I was just wondering if Dylann Roof might be a special case that would soften anyone's reluctance to use the death penalty? I've thought about my own feelings on this and had a slightly different perception about executions. I don't lose sleep over the death penalty, but I am opposed to it. Executing Roof won't negate the damage he has done, and data indicates it won't have an over all effect on murder rates, and I've been told it's more expensive to execute than confine, but it dawned on me that Roof's execution might be viewed as simple "waste disposal."
Death penalty is a complex issue. But if anyone deserves it, he does (assuming he wasn't insane, and if you agree even if he was insane, that the murderous insane deserve execution). I personally think that anyone who kills another human being deliberately ... is insane, but medical professionals disagree.
It would be cheaper to lock him up, throw away the key, and forget about him. Villains like him don't deserve glory.
Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
When I was ten or so, a bus type museum thing came to my suburb of Chicago. It was some kind of law enforcement mobile museum, probably owned by the state. I remember it contained an array of stuff, but I can't remember any specific thing, except that at the back end of the bus, in a place of royal prominence, was the electric chair. Supposedly it was the actual electric chair. Nothing special about the chair itself. It looked to be an antique, but commercially built sturdy oak chair like I had seen in many older people's homes. There were all sorts of things that supplemented the chair for executions, but there was nothing electric about the chair itself. I guess I was expecting something else, and while it made sense, it was a slight disappointment.
Quote from: SGOS on January 12, 2017, 10:22:15 AM
When I was ten or so, a bus type museum thing came to my suburb of Chicago. It was some kind of law enforcement mobile museum, probably owned by the state. I remember it contained an array of stuff, but I can't remember any specific thing, except that at the back end of the bus, in a place of royal prominence, was the electric chair. Supposedly it was the actual electric chair. Nothing special about the chair itself. It looked to be an antique, but commercially built sturdy oak chair like I had seen in many older people's homes. There were all sorts of things that supplemented the chair for executions, but there was nothing electric about the chair itself. I guess I was expecting something else, and while, it made sense, it was a slight disappointment.
Edison invented the electric chair, to debunk his competitor, Tesla. Edison wanted to show that his direct current system was safer than Tesla's alternating current system. J P Morgan funded the test, because he had put money into direct current electric infrastructure.
Baruch, you're forgetting your history. It wasn't Nicola Tesla who Edison was chief rival for, it was George Westinghouse. Nicola Tesla was part of Westinghouse's team, but Edison and Tesla were not direct rivals (even though Edison did stiff Tesla when he was working for Edison).
I'm 100% against the death penalty, but given that it is legal, it's a reasonable sentence for such a heinous mass murder.
I remember, somebody posted something like '68 % of Americans support death penalty' long time ago, on one of the old threads on this issue.
Taken from dealthpenaltyinfo.org
"This poll found that 62 percent of Americans favor the death penalty for people who are convicted of murder, while only 26 % are opposed. That support crossed party lines -- 87 % of Republicans, 58 % of independents and 51 % of Democrats said that they were in favor of execution as a punishment for murder."
The US and China are two of the few countries that have the death penalty. In other countries, they just strap you down and force you to listen to the political speeches, it is like Vogon poetry ;-)
And compared to Tesla, Westinghouse wasn't even a genius.
I'm against the state having the power to do such a thing, but ideally he would have been held against a wall and shot like the disease he is. If the state wants their pound of flesh from the bastard, so be it. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170113/f3763b8d69e2238f7fcd97ab970de7ae.jpg)
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2017, 01:10:58 PM
Edison invented the electric chair, to debunk his competitor, Tesla. Edison wanted to show that his direct current system was safer than Tesla's alternating current system. J P Morgan funded the test, because he had put money into direct current electric infrastructure.
Didn't he publicly electrocute elephants to prop up his scheme?
The problem with DC is that you couldn't transmit it more than ... 20? ... miles, so you'd need power plants all over, and forget about "rural electrification".
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 13, 2017, 06:10:15 AM
Didn't he publicly electrocute elephants to prop up his scheme?
The problem with DC is that you couldn't transmit it more than ... 20? ... miles, so you'd need power plants all over, and forget about "rural electrification".
Yes. Westinghouse merely made Tesla's mad ideas practical (we need those guys too). Yes, short transmission, many more power plants, more money for J P Morgan. And yes, Edison executed a elephant.
Quote from: Baruch on January 12, 2017, 07:52:14 PM
And compared to Tesla, Westinghouse wasn't even a genius.
Without Westinghouse, Tesla would have been nowhere. Tesla was long on bright ideas, but kind of short on business sense. It takes an industrial laboratory to turn an invention into a product. The electrification of America was a war of products, not inventions.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 14, 2017, 09:36:53 PM
Without Westinghouse, Tesla would have been nowhere. Tesla was long on bright ideas, but kind of short on business sense. It takes an industrial laboratory to turn an invention into a product. The electrification of America was a war of products, not inventions.
Yes, we don't need inventors ... just industrial giants. And we don't need scientists ... just industrial giants. And we don't need mathematicians ... just industrial giants. And we don't need industrial giants, because everything accomplished since 1700 are by the Rothschild controlled Bank of England and its branch offices like the Federal Reserve. So all we really need is banking, with lots of usury ... and fake money (actual gold and silver are too restrictive of megalomania). Please bow down and worship Jamie Dimond next time you go to get your payoff.
Just this week we had stories about a man and his girlfriend who raped and dismembered her daughter, for fun, and a woman who stuffed her child into a bathroom for over a year...12 years old weighed 30lbs. Give me the fuckin button and get outa the way pussies, shit about to get taken care of.
Quote from: aitm on January 15, 2017, 09:09:14 AM
Just this week we had stories about a man and his girlfriend who raped and dismembered her daughter, for fun, and a woman who stuffed her child into a bathroom for over a year...12 years old weighed 30lbs. Give me the fuckin button and get outa the way pussies, shit about to get taken care of.
This.
Do the victims families even want to see him die? From what I remember, a bunch of them forgave him shortly after the crime.
I don't want to see him executed. If you don't allow any executions, you can't execute any innocent people. There's a small chance he could escape, but other than that, there's no good reason to kill him rather than lock him up for life, other than maybe some people in the black community will get upset and say that he would have been put to death if he were black. And then there's the issue of free will. He had no choice but to do what he did, so I don't think he deserves to lose his life.
I think the victims families were divided over the issue.
Quote from: SGOS on January 15, 2017, 02:29:30 PM
I think the victims families were divided over the issue.
People's opinions are always divided, even if we are talking about one person. On that basis we should avoid all action? A true average of a lot of people, and yes, there would be no action, because you would please some people and piss off others. This is why there is politics, instead of paralysis.
Quote from: Baruch on January 15, 2017, 02:56:34 PM
People's opinions are always divided, even if we are talking about one person. On that basis we should avoid all action?
I was just responding to the question about how the victims families felt about the sentence, and it was only an impression I got from reading a couple of articles. I haven't seen an actual poll of the families. I wasn't expressing an opinion about what action should be taken on the basis of families feelings. Nor do I think the death penalty should be decided on the basis of victims bias.
Quote from: Baruch on January 15, 2017, 02:56:34 PM
A true average of a lot of people, and yes, there would be no action, because you would please some people and piss off others. This is why there is politics, instead of paralysis.
Politics is paralysis. In the few dealings I've had with politicians, my experience is that politicians don't want to take action on divided opinions. They want consensus, or close to one, so that they piss off as few people as possible. Unless of course they have large contributions from a specific entity, which often carries more weight for them than does a consensus.
Quote from: Baruch on January 14, 2017, 09:41:04 PM
Yes, we don't need inventors ... just industrial giants. And we don't need scientists ... just industrial giants. And we don't need mathematicians ... just industrial giants. And we don't need industrial giants, because everything accomplished since 1700 are by the Rothschild controlled Bank of England and its branch offices like the Federal Reserve. So all we really need is banking, with lots of usury ... and fake money (actual gold and silver are too restrictive of megalomania). Please bow down and worship Jamie Dimond next time you go to get your payoff.
Weak, even for you. Electrification required large investment of capital or it was never going to happen. Tesla wasn't going to get that money, and even if he did (and managed to use it properly), he would be a... well, industrial giant. Whoops. The war of currents wasn't a struggle between Edison and Tesla any more than it was between Edison and Westinghouse. If it was just Edison against only Tesla, Tesla would have lost hands down.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on January 15, 2017, 08:53:40 PM
Weak, even for you. Electrification required large investment of capital or it was never going to happen. Tesla wasn't going to get that money, and even if he did (and managed to use it properly), he would be a... well, industrial giant. Whoops. The war of currents wasn't a struggle between Edison and Tesla any more than it was between Edison and Westinghouse. If it was just Edison against only Tesla, Tesla would have lost hands down.
Rural electrification came in the 1930s under FDR ... thanks to free Federal deficits. No commercial entity would have bothered to electrify (or TVA) Appalachia, it only pays to take care of the big cities. The rest of us are fly-over country. I guess you just love Westinghouse. You related to Reddy Kilowatt?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddy_Kilowatt
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 15, 2017, 02:18:15 PM
And then there's the issue of free will. He had no choice but to do what he did, so I don't think he deserves to lose his life.
I don't support death penalty in the slightest. And, I think that like you, I don't believe in free Will in THE way its often talked about.
But I don't think THE lack of free will is something to counter in when deciding guilt or innocence and THE severity of the punishment. (Unless it shows one is genuinly insane and can't comprehend THE consequences of one's actions.)
The thing about the death penalty is they do it all wrong. The worse thing you can do to someone that commits henious crimes, especially a young person is to lock them up for 50-70 years with the other criminals in one of the most violent places imaginable. Killing them lets them off the hook right away with absolutely no further suffering and they do it in a way that is just about like going to the doctor to have surgery. In no way does it prolong the suffering of the person being executed.
I think the death penalty should be offered to anyone facing a long prison sentence. Make it the inmates choice. Tell them that they can sit and rot in the utter shithole that is prison or they can end it right then and there and save the state a ton of money.
I can absolutely guarantee you that if I were facing 20 years in prison and were offered the chance to go to sleep and not wake up I'd take execution EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I remember the last time I was locked up. It was only 10 days, but at the time I thought it was going to be for much longer. If they had offered to execute me I would have accepted with no reservations.
Think about it. You have to commit some serious henious crime to be let off the hook. Your average bad guy who may or may not have committed some horrendous crime usually has to sit in an extremely violent shithole and think about it for many long years while someone like Roof gets off the hook and gets to say the magic words (Forgive me father, I'm a sinner) and go to heaven ..AND get on the front page of every major newspaper in the country plus cable.
The death penalty is all about society getting to vicariously feel better, be less afraid (but we are less afraid if we lock people up too).
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 16, 2017, 03:07:04 AM
I don't support death penalty in the slightest. And, I think that like you, I don't believe in free Will in THE way its often talked about.
But I don't think THE lack of free will is something to counter in when deciding guilt or innocence and THE severity of the punishment. (Unless it shows one is genuinly insane and can't comprehend THE consequences of one's actions.)
They can comprehend the consequences of their actions, so that makes them a really shitty person, but they didn't choose to be that shitty person, so I wouldn't kill someone for being unlucky. When it comes to punishment, I think public safety is the only thing that should be taken into account. I don't see why anything other than public safety should be relevant when deciding a punishment..
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 16, 2017, 12:27:16 PM
They can comprehend the consequences of their actions, so that makes them a really shitty person, but they didn't choose to be that shitty person, so I wouldn't kill someone for being unlucky. When it comes to punishment, I think public safety is the only thing that should be taken into account. I don't see why anything other than public safety should be relevant when deciding a punishment..
So the lack of free will doesn't come into play, right?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 16, 2017, 12:29:25 PM
So the lack of free will doesn't come into play, right?
Well, I guess if there were free will, I still wouldn't see the need to put someone to death when they could just be locked up. I was against the death penalty before I knew about the lack of free will in life. The lack of free will makes the case for taking away the death penalty even stronger though, imo, and it could help change the minds of some of those who currently support it.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 16, 2017, 12:35:38 PM
Well, I guess if there were free will, I still wouldn't see the need to put someone to death when they could just be locked up. I was against the death penalty before I knew about the lack of free will in life. The lack of free will makes the case for taking away the death penalty even stronger though, imo, and it could help change the minds of some of those who currently support it.
Well, maybe. On the other hand: becoming convinced that there is no 'free will' as it's often talked about changed nothing on my view of the world, except for giving me another reason to not believe in an all-powerfull, all-knowing and all-loving creator-god. And that was all. Truth is, I think, the lack of free will doesn't even matter.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 16, 2017, 12:35:38 PM
Well, I guess if there were free will, I still wouldn't see the need to put someone to death when they could just be locked up. I was against the death penalty before I knew about the lack of free will in life. The lack of free will makes the case for taking away the death penalty even stronger though, imo, and it could help change the minds of some of those who currently support it.
I must disagree on the free will question. If someone holds a gun to your head, to make you do something, then you aren't doing that of your free will. But others would say, if you don't tell the gunman to blow your brains out, then you are a coward. I can't accept determinism. If determinism is right then it is OK to rob a 7-11, and OK for the cop to kill the perp without trial. Maybe people who can't stand responsibility, want to believe that they have no choice? Sartre will disagree.
Quote from: Baruch on January 16, 2017, 01:44:41 PM
I can't accept determinism. If determinism is right then it is OK to rob a 7-11, and OK for the cop to kill the perp without trial. Maybe people who can't stand responsibility, want to believe that they have no choice? Sartre will disagree.
If determinism is right, that still doesn't make it OK. And it being OK or not OK doesn't do anything to make the existance of free will likely. But it's all in how you want to define free will.
Quote from: Baruch on January 16, 2017, 01:44:41 PM
I must disagree on the free will question. If someone holds a gun to your head, to make you do something, then you aren't doing that of your free will. But others would say, if you don't tell the gunman to blow your brains out, then you are a coward. I can't accept determinism. If determinism is right then it is OK to rob a 7-11, and OK for the cop to kill the perp without trial. Maybe people who can't stand responsibility, want to believe that they have no choice? Sartre will disagree.
Sam Harris has a very lengthy and complicated talk about free will, determinism, and moral culpability, which I suggest you check out if you're legitimately interested in the subject.
Quote from: Baruch on January 16, 2017, 01:44:41 PM
I must disagree on the free will question. If someone holds a gun to your head, to make you do something, then you aren't doing that of your free will. But others would say, if you don't tell the gunman to blow your brains out, then you are a coward. I can't accept determinism. If determinism is right then it is OK to rob a 7-11, and OK for the cop to kill the perp without trial. Maybe people who can't stand responsibility, want to believe that they have no choice? Sartre will disagree.
We all have a gun being held to our heads. Our environment, circumstances, and influences are the gun that leads us to do what we do, along with the makeup of our brain.
Like Mr. Obvious pointed out, it being ok or not ok to rob that 7/11 or kill that perp is not something that makes free will any more likely.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 16, 2017, 03:13:53 PM
Sam Harris has a very lengthy and complicated talk about free will, determinism, and moral culpability, which I suggest you check out if you're legitimately interested in the subject.
Modern scientists are either determinists (Newtonian/Einstineian) or probabilistic (Bohr/Feynman). They can't seem to make up their minds ;-) Either way, they would deny, if they were consistent, any moral agency by individuals or the State. When nobody is responsible for anything (credit or blame), society is pretty well cooked. This is the fault of reductionism ... even if my body is made up of atoms, and atoms carry not credit or blame, I do. But one can wave the magic wand of ephiphenomenalism at it ... say that free will is an emergent property (cough).
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 16, 2017, 02:45:22 PM
If determinism is right, that still doesn't make it OK. And it being OK or not OK doesn't do anything to make the existance of free will likely. But it's all in how you want to define free will.
Freely redefining words is only done by the President, and only if he is Bill Clinton ;-) You can believe or not in free will, but if you do something illegal, I still want you arrested, even if you are not guilty. Legality is only about restraining antisocial elements ... it has nothing to do with guilt. Lots of people do illegal things, and feel no guilt, or their peers might see them as not guilty (the illegality was justified ala Thoreau).
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on January 16, 2017, 04:53:28 PM
We all have a gun being held to our heads. Our environment, circumstances, and influences are the gun that leads us to do what we do, along with the makeup of our brain.
Like Mr. Obvious pointed out, it being ok or not ok to rob that 7/11 or kill that perp is not something that makes free will any more likely.
You are looking at it backward. If you rob a 7/11 for any reason, if you are poor or rich, I want you arrested. I don't care if you think you were free or not to rob a 7/11 ... argue with your defense attorney ;-) Traditionally, your circumstances don't decide your conviction, it only moderates your punishment.
Quote from: Baruch on January 16, 2017, 07:16:04 PM
Freely redefining words is only done by the President, and only if he is Bill Clinton ;-) You can believe or not in free will, but if you do something illegal, I still want you arrested, even if you are not guilty. Legality is only about restraining antisocial elements ... it has nothing to do with guilt. Lots of people do illegal things, and feel no guilt, or their peers might see them as not guilty (the illegality was justified ala Thoreau).
Oh, and if I do something against the law, I will be guilty. Wether I have real free will or not, you are right to wish to see me punished duly. Vice versa, on that, and I don't believe in free will. True free will is irrelevant in this matter. None of us experience this lack of free will.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 17, 2017, 02:28:11 AM
Oh, and if I do something against the law, I will be guilty. Wether I have real free will or not, you are right to wish to see me punished duly. Vice versa, on that, and I don't believe in free will. True free will is irrelevant in this matter. None of us experience this lack of free will.
Guilt and shame are emotional states. Guilt is individual, shame is collective. The legal definition of guilt is bullshit (lawyers!). Juries and judges convict innocent people all the time. If the accused is truncheoned enough they actually believe they are guilty or ashamed of things they didn't do. This is well known in American criminology.
Quote from: Baruch on January 17, 2017, 07:02:24 AM
Guilt and shame are emotional states. Guilt is individual, shame is collective. The legal definition of guilt is bullshit (lawyers!). Juries and judges convict innocent people all the time. If the accused is truncheoned enough they actually believe they are guilty or ashamed of things they didn't do. This is well known in American criminology.
Baruch, I don't dislike you. But sometimes discussing something with you can be quite frustrating :P
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on January 17, 2017, 07:10:51 AM
Baruch, I don't dislike you. But sometimes discussing something with you can be quite frustrating :P
That is because we can't see each other, read each other's lips, and compare that to the words coming out ;-)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d3/dc/59/d3dc597c8f40779c635d8e35395c6c4e.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/90/b9/f4/90b9f499dea98de01211856aeeb26727.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/af/f3/c9/aff3c9b1301339cda8cfd560c3535d6e.jpg)
Dylann Roof does negate many of my objections... He is undoubtedly guilty. I won't cry when he's killed, but that even such a heinous man as he is sentenced to the death penalty doesn't sway me to suddenly support the death penalty. It's cruel and unusual punishment. The fact that he is cruel and unusual doesn't change that.
Two wrongs don't make a right - didn't we all learn this as children?
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 18, 2017, 04:29:05 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right - didn't we all learn this as children?
Not very well, I guess.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 18, 2017, 04:29:05 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right - didn't we all learn this as children?
But have you grown up yet?
In some languages a double negative isn't neutral, it is simply a double negative.
Quote from: Unbeliever on January 18, 2017, 04:29:05 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right - didn't we all learn this as children?
Your opinion that killing a piece of shit is wrong is wrong. Therefore, one wrong and a right is a meh...kill the fuck.
Quote from: aitm on January 18, 2017, 09:19:07 PM
Your opinion that killing a piece of shit is wrong is wrong.
As long as the piece of shit is behind bars and no longer a threat to anyone, does it matter if he dies today from the electric chair or dies 30 years from now from a heart attack? What social good are we serving with the death penalty besides satisfying a desire for retribution?
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 18, 2017, 10:01:08 PM
As long as the piece of shit is behind bars and no longer a threat to anyone, does it matter if he dies today from the electric chair or dies 30 years from now from a heart attack? What social good are we serving with the death penalty besides satisfying a desire for retribution?
Satisfying a desire for retribution and at the same time putting innocent people to death, so not only is there no good reason to put anyone to death, but you can't do it without impacting the innocent and their families, which makes the death penalty even more fucked up.