|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 23, 2008 12:17:40 GMT -5
No, you've tried to change the argument.
It is a fact that the US doesn't need to kill people. Other countries manage without this. It is a fact that death isn't cheaper than LWOP. It is a fact that not everyone suffers this punishment. It is a fact that the choice of who does is most often for the wrong reasons. It is a fact that the DP is used as a bargaining chip by prosecutors. It is a fact that Pierrepont had more experience than anyone else. It is a fact that I am inclined to give his opinion more weight than most.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 23, 2008 15:13:10 GMT -5
I haven't tried to CHANGE the argument; I've simply tried to point out that you were presenting OPINIONS as if they were facts. You're STILL doing it, actually. It is NOT a FACT that 'the US doesn't need to kill people;' it is an OPINION. As an elementary point of logic, NO truth claim CAN involve a value judgement and therefore your statement is NOT true. It is simply an unverifiable assertion of your own OPINION. Your second point is debatable. IMHO it's actually an argument that can never be proved one way or the other because the statistics are so skewed. More fundamentally, it's IMMORAL in my opinion to argue either for OR against on the basis of cost. Justice should HAVE no price. It is a fact that not everyone is executed and that is how it should be. After all, haddock, you surely don't want to go back to the days when 7-year old kids were hung for stealing a handkerchief, do you? Even murder is NOT the same and there's something weird about your moral sense IMHO if you can't see that. Your fourth point is again NOT a fact but an assertion of opinion MASQUERADING as fact. Your fifth point says more about the nature of lawyers than anything else. Your sixth point is along the same level of 'argument' as 'six million housewives can't be wrong.' The fact is that SEVERAL public executioners produced autobiographies and MOST of them were PRO death penalty. In any case, an 'argumentem ad hominem' proves nothing. It's just another example of your inability to tell the difference between FACT and OPINION. The last point simply shows one of two things: either you give disproportionate weight to the opinions of 'experts' or else you simply choose to believe the 'authorities' who support your own beliefs. So far, in this mish-mash of dishonest 'argument,' only the third and fifth points are, even in part, factual rather than simple expressions of OPINION. Try again, haddock! Don't forget I'm married to a philosopher so your chances of beating me in an argument involving logic or facts (or even ethical questions) are pretty remote!
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 23, 2008 21:16:48 GMT -5
And yet you are wrong on every point. All of your comments represent your desires, not facts.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 23, 2008 21:20:02 GMT -5
I haven't tried to CHANGE the argument; I've simply tried to point out that you were presenting OPINIONS as if they were facts. You're STILL doing it, actually. It is NOT a FACT that 'the US doesn't need to kill people;' it is an OPINION. As an elementary point of logic, NO truth claim CAN involve a value judgement and therefore your statement is NOT true. It is simply an unverifiable assertion of your own OPINION. Your second point is debatable. IMHO it's actually an argument that can never be proved one way or the other because the statistics are so skewed. More fundamentally, it's IMMORAL in my opinion to argue either for OR against on the basis of cost. Justice should HAVE no price. It is a fact that not everyone is executed and that is how it should be. After all, haddock, you surely don't want to go back to the days when 7-year old kids were hung for stealing a handkerchief, do you? Even murder is NOT the same and there's something weird about your moral sense IMHO if you can't see that. Your fourth point is again NOT a fact but an assertion of opinion MASQUERADING as fact. Your fifth point says more about the nature of lawyers than anything else. Your sixth point is along the same level of 'argument' as 'six million housewives can't be wrong.' The fact is that SEVERAL public executioners produced autobiographies and MOST of them were PRO death penalty. In any case, an 'argumentem ad hominem' proves nothing. It's just another example of your inability to tell the difference between FACT and OPINION. The last point simply shows one of two things: either you give disproportionate weight to the opinions of 'experts' or else you simply choose to believe the 'authorities' who support your own beliefs. So far, in this mish-mash of dishonest 'argument,' only the third and fifth points are, even in part, factual rather than simple expressions of OPINION. Try again, haddock! Don't forget I'm married to a philosopher so your chances of beating me in an argument involving logic or facts (or even ethical questions) are pretty remote! Actually, you have tried to change the argument. Now your making it about happyhaddock and whether or not he's presenting fact or opinion. We are free to express our opinions the way we choose. And by the way, happyhaddock's list of facts are all the truth. We don't need to kill people. Other countries DO survive without use of the D.P. Every fact he listed, is in fact a fact.
|
|
|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Sept 23, 2008 23:59:26 GMT -5
It is a fact that the US doesn't need to kill people. Other countries manage without this. It is a fact that the DP is used as a bargaining chip by prosecutors. Hi Haddock! I love big Lin, but don't always agree with her! Just consider me something like a pesky sniper here!Other countries use a hypocritical "vigilante form of the DP", if their interests are threatened! Germany executed/killed a number of the imprisoned RAF terrorists and tried to make it look like a mass suicide..Every nation in the world is prepared to use lethal force if it is invaded!!About 10% of my support for the DP is based on the "Plea Bargain Value" that this frightening deterrent has! Just one small example is that the Murder Mac killers and how one of the killers fearing the DP panicked and plea bargained the DP away! In return he led police to the remains of the victims and testified against his cohort, who got the DP! Actually the police had no solid evidence, other than the testimony of an ex-con that the predator n*rris was bragging about the murders.. If he wasn't so terrified of the DP he may have just kept cool and laughed his way out of detention! I discussed the "murder mac killings" somewhat on this thread in a prior cyber life here! ccadp.proboards40.com/index.cgi?board=victims&action=display&thread=6769
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 24, 2008 12:55:01 GMT -5
In the first place I'm not trying to personalise the debate. I must admit that on the basis of the posts of his I've read so far happy haddock APPEARS to be unable to understand the point of view of anyone who disagrees with him but it's early days yet and I'm quite willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he just wrote as he did because he isn't used to debating an articulate, intelligent, moderate, compassionate and tolerant pro rather than some of the lunatic fry circus mob he's probably had to face up to now.
I'm afraid both haddock and pumpkinpie (who I like very much on my brief observation) have failed to understand the difference between FACT and OPINION.
It is a FACT that Adolf Hitler murdered millions of people (including relatives of mine.) It is an OPINION that what he did was morally wrong (though one which I firmly believe and hope all the members here would also share.)
It is a FACT that the US has capital punishment; it is an OPINION that this is either a good or a bad thing.
You use the word 'need' to refer to the existence of capital punishment and argue (which is in any case a silly argument) that because other countries don't have it that therefore the US doesn't 'need' it.
A 'need' is quite different from a 'desire' and in reality there are very few human NEEDS. Food, warmth, clothes and shelter are just about the only ones. There is no 'need' to punish anyone for anything and no 'need' to assign moral praise or blame to anyone either.
Of course, if you want some kind of functioning society, then you have to have rules and that has to include penalties for breaking them.
On your second point, depending on which set of statistics you read, you can either believe it's cheaper to execute or to imprison. As Disraeli said, 'there are three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics.'
The whole argument is nonsensical on both sides as how can you compare the length of time an 18-year-old would spend in prison with that which someone convicted in their 70s or 80s (or even their 40s and 50s?)
Like too many arguments on BOTH sides of the fence, it's a dishonest argument and one that, even in principle, can't be proved.
For what it's worth I also find it morally contemptible because justice should HAVE no price.
Your third fact I agree with. In fact, I applaud the fact that it IS a fact.
Your fourth point simply is NOT a fact. Reread what you said and it's OBVIOUSLY an OPINION and NOT a fact.
Your fifth point is again something that I have AGREED to be a fact. Of course, on the logic of your own statement, you ought to be in FAVOUR of the death penalty since the possibility of its use may lead to a speedier conclusion of judicial proceedings. After all, a bargaining chip can only be used to 'bargain' if it exists.
You haven;t answered my point about Pierrepoint. Are you one of those people who simply believes the word of experts or do you only believe those experts who say what you want them to say?
In any case, it's still an 'argumentem ad hominem' and therefore logically INVALID and therefore FALSE.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 24, 2008 14:40:26 GMT -5
[quote author=eva board=debate thread=6951 post=34421 [/quote] Just consider me something like a pesky sniper here![/quote] No, I would never consider you that.
|
|
|
Post by mcdude on Sept 24, 2008 14:48:27 GMT -5
Hmmm here is where fact and opinion begin to blur. I think it is a FACT that what he did was morally wrong based on the code of humanity with which God gave us
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 24, 2008 14:51:27 GMT -5
And is it a FACT that God gave it to us?
Doesn't he also make it clear in the Old Testament that he supports the death penalty?
Don't Muslims also believe that God spoke to Mohammed and told him that he supported the death penalty too?
Moral judgements CAN'T, even in principle, be true or false.
I think (like most ethical philosophers) that they can be BETTER or WORSE, but, like aesthetic judgements, how can you PROVE that what Hitler did was wrong in the same way that you can prove a kid who says that 2 +2 = 5 is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 24, 2008 16:50:44 GMT -5
... Moral judgments CAN'T, even in principle, be true or false. ... Maybe, but if the DP was eliminated would the US cease to exist? If not, in what sense does the US need to carry out the DP?
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 25, 2008 3:58:57 GMT -5
... Moral judgments CAN'T, even in principle, be true or false. ... Maybe, but if the DP was eliminated would the US cease to exist? If not, in what sense does the US need to carry out the DP? That's a strange basis to argue for or against the death penalty. Whether or not the US exists or continues to exist - and it's by no means certain that it WILL - is actually irrelevant to the question of the death penalty. If life was governed ONLY by 'needs' we would all be living on a subsistence level. Even if you DO take it on the level of 'need,' I would suggest the following reasons why the US (and IMHO every country in the world) 'needs' the death penalty. 1 To provide proportional punishment for the crime of murder by taking away the life of the offender. 2 To provide greater security for the citizens by ensuring that murderers will be punished appropriately. 3 To provide justice for the victims of murder Like I said, I'm not some moronic sadistic pro slavering over the prospect of execution. I feel sadness that sometimes it is a very regrettable necessity to carry out such a sentence and I wish we lived in a world where people did NOT behave in such a way that it WAS necessary. Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world where some people are selfish, cruel and twisted and choose to murder others. As long as that remains the case, the death penalty will remain a sad necessity.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 25, 2008 11:57:31 GMT -5
Even if you DO take it on the level of 'need,' I would suggest the following reasons why the US (and IMHO every country in the world) 'needs' the death penalty. 1 To provide proportional punishment for the crime of murder by taking away the life of the offender. 2 To provide greater security for the citizens by ensuring that murderers will be punished appropriately. 3 To provide justice for the victims of murder. This is poor sophistry at best. (1) fails because only murder is rewarded by murder. Why just this one crime? (2) fails because wrongful conviction is far too common and the DP makes this more likely rather than less so. How are citizens protected by killing or imprisoning the innocent? (3) fails because it is circular reasoning. How are victims given justice when executions are carried out against the victim(s) outspoken wishes? All of these are specious 'reasons', designed to cover up the real motive which is blood lust.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Dec 4, 2008 13:21:13 GMT -5
Gap Between the Murder Rate of Death Penalty States and Non-Death Penalty States Remains Large Posted: November 26, 2008 States with the death penalty have consistently had higher murder rates than states without the death penalty. If the death penalty was acting as a deterrent to murder, one might expect that the gap between these two groups would lessen over a long period of time as states using the death penalty obtained an advantage in reducing murders. However, the gap has grown larger over the past 18 years. In 2007, states with the death penalty had a 42% higher murder rate than states without the death penalty. In 1990, the gap was only 4%. A murder rate is obtained by dividing the number of murders in a state by the state's population. It is possible to obtain a single murder rate for "states with the death penalty" by adding the total number of murders in such states by the total population of these states. A murder rate for "states without the death penalty" can be similarly obtained. To see the results of these calculations for each year 1990-2007, click here. In 2007, the murder rate for states with the death penalty was 5.83 and for states without the death penalty it was 4.10, a 42% difference. The national murder rate in 2007 was 5.6. (Murder rates from FBI Uniform Crime Report, calculations by David Cooper; DPIC, Nov. 25, 2008). See Deterrence. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/gap-between-murder-rate-death-penalty-states-and-non-death-penalty-states-remains-large
|
|
|
Post by ♥Eva♥ on Dec 5, 2008 21:54:24 GMT -5
Gap Between the Murder Rate of Death Penalty States and Non-Death Penalty States Remains Large Posted: November 26, 2008 States with the death penalty have consistently had higher murder rates than states without the death penalty. If the death penalty was acting as a deterrent to murder, one might expect that the gap between these two groups would lessen over a long period of time as states using the death penalty obtained an advantage in reducing murders. However, the gap has grown larger over the past 18 years. In 2007, states with the death penalty had a 42% higher murder rate than states without the death penalty. In 1990, the gap was only 4%. A murder rate is obtained by dividing the number of murders in a state by the state's population. It is possible to obtain a single murder rate for "states with the death penalty" by adding the total number of murders in such states by the total population of these states. A murder rate for "states without the death penalty" can be similarly obtained. To see the results of these calculations for each year 1990-2007, click here. In 2007, the murder rate for states with the death penalty was 5.83 and for states without the death penalty it was 4.10, a 42% difference. The national murder rate in 2007 was 5.6. (Murder rates from FBI Uniform Crime Report, calculations by David Cooper; DPIC, Nov. 25, 2008). See Deterrence. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/gap-between-murder-rate-death-penalty-states-and-non-death-penalty-states-remains-largeRemember pumpkin! Only 1 homicide out of 100 homicides in the US has the potential to become a death penalty case! It is not reasonable to expect the DP to deter the 99% of homicides that are simply not DP eligible! Although there are some indications that the DP does indeed deter non-DP eligible homicides.. When the Supreme Court reinstated the DP homicide rates in both DP and non DP states sank, which suggests that potential murderers may be impressed and deterred from a planned murder by the willingness to use the DP! The northern states with the exception of Alaska and the District of Columbia have always had a traditionally low homicide rates! Harsh winters seem to lower violent crimes rates-homicides, etc..Most anti states are in the north! South Dakota a pro-state in the north has nationwide the lowest homicide rate!
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Dec 6, 2008 3:23:48 GMT -5
When the Supreme Court reinstated the DP homicide rates in both DP and non DP states sank, which suggests that potential murderers may be impressed and deterred from a planned murder by the willingness to use the DP! No, you still do not grasp statistics. For all you know it was the operation of the Concorde which caused any supposed drop in rates - both happened in the same year. And why did the Son of Sam start his rampage in that year - maybe he wouldn't have killed if the court had left the penalty alone. Maybe Harry de la Roche wouldn't have killed his family. Maybe Sal Mineo wouldn't have been murdered. Maybe no one would have shot at President Ford. You can't connect items because you want to - you have to show a real causal connection and one we see is that the DP causes a rise in murder.
|
|