Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

This should be all over the national news and the country should be crying for the governor's resignation.

Fallin 2016!

 

[Chichikov]

The death penalty is always going to be one of those things where one person thinks its fine, and another doesn't.

That's true for pretty much everything.
Outside Nick Saban, nobody is fine with Nick Saban.

Where did you get that from? I've been arguing for democracy in this discussion rather than allowing corporations to play one locality off another.

I get easily confused.

 

[Manarola]

who cares what the supporters think? Its by definition cruel and unusual. We're the only developed nation that uses it. We should stop. Its shouldn't be up for democratic vote.

"Cruel and unusual" is subjective.

Done.


Welp, then we might as well not debate it at all!

The bottom line is that most civilized countries around the world have deemed it to be either ineffective, cruel, fraught with bias and error, or all of the above.

I was only talking about the cruelty part. The effectiveness is highly debateable and could be resolved one way or another.

 

[Oblivion]

They're fucking insane if this is true. I don't think its considered a protest anymore if you're setting up check points.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

If these idiots think dying for a bunch of cows is a worthy cause, then by all means, let's get this party started.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

‏@EWErickson
It is refreshing that, for now at least, the libs in my timeline who’re fine with firing a guy for his beliefs, aren’t ready to execute him.

"Cruel and unusual" is subjective.

I don't think it is.

Killing is pretty cruel, I mean what is the worst thing you can do to someone?

 

[thepotatoman]

The death penalty is always going to be one of those things where one person thinks its fine, and another doesn't.

The debate against it has statistics of innocent deaths, extreme costs, racism, and lack of deterrence on their side. What does the argument for it have?

 

[speculawyer]

who cares what the supporters think? Its by definition cruel and unusual. We're the only developed nation that uses it. We should stop. Its shouldn't be up for democratic vote.

Interesting point.

 

[Metaphoreus]

So farmers moving to live in hoovervilles is a positive example for you?

As in, do I think it was a grand ol' time and we should do it again? No. But I do think it is an example of poor people "really exercis[ing]" the freedom to relocate (though in this case due to a natural disaster rather than political concerns).

Yeah, individually poor people can move and find jobs in a new state, but there's no denying that it's harder the less money you have.

Of course, and that's true of many things.

And again, I'm not talking about restricting people movement here, you act like this is somehow increase people's freedom and choices where the opposite is true.
If someone want to move from California to Texas, more power to them, but what happens here is that.

Would you please expand on that first sentence?

Spoiler

And complete the second?

And more broadly, this race to the bottom state competition creates pressure to lower corporate taxes and relax labor and environmental laws.
Now you might think these are all good things, and that's almost besides the point,

Whether I agree with those policies is beside the point. What's relevant is whether the people subject to such policies agree with them. They express their agreement or disagreement with such policies through voting, and can also do so by leaving a state whose policies they dislike.

the issue here is that this mechanism can just as easily push for policies you would not agree with,

I don't have a problem with that. One needn't agree with substantive outcomes to support the method whereby such outcomes are determined. The fact that competing states could lead to higher taxes and more-stringent regulation, rather than lower and less, doesn't faze me.

and more importantly, that the collective will of the people (at least as it express itself in our democracy) don't agree with.
And that's a bad thing.

I don't think this is a problem with competition among states. If the collective will of the people of one state agree with a policy that is subject to the exclusive control of that state (as opposed to being subject to federal override), then the collective will of the people of any or every other state shouldn't be able to dictate a different outcome.

 

[speculawyer]

The debate against it has statistics of innocent deaths, extreme costs, racism, and lack of deterrence on their side. What does the argument for it have?

Closure for victims, not spending money to feed/clothe/shelter the convicted,

Spoiler

the Bible

.

I'd prefer it be very rare and not used unless you are 100% sure you have the right person (massive evidence like forensics, videotape, multiple witnesses, etc.). But when they execute someone like Timothy McVeigh . . . whatever.

 

[benjipwns]

who cares what the supporters think? Its by definition cruel and unusual. We're the only developed nation that uses it. We should stop. Its shouldn't be up for democratic vote.

Interesting point.

More neoliberal fascist attacks on Mother Russia.

 

[Manarola]

The debate against it has statistics of innocent deaths, extreme costs, racism, and lack of deterrence on their side. What does the argument for it have?

There is a fair debate about the deterrence effect and whether it exists

http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2/344.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/ucpjlawec/y_3a2003_3av_3a46_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a453-78.htm

Extreme costs are a problem, but that could easily be reduced by shortening the length of time inmates spend on death row. I'm not convinced that anything more than a tiny number of innocents are put to death. If you think that even one innocent death is enough to get rid of the whole policy - fine, but others think that tradeoffs have to be made.

‏@EWErickson
It is refreshing that, for now at least, the libs in my timeline who’re fine with firing a guy for his beliefs, aren’t ready to execute him.



I don't think it is.

Killing is pretty cruel, I mean what is the worst thing you can do to someone?

I think the worst thing is sticking someone in a cell for 20 years and making him wait for his death. The anticipation is often worse than the actual event you are anticipating. Like a needle drawing your blood or a prostate exam.

But I don't think the actual act is cruel, or any crueler than imprisoning people.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Interesting point.

Respondent and his amici have submitted, and petitioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria,the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. Brief for Respondent 49–50. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty

ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER v. SIMMONS

 

[Fenderputty]

There is a fair debate about the deterrence effect and whether it exists

http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2/344.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/ucpjlawec/y_3a2003_3av_3a46_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a453-78.htm

Extreme costs are a problem, but that could easily be reduced by shortening the length of time inmates spend on death row. I'm not convinced that anything more than a tiny number of innocents are put to death. If you think that even one innocent death is enough to get rid of the whole policy - fine, but others think that tradeoffs have to be made.

Abhorrent rationalization at best.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

the Bible

Romans 10:16
Matthew 7:1
Matthew 5:38-41
Luke 9:55-56
John 8:7

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

“Today, more than ever, it is urgent that we remember and affirm the need for universal recognition and respect for the inalienable dignity of human life, in its immeasurable value,” Cardinal Bertone wrote on behalf of Pope Francis.

This isn't christian doctrine. Most Churches are against the Death Penalty.

 

[thepotatoman]

‏@EWErickson
It is refreshing that, for now at least, the libs in my timeline who’re fine with firing a guy for his beliefs, aren’t ready to execute him.

I wonder how he felt about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that got killed in the house not that long ago.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Well at this point they should just slam them financially. Freeze all bank accounts. If the animals leave the ranch, take them (again) and sell them at auction. Etc.

I'd prefer they send helicopters, snipers, and SWAT teams. Wait for some lunatic on Bundy's side to shoot first and then deal with it accordingly.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Romans 10:16
Matthew 7:1
Matthew 5:38-41
Luke 9:55-56
John 8:7

For the sake of convenience, I've added links to the above, and below quote the cited verses:

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

These shouldn't be viewed as commands to government, though, unless you want to call into question every kind of penal law whatsoever. (And that Romans verse must have been cited by mistake.)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

These shouldn't be viewed as commands to government, though, unless you want to call into question every kind of penal law whatsoever.

Of course not, but the undermine the Christian basis for the death penalty.

And it should be Luke 9:54-56. I missed the part where they asked to murder a whole village for not believing in him. that's what Jesus rebuked.

51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. 52 And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53 but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” 55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them. 56 Then he and his disciples went to another village.

 

[thepotatoman]

There is a fair debate about the deterrence effect and whether it exists

http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/2/344.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/ucpjlawec/y_3a2003_3av_3a46_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a453-78.htm

Extreme costs are a problem, but that could easily be reduced by shortening the length of time inmates spend on death row. I'm not convinced that anything more than a tiny number of innocents are put to death. If you think that even one innocent death is enough to get rid of the whole policy - fine, but others think that tradeoffs have to be made.



I think the worst thing is sticking someone in a cell for 20 years and making him wait for his death. The anticipation is often worse than the actual event you are anticipating. Like a needle drawing your blood or a prostate exam.

But I don't think the actual act is cruel, or any crueler than imprisoning people.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1306417111

The conservative estimate is 1 innocent person has to die for every 25 people you kill, and expediting the process would only increase that statistic. How can you say that those people need to die for a debatable deterrence factor and a slightly extra bit of peace of mind for families. What about the peace of mind for the families of those innocent victims of the death penalty.

I can see how what's cruel and not cruel can be considered an undebatable subjective belief similar to what's a baby and what's a fetus, but I really cannot see how anyone could think its right to make a trade off of innocent lives to such a small benefit.

 

[empty vessel]

This isn't christian doctrine. Most Churches are against the Death Penalty.

This is true. Unfortunately, there is a large disconnect between formal church doctrine and Christian practice. Christians overwhelmingly support the death penalty.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This is true. Unfortunately, there is a large disconnect between formal church doctrine and Christian practice. Christians overwhelmingly support the death penalty.

Jesus was also a communist communitarian

 

[Manarola]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1306417111

The conservative estimate is 1 innocent person has to die for every 25 people you kill, and expediting the process would only increase that statistic. How can you say that those people need to die for a debatable deterrence factor and a slightly extra bit of peace of mind for families. What about the peace of mind for the families of those innocent victims of the death penalty.

I can see how what's cruel and not cruel can be considered an undebatable subjective belief similar to what's a baby and what's a fetus, but I really cannot see how anyone could think its right to make a trade off of innocent lives to such a small benefit.

Reducing the time spent on death row probably isn't going to proportionally increase the rate at which innocents are executed. There's probably a good middle ground somewhere. I don't know what the empirical evidence says on this question, if anything. By the way, that estimate is an inference about false convictions - not how many people are wrongfully put to the death. So hypothetically, if we executed people the day after the sentence, that's what the estimate would be - 1 in 25, which to me isn't an unreasonable cost, and open to discussion.

And you have to include the money saved by reducing that time as well. The point is that if you agree there's a deterrent effect - and I'm not saying that's a slam dunk, but just for the sake of argument - then there is indeed a tradeoff in innocent lives that you have to make.

That study is new so I haven't read it, but how many of those false convictions are due to procedural issues? I'm not sure we care as much about innocents being put death when they're only "innocent" in the sense that they did kill someone, but they had a shitty lawyer.

 

[Chichikov]

As in, do I think it was a grand ol' time and we should do it again? No. But I do think it is an example of poor people "really exercis[ing]" the freedom to relocate (though in this case due to a natural disaster rather than political concerns).

Would you please expand on that first sentence?

When you move jobs from one state to another, you're not increasing people's freedom or choice, and in many cases, you force them to make a choice they wouldn't make otherwise (like living in Texas).

Whether I agree with those policies is beside the point. What's relevant is whether the people subject to such policies agree with them. They express their agreement or disagreement with such policies through voting, and can also do so by leaving a state whose policies they dislike.

I don't have a problem with that. One needn't agree with substantive outcomes to support the method whereby such outcomes are determined. The fact that competing states could lead to higher taxes and more-stringent regulation, rather than lower and less, doesn't faze me.

Again, you're arguing against a point that no one is making, no one is saying that we should restrict interstate immigration or movement of companies.
The issue here is that by having one state actively trying to poach jobs from another you create a process that by its very nature lead to a more favorable results to the business, it might align sometime with the people's interests and it might not.
And all of that could be justifiable if such things were beneficial to the US as a whole, but it isn't, it's a zero sum game (actually, it's a negative sum game since Texas is spending millions of the taxpayer dollars to campaign companies to move).

 

[NYCmetsfan]

(like living in Texas).

Fate worse than death IMO

 

[Jooney]

TChristians overwhelmingly support the death penalty.

Only in your country though.

Fate worse than death IMO

Leave Austin alone!

 

[empty vessel]

Only in your country though.

True. I almost edited to make that caveat after I posted but didn't think it was worth the effort!

 

[East Lake]

1 in 25, which to me isn't an unreasonable cost, and open to discussion.

 

[benjipwns]

BENGHAZI SMOKING GUN:

Previously unreleased internal Obama administration emails show that a coordinated effort was made in the days following the Benghazi terror attacks to portray the incident as “rooted in [an] Internet video, and not [in] a broader failure or policy.”

Emails sent by senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes to other top administration officials reveal an effort to insulate President Barack Obama from the attacks that killed four Americans.

Rhodes sent this email to top White House officials such as David Plouffe and Jay Carney just a day before National Security Adviser Susan Rice made her infamous Sunday news show appearances to discuss the attack.

The “goal,” according to these emails, was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/benghazi-emails-show-white-house-effort-to-protect-obama/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...use-aide-involved-in-prepping-rice-for-video/

 

[Chichikov]

Leave Austin alone!

Austin is great, Dallas is somewhere between meh and ugh, Huston is the devil's armpit and everywhere else is nope.
But "everywhere else" is nope in most states.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Did someone ITT unironically say that a way to solve one of the problems with the death penalty is to kill people quicker?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Did someone ITT unironically say that a way to solve one of the problems with the death penalty is to kill people quicker?

#yolo

 

[CHEEZMO™]

#yolo

On the one hand, the state might execute an innocent human being. On the other *counts money in wallet*

*sucks teeth*

 

[Wilsongt]

Christ the first page of the that Oklahoma drug. I highly doubt anything with be blamed on Fallin, though. Despite the fact that this really hangs over her own head in this case. Terrible criminal or not, what an agonizing and inhumane way to die.

 

[speculawyer]

I'd prefer they send helicopters, snipers, and SWAT teams. Wait for some lunatic on Bundy's side to shoot first and then deal with it accordingly.

I can't tell if you are trolling.


Any massacre will inevitably spawn "The government shot first!" defense. Don't give them what they want . . . an excuse to shoot Federal officers.

Just quickly arrest him when he goes into town (assuming he is a criminal).

 

[Metaphoreus]

When you move jobs from one state to another, you're not increasing people's freedom or choice, and in many cases, you force them to make a choice they wouldn't make otherwise (like living in Texas).

I don't see a forced choice here. The employee can choose to remain in California (or wherever). There are consequences for that choice, of course, but it's the employee's choice nonetheless. But both the employer and the employee have the freedom to remain, or to leave. And neither has the power to compel the other to remain, or to leave.

The issue here is that by having one state actively trying to poach jobs from another you create a process that by its very nature lead to a more favorable results to the business, it might align sometime with the people's interests and it might not.

I agree that states should not permit their policy decisions to be guided by attempts to attract particular businesses to the state. I don't have an opinion on the propriety of things like a governor touring the country to attract out-of-state businesses to his or her state, but I have no problem with advertising the advantages of living in or relocating to that state.

 

[empty vessel]

I don't see a forced choice here. The employee can choose to remain in California (or wherever). There are consequences for that choice, of course, but it's the employee's choice nonetheless. But both the employer and the employee have the freedom to remain, or to leave. And neither has the power to compel the other to remain, or to leave.

Capital does have the power to compel. People who don't have capital are forced by capitalism to sell their labor to the owners of capital to subsist.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't see a forced choice here. The employee can choose to remain in California (or wherever). There are consequences for that choice, of course, but it's the employee's choice nonetheless. But both the employer and the employee have the freedom to remain, or to leave. And neither has the power to compel the other to remain, or to leave.

Move or become poor?

 

[benjipwns]

People who don't have capital are forced by capitalism to sell their labor to the owners of capital to subsist.

And?

 

[empty vessel]

And?

Capital has the power to compel.

 

[Wilsongt]

Georgia on a roll! They now drug test welfare recipients!

http://news.yahoo.com/georgia-gover...st-welfare-recipients-232311775--finance.html

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Georgia on a roll! They now drug test welfare recipients!

http://news.yahoo.com/georgia-gover...st-welfare-recipients-232311775--finance.html

This is unconstitutional.

 

[Piecake]

Georgia on a roll! They now drug test welfare recipients!

http://news.yahoo.com/georgia-gover...st-welfare-recipients-232311775--finance.html

Well, the Governor did one thing right

http://www.gpb.org/news/2014/04/29/...orgia-governor-vetoes-private-probation-bill#

Vetoed the private probation bill. Geogria still sucks because they still have private probation, but at least it didnt become worse.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Capital does have the power to compel. People who don't have capital are forced by capitalism to sell their labor to the owners of capital to subsist.

This seems like a general criticism of capitalism, rather than a response to what I said. And I don't see the causal chain you're claiming here. "Hey, you own a widget-making-machine. Why'd you force me to work for a living?"

Move or become poor?

Move and be employed by the same employer, or stay and (1) find a different employer to work for, (2) start a business for yourself, (3) sit at home and play video games, (4) join a monastery or convent, or (5) whatever.

Employees and the formerly employed aren't helpless babies.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Move and be employed by the same employer, or stay and (1) find a different employer to work for, (2) start a business for yourself, (3) sit at home and play video games, (4) join a monastery or convent, or (5) whatever.

Employees and the formerly employed aren't helpless babies.

So easy!

 

[Metaphoreus]

So easy!

Well, yeah.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Guys...I voted for the first time in the largest democracy in the world...INDIA!

And they make this ink mark on your finger, unwashable instantly, disappears gradually to mark that you have voted. And many places offer discounts for the next week if you show this ink mark.

OH, and it is a HOLIDAY by law when there is voting in your area.

Wooho

 

[benjipwns]

Capital has the power to compel.

Yeah, but this is kinda inherent. Scarcity exists.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/wall-street-republicans-hillary-clinton-2016-106070.html

The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton, a familiar face on Wall Street following her tenure as a New York senator with relatively moderate views on taxation and financial regulation.

“If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. “We could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. It’s Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like Elizabeth Warren that would be everybody’s worst nightmare.”

Most top GOP fundraisers and donors on Wall Street won’t say this kind of thing on the record for fear of heavy blowback from party officials, as well as supporters of Cruz and Rand Paul. Few want to acknowledge publicly that the Democratic front-runner fills them with less dread than some Republican 2016 hopefuls. And, to be sure, none of the Republican-leaning financial executives are so far suggesting they’d openly back her.

But the private consensus is similar to what Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said to POLITICO late last year when he praised both Christie — before the bridge scandal — and Clinton. “I very much was supportive of Hillary Clinton the last go-round,” he said. “I held fundraisers for her.”

People close to Blankfein say the same calculus applies to a Jeb Bush-Hillary Clinton race as it would to a Christie-Clinton contest. “Those would be two very good choices and we’d be perfectly happy with them,” a person close to Blankfein said. Blankfein is a self-described Democrat, but his comments about Christie and Clinton reflect the ambidextrous political approach that many Republicans and Democrats on Wall Street take.

There are, of course, other GOP candidates who could emerge as favorites of the financial industry after making their case over the next few months.

...

Clinton, after all, was New York’s senator for eight years, where the financial district was a key constituency. She had many Wall Street rainmakers as advisers and friends. Her family has continued to work that network to try to stock the Clinton Foundation with a $250 million endowment before a presidential run. And she’s been out on the financial services speaking circuit, giving talks to Goldman Sachs and fireside-style chats with the heads of the Carlyle Group and the investment firm KKR.

Clinton warmed some hearts on Wall Street during a paid, closed-press speech to Goldman Sachs executives and other big donors last year when she said of the financial crisis, in essence: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. That line, as the people on hand interpreted her speech, reflects the feelings of many financiers. They know they played a role in the 2008 financial collapse but argue that many other factors did as well, including federal housing policy and irresponsible borrowers lying on mortgage documents. Wall Street sees in Clinton someone who would not look to score easy political points at its expense.

...

Ted Cruz, whose wife works at Goldman Sachs, is viewed negatively by many in the industry for his support of last year’s government shutdown and scorched earth approach to political battle. Cruz fired up an activist gathering in New Hampshire earlier this month with the kind of provocative populist message that makes bankers very nervous. “The rich and powerful, those who walk the corridors of power, are getting fat and happy,” Cruz thundered. At the same event, Paul argued that the GOP “cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people and Wall Street.”

...

And if none of the sitting governors or a Wall Street-friendly candidate like Ryan can wrest the nomination from the likes of a Paul or a Cruz?

“In that situation,” one Wall Street executive said, “then Hillary seems relatively tolerable.”

 

[speculawyer]

Guys...I voted for the first time in the largest democracy in the world...INDIA!

And they make this ink mark on your finger, unwashable instantly, disappears gradually to mark that you have voted. And many places offer discounts for the next week if you show this ink mark.

OH, and it is a HOLIDAY by law when there is voting in your area.



Wooho

Who's gonna win? Modi or Ghandi,

 

[East Lake]

Guys...I voted for the first time in the largest democracy in the world...INDIA!

And they make this ink mark on your finger, unwashable instantly, disappears gradually to mark that you have voted. And many places offer discounts for the next week if you show this ink mark.

OH, and it is a HOLIDAY by law when there is voting in your area.



Wooho

What if you used fake hands. Sounds like there could be some voter fraud imo.