Options

9 Dead in Shooting at Black Church in SC

1202123252629

Comments

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,606
    edited January 2017
    I figure deterrence is a burden of proof issue. For deterrence to be a factor in support of the DP, it does have to be proven that the DP is a crime deterrent. Unless that happens, it is probably the worst possible argument for the DP. The argument for opponents is that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the DP acts as a crime deterrent. That is 100% true. If supporters don't like that good point, they need to prove that it's wrong. They can't.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 10,382
    edited January 2017

    I have stated before that I think victim impact statements shouldn't be allowed. the impact a victim had on society shouldn't have any place in deciding what a killer's fate is. we should all be equal before the law. not held to a higher standard because of our social status.
    I agree. There are sentencing guidelines to follow and when you let emotion enter in to what type of punishment should be enforced; the process becomes flawed. My social status or likeability among others shouldn't affect what type of penalty anyone receives if I'm murdered. To me that's just as ridiculous as a rape victim being criticized or character assassinated based on what they were wearing and how many sexual relationships they've had.

    Yes, there will be cases where it is 100% clear that the defendant is guilty, but not 100% of cases can be prosecuted with 100% certainty. Impossible. I don't agree with the death penalty because I don't think it's a more severe punishment. If someone is sentenced to life in prison it needs to be without parole. A lot of these cases get plea bargained and one of the first things they remove is the "without parole", which creates hope for the person who committed the vile, heinous, evil (insert term here) crime that they will someday see the light of day. There should be no hope, no future; nothing. Someone like Roof needs to know full well that they will live in a cell for 23 hours of everyday for the rest of their life and never see the outside world again.

    I get Thirty's point about how we can't truly measure deterrence because of how the system operate currently. I do think that it would probably deter a small percentage of people, which I guess is better than nothing; however, we also don't know if life without parole would serve to be an equally effective deterrent because that also cannot be properly analyzed since it isn't consistently charged and convicted.

    I think the history of our world should give us some context on how effective immediate execution is on deterrence though. If it were such a deterrent why aren't there still public hangings, guillotines, firing squads? Action against criminals was much swifter, more severe and widely known, but it didn't seem to be effective in decreasing the problems. That should have been one hell of a way to deter people I would think.
    Post edited by tbergs on
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,443

    Then google it and go fill your boots.

    Wow man. Just wow.
    wow what? you said you had evidence to the contrary of what I spoke about. you have given me ZERO, and continue to do so.

    wow indeed.
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,443

    Yikes.

    I brought it up as a matter of fact- not as a tactic of persuasion. It speaks to the legitimacy of the concept.

    I'm not requiring anything of you at all. Am I speaking in hieroglyphics? I'm telling you there is no conclusive study that can state either (a) the DP works as a deterrent... or (b) the DP does not work as a deterrent. Yes... there are some studies that try to come to the conclusions they seek, however these studies are inadequate given their poor constructs.

    The limitations of the aforementioned studies ultimately render the argument to subjective opinion. In this forum... subjective opinion is typically met with scorn, yet here it should stand to reason?
    jesus man. I can't have a decent discussion with you without it devolving into a condescending pit of "yikes" and "wows".

    in cases of subjective opinion, I tend to lean towards the opinions of experts in their field of study. maybe that's just me.
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • rustneversleepsrustneversleeps The Motel of Lost Companions Posts: 2,209
    hahahhaha......
  • F**k it.

    Here's an excerpt from a link to a Washington Post article that acknowledges findings different from your website that vociferously opposes the DP and selectively chooses what message it seeks to promote:

    The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?" "If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177

    You're asking for the law to establish another level of guilt. If someone is super duper guilty, then the death penalty is applicable? No. You're either guilty or not guilty.
    Nope. I'm simply putting conditions on the punishment. There are already conditions on what the crime must be prior to seeking the death penalty, no? Or are you under the impression that murder is murder? There are varying degrees of murder, and jurisdictions typically only seek the death penalty when what you might refer to as a super duper murder was committed. I'm saying if he's been convicted of a super duper murder, found guilty (doesn't need to be super duper), and have the super duper conditions met, then I'm fine with him being executed.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,606
    Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree.
    ... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • jesus man. I can't have a decent discussion with you without it devolving into a condescending pit of "yikes" and "wows".

    in cases of subjective opinion, I tend to lean towards the opinions of experts in their field of study. maybe that's just me.
    Well then at a bare minimum at least acknowledge what I've painfully detailed to you: you can't have a study one way or another with testing parameters as they currently are. You've ignored that very basic point and it is irrefutable- leaving this long stretch of conversation relatively meaningless. I'm not trying to win anything here... I'm trying to say we're discussing point of view and not point of fact.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJ_Soul said:

    Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree.
    ... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?

    For the spontaneous variety... I agree.

    Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,606
    edited January 2017

    For the spontaneous variety... I agree.

    Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
    Yes, and that probably happens all the time. I'm sure there are TONS of people who have wanted to kill someone but didn't because of the consequences. I'm assuming there are even some of those people right here on these boards. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone would pin the decision on the difference between the possibility of the death penalty vs the possibility of life in prison and all the bad shit that comes with that. Subjectively, I find THAT possibility extremely unlikely. I think people think about getting caught for murder vs not getting caught for murder, and that's pretty much where it ends.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • "Fundamental flaws in the research we reviewed make it of no use in answering the question of whether the death penalty affects homicide rates," said Daniel S. Nagin, professor of public policy and statistics at Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. "We recognize that this conclusion may be controversial to some, but no one is well-served by unsupportable claims about the effect of the death penalty, regardless of whether the claim is that the death penalty deters homicides, has no effect on homicide rates or actually increases homicides."

    http://www.livescience.com/19776-death-penalty-deterrent-capital-punishment.html
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,606
    edited January 2017
    Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul said:

    Yes, and that probably happens all the time. I'm sure there are TONS of people who have wanted to kill someone but didn't because of the consequences. I'm assuming there are even some of those people right here on these boards. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone would pin the decision on the difference between the possibility of the death penalty vs the possibility of life in prison and all the bad shit that comes with that. Subjectively, I find THAT possibility extremely unlikely. I think people think about getting caught for murder vs not getting caught for murder, and that's pretty much where it ends.
    I'm not so sure about that.

    If death was a certainty upon getting caught, I'm confident there would be at least one (more like many in reality) that would put the brakes on their plans.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,443



    Well then at a bare minimum at least acknowledge what I've painfully detailed to you: you can't have a study one way or another with testing parameters as they currently are. You've ignored that very basic point and it is irrefutable- leaving this long stretch of conversation relatively meaningless. I'm not trying to win anything here... I'm trying to say we're discussing point of view and not point of fact.

    I did. I stated very specifically that the burden to prove whether the DP is a deterrent or not is on those that wish to prove it. I personally don't give a shit if it's a deterrent or not. That has never been the basis of my opinion. Whatsoever.
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    edited January 2017

    I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.

    I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.

    DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.

    I used to be a huge proponent of the DP. But over the last few years, I think it should only be used when there isn't a shadow of a doubt the guilty party is guilty. If there is any doubt, I don't think it should be used. In this case (dylan roof), I think it should 100% be applied. He can't be reformed or rehabilitated. He will always be scum and a drain on society.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,606

    I'm not so sure about that.

    If death was a certainty upon getting caught, I'm confident there would be at least one (more like many in reality) that would put the brakes on their plans.
    Well that isn't fair, because there is no such thing as death being a certainty upon getting caught. We're talking about the actual death penalty, not a fantasy one where every single convicted murderer is killed upon conviction.
    So in terms of reality, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone would cross the line if it meant life in prison, but not if it meant being on death row and possibly being executed. If someone were open to not murdering someone solely because of the possible consequences, I think the consideration would just be not getting caught.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul said:

    Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.

    Lol.

    Have you been reading this thread?

    I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.

    At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • I used to be a huge proponent of the DP. But over the last few years, I think it should only be used when there isn't a shadow of a doubt the guilty party is guilty. If there is any doubt, I don't think it should be used. In this case (dylan roof), I think it should 100% be applied. He can't be reformed or rehabilitated. He will always be scum and a drain on society.
    He will never be remorseful or sorry for what he's done. I'm good with the DP here. Although I still don't think Susan Smith is remorseful either.
    I'm through with screaming
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,606

    Lol.

    Have you been reading this thread?

    I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.

    At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
    I am talking about the DP debate in general, not this thread. Support for the DP is a subject bigger than this thread, and all arguments that I consider are ones that are used by supporters and opponents in the wider world, FYI.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,443

    Lol.

    Have you been reading this thread?

    I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.

    At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
    incorrect. i was responding to someone else who said it WAS a deterrent.
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • PJ_Soul said:

    Well that isn't fair, because there is no such thing as death being a certainty upon getting caught. We're talking about the actual death penalty, not a fantasy one where every single convicted murderer is killed upon conviction.
    So in terms of reality, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone would cross the line if it meant life in prison, but not if it meant being on death row and possibly being executed. If someone were open to not murdering someone solely because of the possible consequences, I think the consideration would just be not getting caught.
    We were talking in the context of employing the DP in its full capacity.

    In reality, it's likely not a deterrent; however, with extensive application... it likely would become a deterrent (and for some... an argument for).

    I'm not for extensive usage. I'm for very selective usage. Roof fits the criteria for me: he's definitely guilty; he committed mass murder; and to boot... he's still laughing about it.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 10,382

    We were talking in the context of employing the DP in its full capacity.

    In reality, it's likely not a deterrent; however, with extensive application... it likely would become a deterrent (and for some... an argument for).

    I'm not for extensive usage. I'm for very selective usage. Roof fits the criteria for me: he's definitely guilty; he committed mass murder; and to boot... he's still laughing about it.
    And if implemented consistently, so might life in prison without parole...
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • incorrect. i was responding to someone else who said it WAS a deterrent.
    Not quite.

    Just after you suggested people who support the DP are stupider than its opponents... Gern commented that if the execution was more timely, then it would serve as more of a deterrent.

    You responded with 'but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent.' Which, of course, is not accurate.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • tbergs said:

    And if implemented consistently, so might life in prison without parole...
    Likely so.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,443

    Not quite.

    Just after you suggested people who support the DP are stupider than its opponents... Gern commented that if the execution was more timely, then it would serve as more of a deterrent.

    You responded with 'but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent.' Which, of course, is not accurate.
    that was not a suggestion. it was an observation based on what I read. I also stated very clearly, TWICE, that it is very possible that was a product of biased editors trying to make a point.
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 44,143
    now it "unfair." he chose not to present ANY mitigating evidence. Its unfair at the depth of witness impact statements, they're going to come back for death for sure........
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • that was not a suggestion. it was an observation based on what I read. I also stated very clearly, TWICE, that it is very possible that was a product of biased editors trying to make a point.
    You did qualify your comment afterwards, but my feelings were already hurt so it was too late lol.

    Thanks for your efforts today. Seriously. This has been a good discussion concurrent with Season 2 Narcos (just couldn't focus today- sick, antibiotics, hungry, too lazy to make something good to eat).
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,524
    jeffbr said:

    Nope. I'm simply putting conditions on the punishment. There are already conditions on what the crime must be prior to seeking the death penalty, no? Or are you under the impression that murder is murder? There are varying degrees of murder, and jurisdictions typically only seek the death penalty when what you might refer to as a super duper murder was committed. I'm saying if he's been convicted of a super duper murder, found guilty (doesn't need to be super duper), and have the super duper conditions met, then I'm fine with him being executed.
    We're not talking about applying the death penalty based on severity of the crime, it was about doing it when guilt is 100% certain. That means there would be cases of 60 and 80% certainty where you would have to establish some sort of criteria for that partial certainty. The jury says guilty or not guilty, though. Not sort of guilty.
  • jeffbrjeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177

    We're not talking about applying the death penalty based on severity of the crime, it was about doing it when guilt is 100% certain. That means there would be cases of 60 and 80% certainty where you would have to establish some sort of criteria for that partial certainty. The jury says guilty or not guilty, though. Not sort of guilty.
    To get a guilty conviction you just need "beyond a reasonable doubt". I've stated that that is probably not quite enough for me, but I have no problem with the DP if there is 100% certainty. That certainty can be based on evidence, confessions, videos, etc... It doesn't have to be an actual, new, legal verdict. I have never talked about that. I said for me to be comfortable with it I would like 100% certainty. I'm not sure why you're unable to understand that.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Sign In or Register to comment.