• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Last Meals Of Innocent Men

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, and instead, they will remain in prison until they die, finish their sentence, or are proven innocent. Not to mention that they run the risk of getting raped in prison.

So...maybe let's just make prison a little more rape-safe (right now, rape is more or less condoned/expected, which is supremely fucked up) and double check the life sentences?
Instead of just killing 'em all.
 
Yes, and instead, they will remain in prison until they die, finish their sentence, or are proven innocent. Not to mention that they run the risk of getting raped in prison.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this statement...you're advocating a stronger justice system with a small/nil margin of error, I think.
 

Smellycat

Member
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this statement...you're advocating a stronger justice system with a small/nil margin of error, I think.

What I am trying to say, and this is what I said 10 posts ago, we should be focusing on fixing our system. That way won't have innocent people being thrown into jail.

Getting rid of CP isn't a solution, because innocent people will still end up being thrown in jail. Do you get it? You fix a problem by tackling the roots, not the branches.
 
What I am trying to say, and this is what I said 10 posts ago, we should be focusing on fixing our system. That way won't have innocent people being thrown into jail.

Getting rid of CP isn't a solution, because innocent people will still end up being thrown in jail. Do you get it?

I think he gets it, and accept life imprisonment of an innocent preferable to the capital punishment of an innocent.
 

Noema

Member
claude-jones.jpg


That's what my breakfast looks like, every day.
 
What I am trying to say, and this is what I said 10 posts ago, we should be focusing on fixing our system. That way won't have innocent people being thrown into jail.

Getting rid of CP isn't a solution, because innocent people will still end up being thrown in jail. Do you get it? You fix a problem by tackling the roots, not the branches.

Which...is what I said I thought.

I like your tree analogy, but I take the stance that we need to do both, in a way. Execution shouldn't be an option at all UNTIL our justice system is fixed. That goes all over the place, from NY Rockefeller drug laws (thanks, NPR) to Texas judges itchy to tie a noose.

I'll toss in my own analogy here. You want to make sure a car doesn't fall off a cliff before you build a bridge. Stop the traffic while the work is being done. They're part and parcel to one another. Building that bridge, in this case, is going to take a ton of work and while that work is being done, CP should NOT be an option. Incarceration for (alleged) violent offenders is much better than killing them, and incarceration for even those wrongly accused is better than killing them.

Again, I'm FOR the death penalty, but we cannot execute a person the way our justice system currently works. It needs to be off the table until we get there.
 
So, we should get rid of CP, and then call it a day? That is a lazy solution.

In a discussion on capital punishment, saying that you want to get rid of if it as it is less preferable than life-imprisonment of innocents is a suitable enough solution.

Doesn't mean that the same person thinks that's all that needs to be changed when it comes to the prison system.
 

Bagels

You got Moxie, kid!
What I am trying to say, and this is what I said 10 posts ago, we should be focusing on fixing our system. That way won't have innocent people being thrown into jail.

Getting rid of CP isn't a solution, because innocent people will still end up being thrown in jail. Do you get it? You fix a problem by tackling the roots, not the branches.

Surely getting rid of capital punishment is at least part of the solution, no? Sure, fix the the root of the problem and try to keep innocent people from winding up in jail. But we're never going to have a system in which innocent people cannot end up in jail. And we can't really make that right if the accused are dead, can we?

Until we can implement a perfect criminal justice system (hmmmm....), don't you think we should put a hold on the death penalty?
 

Smellycat

Member
Which...is what I said I thought.

I like your tree analogy, but I take the stance that we need to do both, in a way. Execution shouldn't be an option at all UNTIL our justice system is fixed. That goes all over the place, from NY Rockefeller drug laws (thanks, NPR) to Texas judges itchy to tie a noose.

I'll toss in my own analogy here. You want to make sure a car doesn't fall off a cliff before you build a bridge. Stop the traffic while the work is being done. They're part and parcel to one another. Building that bridge, in this case, is going to take a ton of work and while that work is being done, CP should NOT be an option. Incarceration for (alleged) violent offenders is much better than killing them, and incarceration for even those wrongly accused is better than killing them.

Again, I'm FOR the death penalty, but we cannot execute a person the way our justice system currently works. It needs to be off the table until we get there.

Good point, and I would be in favor of a plan like that. But I am afraid of the consequences of removing that penalty (will crime increase?), and God knows how long it will take to fix our broken system..
 
Get rid of the death penalty. There's no good reason for it. It's not cheaper. It's not just. People make mistakes. Especially with the racist justice system we have.
 
Good point, and I would be in favor of a plan like that. But I am afraid of the consequences of removing that penalty (will crime increase?), and God knows how long it will take to fix our broken system..

What would those consequences be, and would they be worse than innocents getting killed?
 
The reason the death penalty exists is because it "feels right." If someone does something bad to you, then you should do something bad to them. But that kind of thinking is a childish joke. And is open to abuses and biases of society. The US is still a society where irrational thinking sways too many people which is why bullshit like this is still around. Same thing why gay marriage is illegal in most states. "Gay people getting married? Yuck"
 
Fucked up

THANK you, christ. I thought I was going crazy with how that remark sailed by three pages of the thread.

'10 mistakes' = ten innocent lives taken. And those are the ones we know about. If you find that an acceptable tradeoff for satisfying some crazed bloodlust for criminals then you are a psychopath.
 

Smellycat

Member
What would those consequences be, and would they be worse than innocents getting killed?

If I had to guess, people might be more willing to commit a crime, knowing that they are just going to end up being thrown in jail. But that is just a guess. We won't find out until we try, but I am not looking forward to it. haha

In Islam, killing an innocent person is equal to murdering all of mankind. Believe me, I wouldn't want an innocent man to be executed, but I also don't want corruption to spread..
 
Good point, and I would be in favor of a plan like that. But I am afraid of the consequences of removing that penalty (will crime increase?), and God knows how long it will take to fix our broken system..

We'll just respectfully disagree on that, then (no worries). My stance is that the death penalty is not a deterrent AND it costs plenty more AND still leaves a stain when an innocent man or woman is executed.

Killing all of the 100% confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt murderers and whatever other crime we may think warrants the death penalty CANNOT bring one innocent life back. That one innocent life is too important.
 

Trey

Member
That one innocent life is too important.

This is a cute sentiment but how true, if at all, is this? Thinking of society at large is inherently dehumanizing (a mass of people make it impractical to determine individual impact, ergo reducing a person or persons importance to a statistical sum of a whole), so when you rationalize for the "good" of society, what metric do you use?
 

Bagels

You got Moxie, kid!
This is the most deplorable post I've read in all my years on GAF.

8 mistakes, 992 pieces of shit killed?


"This is a cute sentiment but how true, if at all, is this? Thinking of society at large is inherently dehumanizing (a mass of people make it impractical to determine individual impact, ergo reducing a person or persons importance to a statistical sum of a whole), so when you rationalize for the "good" of society, what metric do you use?"

Remember that we don't HAVE to have any additional innocent lives lost through capital punishment. We aren't starting with an unavoidable number of innocent deaths, and then adjusting up or down. Without capital punishment, zero innocent people will be lost to capital punishment. Putting in place policy that makes it possible for the state to murder innocent people is different than changing policy so that we move between 19, 20, or 21 innocent deaths a year, right?
 

iapetus

Scary Euro Man
This is the most deplorable post I've read in all my years on GAF.

Exactly. He doesn't understand that we can actually execute all murderers - some before they even commit their crimes - if we're willing to think bigger in terms of acceptable collateral damage.
 

Bagels

You got Moxie, kid!
Exactly. He doesn't understand that we can actually execute all murderers - some before they even commit their crimes - if we're willing to think bigger in terms of acceptable collateral damage.

"If you want to make an omelet, you're going to have to break a few eggs. And strangle a few random chickens. And maybe accidentally shoot a farmer..."
 

Trey

Member
Remember that we don't HAVE to have any additional innocent lives lost through capital punishment. We aren't starting with an unavoidable number of innocent deaths, and then adjusting up or down. Without capital punishment, zero innocent people will be lost to capital punishment. Putting in place policy that makes it possible for the state to murder innocent people is different than changing policy so that we move between 19, 20, or 21 innocent deaths a year, right?

Of course but that is beside the point. I suppose another way to look at it is this: is the goal of society to make itself better, efficient, etc? Or is it to protect innocent life at all costs?

If you can disassociate those two factors, then you can prioritize one relative to the other.

It seems that the major point of this discussion is the current system of capital punishment leading to innocent death, and not an ethical consideration on whether there should be state sanctioned killings of guilty criminals.
 
If I had to guess, people might be more willing to commit a crime, knowing that they are just going to end up being thrown in jail. But that is just a guess. We won't find out until we try, but I am not looking forward to it. haha

There are countries other than America and that has been tried.
 

Walshicus

Member
I think if you're concerned about the cost of justice, you need to focus on the lower-hanging fruit first. For example, blitz away the ludicrous privatisation of prison services; remove the financial incentives that result in the US having a frankly obscene prisoner per capita ratio.

The thing I find baffling is how quick the US seems to be to disenfranchise its own people. I prefer to think of "the state" as having a duty of care for all it's citizens, even those guilty of crimes. A compassionate government should protect the innocent from the guilty while still protecting the guilty from the innocent.
 
This is a cute sentiment but how true, if at all, is this? Thinking of society at large is inherently dehumanizing (a mass of people make it impractical to determine individual impact, ergo reducing a person or persons importance to a statistical sum of a whole), so when you rationalize for the "good" of society, what metric do you use?

Are you suggesting that we do not strive for a criminal justice system that doesn't execute innocent people?
 
Yep, false convictions are one of the many reasons we shouldn't have the death penalty. Yet we still get tards on GAF in every thread demanding execution left and right, as though they are omniscient. Makes me sick.
While I agree with you, pulling the mentally handicapped to their (and mine on occasion) level is just rude.
 
If you think killing someone you know objectively murdered people is "dark ages", I don't know where to begin.

I don't think YOU understand. He is saying your attitude of "lol who cares if innocent people die?" is dark ages.

I support the death penalty in cases where evidence is conclusive beyond the shadow of a doubt and there's eye-witness testimony AND there's DNA evidence AND the alleged victim was caught red handed. A blight on society is a blight on society, especially if we can learn nothing from them.

That said, the talk of saving money by killing is just off...I think that we should invest more money to investigate crimes, more time in ensuring that test results and other evidence is conclusive. It should NEVER be cheap to end a life, ever. It should cost a ton of time and money, because a life is worth investigating.

Again, I support the death penalty, but I do not think our system is currently tight enough to warrant its use.

I like how this post implies eye witness testimony is reliable when the muddled memories of eye witnesses is basically the #1 reason for false convictions.
 
I like how this post implies eye witness testimony is reliable when the muddled memories of eye witnesses is basically the #1 reason for false convictions.

And further along I also put forward that it can't just be eye witness testimony. That said, I should remove that as a qualification. Audio/visual evidence would likely serve the purpose better.
 

Trey

Member
Are you suggesting that we do not strive for a criminal justice system that doesn't execute innocent people?

No. I am questioning the claim that any perceived net positive to society by "something" is immediately undone if an innocent is killed.

Obviously we want to limit wrongful deaths on its own terms. I'm not saying it's okay that these men died.
 

Angry Fork

Member
The human sacrifice supporters in here are ridiculous, even if you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt someone was guilty, like there were video cameras, pictures etc. and all it STILL shouldn't happen. Keep revenge in movies/tv not real life.

Life in prison does just as much as death (although I don't like blanket life in prison decisions either), capital punishment is unnecessary state violence/eye for an eye bullshit for the purpose of making people feel better.
 
No. I am questioning the claim that any perceived net positive to society by "something" is immediately undone if an innocent is killed.

Obviously we want to limit wrongful deaths on its own terms. I'm not saying it's okay that these men died.

Yes, but the execution of an innocent person is not worth making sure you got the other 99. Likewise, it is not worth killing 99 if it means that you'll kill one innocent person. Additionally, our system (for lack of a better word) does not function well enough in my opnion to effectively convict beyond the shadow of a doubt. And it HAS to be beyond the shadow of a doubt if you're going to kill someone. At least...it ought to be.

Being OK with wrongful execution to make sure that bad guys still get punishment that we deem appropriate is akin to saying "Kill them all, God will sort them out." It does not undo the removal of a blight on society...it adds to the impact of that blight.
 

Trey

Member
Additionally, our system (for lack of a better word) does not function well enough in my opnion to effectively convict beyond the shadow of a doubt. And it HAS to be beyond the shadow of a doubt if you're going to kill someone. At least...it ought to be.

I believe this to be the crux of your argument, and ultimately I agree.
 
I will take 10 mistakes for 990 pieces of shit being killed.

I would rather 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent is made to suffer.

This nonsense about money spent on prisoners or "the luxury life they lead" is just that, nonsense. The desire for capital punishment stems from nothing but a bloodthirsty desire for revenge. To see violence for violence. It's pathetic. Disgusting and pathetic. That you would let one innocent (or in your case 10) people be murdered makes you no better than the people you want to see executed. You are advocating for a system that is literally murdering innocent people, just like the murderers you claim to loathe.

You are practically a living breathing example of Nietzsche's "abyss" comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom