A Guy Beat, Raped, Shot, and Buried Alive a 19 Year Old Girl. Guess Who's The Victim?

[Teallaura]

And the trails are the most involved of any case.

[seer]

Granted - of course, if you wrongly convicted them they didn't hurt anyone in the first place. The same argument can be made for jaywalking - and it also misses the point that the argument for the DP based on deterrence isn't made by the act of execution but by the effect (if provable) on those not executed.

First of all we don't know if it is or isn't a deterrence - there are just to many variables involved. Second, deterrence (as you use it) is not my main argument -justice is, and protecting COs and other inmates.

[Sparko]

Death penalty cases cost more from the beginning. Multiple appeals have to be allowed. IIRC, even holding someone on death row is more costly than normal. I've seen the math, but it's been a while. It's surprising, but it's a lot cheaper to hold for life without parole than it is to seek death penalty.

um no. Appeals don't "have to be allowed" - Appeals can only happen (whether in death penalty cases or any other case) if the lawyer can find something that was done wrong in the original trial or if new evidence is found. Otherwise, no appeal.

Yes, it costs more to prosecute a death penalty case, but it doesn't HAVE to. it is just the bureaucracy at work. Mostly from anti-death penalty supporters wanting to gum up the works and add more red tape to the mix.

My take on it, is that generally I think life in prison is better, but in some cases, especially cases where the person is a mass murderer, or a serial killer, and there is no doubt he committed the act (like catching them in the act for example) I think they should just go through the normal trial, then execute him fairly quickly instead of basically giving him a life sentence and THEN executing him, like often happens nowadays (average of 15 to 20 years before an execution even happens)

[seer]

Okay seer, when did I say this? Point it out to me please.

This is exactly the kind of problem I see with the way you try to do apologetics. I remember you doing it to me when I was an atheist, I see you doing it to other atheists, and you haven't improved one iota over the years.

Actually its important for you to point out where I did this, because you're committing false witness if you imply that I've said that he's 'off the hook' if he 'decided that a human is not actually a human', I've said neither of those two.

This is how it follows. If Tass subjectively decides that unborn babies are not human then I can not accuse him of hypocrisy. But why should he be able to do that?

[Leonhard]

This is how it follows. If Tass subjectively decides that unborn babies are not human then I can not accuse him of hypocrisy. But why should he be able to do that?

I'm really not sure what you mean with subjectively decides. You make it sound as if Tassman saw your point coming along, and then decided for himself that he believes that the unborn aren't humans. That he believes it, as a personal choice, rather than what he objective believes. Otherwise I'm not sure how on earth you can accuse him of hypocrisy.

What is more likely, and far more gracious to believe, is that Tassman is mistaken. He believes for several reasons, that what he believes is true. He's not aware of good reasons, or isn't in possession (at least not anymore), of a sound moral compass that tells him of that fact. Its up to you then to convince him that its the case that the unborn needs to be protected, despite what he currently believes.

And you think the best way to do this is by using faulty logic, bad arguments, dragging conversations off-topic and slandering his character by accusing him of hypocrisy? Really? (See what I did there?)

I have no problem defending the claim that Tassman's ignorance makes him less culpable for participating in the support of abortion.

I'm heading off to church, I might be back later for this thread in a few hours.

[Teallaura]

This is how it follows. If Tass subjectively decides that unborn babies are not human then I can not accuse him of hypocrisy. But why should he be able to do that?

You can call him on the subjectivity but it isn't hypocrisy if he genuinely accepts that some humans aren't human enough. The fallacy occurred because you jumped too far ahead - the tact was a good one (comparing the two genocides) but you can't force him into your assumptions - you have to let him get there by himself. You keep cutting out way too much of the argument and get no where as a result.

For Tass to make his argument he has to distinguish one group of human beings from another - it is subjective as heck and you can call him on that - but you can't just ten steps ahead and declare victory. Debate is like Monopoly - it takes forever to play.

[Teallaura]

I'm really not sure what you mean with subjectively decides. You make it sound as if Tassman saw your point coming along, and then decided for himself that he believes that the unborn aren't humans. That he believes it, as a personal choice, rather than what he objective believes. Otherwise I'm not sure how on earth you can accuse him of hypocrisy.

What is more likely, and far more gracious to believe, is that Tassman is mistaken. He believes for several reasons, that what he believes is true. He's not aware of good reasons, or isn't in possession (at least not anymore), of a sound moral compass that tells him of that fact. Its up to you then to convince him that its the case that the unborn needs to be protected, despite what he currently believes.

And you think the best way to do this is by using faulty logic, bad arguments, dragging conversations off-topic and slandering his character by accusing him of hypocrisy? Really? (See what I did there?)

I have no problem defending the claim that Tassman's ignorance makes him less culpable for participating in the support of abortion.

I'm heading off to church, I might be back later for this thread in a few hours.

Seer is looking at the argument proper - and he's correct that Tass' assumption is subjective because it is necessarily so (unless you take a class view based on heredity, I suppose. Even that would be hard to show objectively and impossible to prove.) He's not saying Tass just made that decision - he's saying it's a necessarily subjective assumption.

I agree he committed the fallacy - but more because he keeps skipping steps than because he actually thinks that way. He's like the chess player that keeps thinking five moves ahead but then plays as if the five moves have already happened - with the same predictably bad results...

[seer]

You can call him on the subjectivity but it isn't hypocrisy if he genuinely accepts that some humans aren't human enough. The fallacy occurred because you jumped too far ahead - the tact was a good one (comparing the two genocides) but you can't force him into your assumptions - you have to let him get there by himself. You keep cutting out way too much of the argument and get no where as a result.

For Tass to make his argument he has to distinguish one group of human beings from another - it is subjective as heck and you can call him on that - but you can't just ten steps ahead and declare victory. Debate is like Monopoly - it takes forever to play.

Perhaps...

[Carrikature]

um no. Appeals don't "have to be allowed" - Appeals can only happen (whether in death penalty cases or any other case) if the lawyer can find something that was done wrong in the original trial or if new evidence is found. Otherwise, no appeal.

You're right, I misstated. Appeals jump to the state supreme court. Some states have a mandated review (Washington is one example). However, the appeals can also bring up evidence that was allowed/disallowed in the trial. I wouldn't count that as something done wrong, but perhaps you do.

Yes, it costs more to prosecute a death penalty case, but it doesn't HAVE to. it is just the bureaucracy at work. Mostly from anti-death penalty supporters wanting to gum up the works and add more red tape to the mix.

The system will naturally cost more for death penalty due to the nature of the punishment. However, claiming that the bureaucracy comes from anti-death penalty supporters needs to be backed, not just asserted.

My take on it, is that generally I think life in prison is better, but in some cases, especially cases where the person is a mass murderer, or a serial killer, and there is no doubt he committed the act (like catching them in the act for example) I think they should just go through the normal trial, then execute him fairly quickly instead of basically giving him a life sentence and THEN executing him, like often happens nowadays (average of 15 to 20 years before an execution even happens)

This is pretty much my take as well. One of the issues with the death penalty is that, in many cases, we can't be nearly as sure as we'd need to be.

[Sparko]

This is pretty much my take as well. One of the issues with the death penalty is that, in many cases, we can't be nearly as sure as we'd need to be.

As a Christian, I also think that Life is generally better than the DP. As long as a person is alive, they can be saved and turn to Jesus. Can't do that once they are dead.

[seer]

As a Christian, I also think that Life is generally better than the DP. As long as a person is alive, they can be saved and turn to Jesus. Can't do that once they are dead.

One wonders why God doesn't see it that way? Instituting the death penalty for any number of moral crimes in the OT.

[Sparko]

One wonders why God doesn't see it that way? Instituting the death penalty for any number of moral crimes in the OT.

well he did make the cities of sanctuary for the hebrews. He didn't kill Cain either.

[TimelessTheist]

One wonders why God doesn't see it that way? Instituting the death penalty for any number of moral crimes in the OT.

Things were different back then. We're not surrounded by a bunch of bloodthirsty, pagan war tribes, that practice human sacrifice and sex slavery today.

[seer]

well he did make the cities of sanctuary for the hebrews. He didn't kill Cain either.

That doesn't change the fact that He did institute the death penalty. And it was carried out. And the Cities of Refuge were only used for those accused of manslaughter, if memory serves. And not for crimes like premeditated murder. And I'm not saying that a State necessarily has to institute the death penalty, but it would not be unjust or immoral if they did.

[seer]

Things were different back then. We're not surrounded by a bunch of bloodthirsty, pagan war tribes, that practice human sacrifice and sex slavery today.

LOL, yes mankind has evolved so much!