
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 5:32 pm
This has to stop.
e-prime feedback:

You premise that the threat of the death penalty will deter future heinous crimes, crimes such as those displayed, but crimes not necessarily restricted to murder, those other crimes definable by a committee, according to as yet unspecified criteria.

In effect, this says that the possible benefit of innocent lives saved as a result of the deterrence, saved lives that may have been victims without the deterrence, outweighs the risk of a wrongful execution.

In effect, this reasoning asserts that society needs to tolerate the small possibility of wrongful execution, and thus excuse wrongful executions, for the societal benefit of possibly stopping what must stop.*

Si?

* edited to swat a be.
Leave the bee alone.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Death Penalty.

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 5:32 pm
This has to stop.
Walker wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 5:23 ame-prime feedback:

You premise that the threat of the death penalty will deter future heinous crimes, crimes such as those displayed, but crimes not necessarily restricted to murder, those other crimes definable by a committee, according to as yet unspecified criteria.

In effect, this says that the possible benefit of innocent lives saved as a result of the deterrence, saved lives that may have been victims without the deterrence, outweighs the risk of a wrongful execution.

In effect, this reasoning asserts that society needs to tolerate the small possibility of wrongful execution, and thus excuse wrongful executions, for the societal benefit of possibly stopping what must be stopped.

Si?
I have shown that the risk of wrongful execution is zero. Do you disagree?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Death Penalty.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 5:44 am
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 5:32 pm
This has to stop.
Walker wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 5:23 ame-prime feedback:

You premise that the threat of the death penalty will deter future heinous crimes, crimes such as those displayed, but crimes not necessarily restricted to murder, those other crimes definable by a committee, according to as yet unspecified criteria.

In effect, this says that the possible benefit of innocent lives saved as a result of the deterrence, saved lives that may have been victims without the deterrence, outweighs the risk of a wrongful execution.

In effect, this reasoning asserts that society needs to tolerate the small possibility of wrongful execution, and thus excuse wrongful executions, for the societal benefit of possibly stopping what must be stopped.

Si?
I have shown that the risk of wrongful execution is zero. Do you disagree?
'Zero'? Are you insane? Why don't you just fuck off back to your lego and action figures.
Post Reply