Politician wants Schwarzenegger to lose citizenship

[Darth Wong]

-Lack of counterarguments. The only actual pro-CP arguments I know are "deterrant" and "savings", neither of which appears to be justified.

The pre-eminent argument for capital punishment is retribution. If you totally disagree with retributive justice, one would, of course, have to ask what you do believe in. Rehabilitation? Take a hypothetical scenario where someone commits one murder but you know he will never commit another because it was a very unique circumstance and he's gotten it out of his system now. Do you set him free, pat him on the back, and give him a nice candy?

[AMX]

The pre-eminent argument for capital punishment is retribution. If you totally disagree with retributive justice, one would, of course, have to ask what you do believe in.

In my opinion, the primary responsibility of justice is protection.
Punishment is only a means to achieve this end.

[Darth Wong]

The pre-eminent argument for capital punishment is retribution. If you totally disagree with retributive justice, one would, of course, have to ask what you do believe in.

In my opinion, the primary responsibility of justice is protection.
Punishment is only a means to achieve this end.

I notice you chose to ignore the hypothetical scenario I posed in the rest of that post.

[AMX]

I notice you chose to ignore the hypothetical scenario I posed in the rest of that post.

Indeed I did.

[Knife]

The pre-eminent argument for capital punishment is retribution. If you totally disagree with retributive justice, one would, of course, have to ask what you do believe in.

In my opinion, the primary responsibility of justice is protection.
Punishment is only a means to achieve this end.

Law is for protection. Justice is for a sense of satifaction after the resolution of a problem. The law could easily protect society by exterminting all sorts of criminals, but that wouldn't serve justice if you're killing common thieves. Atleast anything proportional to the laws made to protect the average person.

Killing a 'rabid dog' does give society a sence of staifaction and resolution after the fact. If for nothing else, that 'rabid dog' will never again kill someone.

[AMX]

Law is for protection.

Laws alone can not protect.
Only if they are enforced, through justice, can they be effective.
(There may be a semantic problem involved here.)

Justice is for a sense of satifaction after the resolution of a problem. The law could easily protect society by exterminting all sorts of criminals, but that wouldn't serve justice if you're killing common thieves. Atleast anything proportional to the laws made to protect the average person.

Killing a 'rabid dog' does give society a sence of staifaction and resolution after the fact. If for nothing else, that 'rabid dog' will never again kill someone.

Satisfaction for killing someone - actually, for killing anything - counts as bloodlust in my book.
Even when killing a real rabid dog, satisfaction is a completely wrong feeling.

[salm]

You obviously don't grasp english very well. Punishment is a relative term. You could literately slap someone on the wrist for murdering someone, and label it "punishment". Most people would hardly consider that punishment, despite the fact you can accurately label it so.

quit the strawman bullshit. you weren´t talking about a slap on the wrist. you were talking about life in prison and were dismissing it as no punishment.

Being executed is not a permanent solution, deterrent or source of satisfaction(for some)? How fucking stupid are you?

no. they´re red herrings because you state that capital punishment is all of these as a counter argument to life in prison which implies that llife in prison is non of them, moron. you brought up these irrelevant points in order to distract from the argument.
you admited that all of that was bullshit, by aknowleging that everything except the financial reasons is the same.

Except that magical thing called money needed to provide that lifetime imprisonment as opposed to just putting a bullet in them.

Yes, the current system can take decades to execute someone. Hence, why it is more expensive. Fucking duh.

yeah, keep evading. i´m getting used to it.
why don´t you post your brilliant solution which lets us find the killer in short time with this irrefutable proof of yours at low cost.

And what part of irrefuteably guilty, remorseless or repeat offenders did you not understand? They're the only ones I'd not hesistate to execute, and by that definition appeals and other time consuming efforts (which jack up the costs) are not necessary.

what part of how is this irrefutable evidence found are you incapable of understanding?

also, how would this work out anyway.

scenario 1:
judge: "mr. killer, we found a videotape and 10 independant people saw you killing mr. victim, so you go on death row right away without any possibility of appeal. "

scenario 2: "mr. killer, we didn´t find a videotape and evidence is not that hard and since we not THAT sure you don´t go on dath row like the other guy. you only get sentanced to life in prison. because we´re sure. just not THAT sure."

by that you´d make a passion killing in general be punished harder than cool planned killings because passion killings are more likely to have harder evidence than planned killings.

[frigidmagi]

n my opinion, the primary responsibility of justice is protection.
Punishment is only a means to achieve this end.

Justice does not take place until after a crime has taken place. With this in mind, justice has already fail in the goal of protection. You cannot protect a murder victum after the fact. You may be able to protect future victums of his possible if you keep him in jail long enough and/or turn him into a productive member of society.

For me however there are to many if's and may's in that.

[Darth Wong]

I notice you chose to ignore the hypothetical scenario I posed in the rest of that post.

Indeed I did.

In other words, you have no answer because you know that your "law is only for protection" argument leads directly to the absurd conclusion that a murderer with no chance of re-offending should be released immediately.

[AMX]

In other words, you have no answer because you know that your "law is only for protection" argument leads directly to the absurd conclusion that a murderer with no chance of re-offending should be released immediately.

No, I'm just to lazy to think through how many years I'd give him.
Deterrent effect.
@frigidmagi: Same. Protection by deterrence.

[Darth Wong]

In other words, you have no answer because you know that your "law is only for protection" argument leads directly to the absurd conclusion that a murderer with no chance of re-offending should be released immediately.

No, I'm just to lazy to think through how many years I'd give him.
Deterrent effect.
@frigidmagi: Same. Protection by deterrence.

You said that the ONLY purpose of the law is protection, and dismissed deterrent, remember?

By the way, here's a poster boy for the death penalty:

Man Who Set Son on Fire May Face Life

By DAVID KRAVETS
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The man who set his 6-year-old son on fire to avenge a custody battle 22 years ago is on trial again and could go to prison for life.

Jury selection resumed Monday in the case of Charley Charles, formerly Charles Rothenberg. He faces trial on gun possession and other charges and could face sentencing under the state's tough ``three strikes'' law.

Jury selection began last week, and opening statements were set to begin as early as Monday afternoon.

In 1983, Rothenberg took his 6-year-old son, David, to a motel in the Los Angeles suburb of Buena Park and gave the boy a sleeping pill. He then doused the boy with kerosene, set him on fire and left.

He said he was distraught over losing the boy to his estranged wife in a custody battle. David survived, but suffered third-degree burns over 90 percent of his body and was badly disfigured.

The father was convicted of attempted murder, arson and other charges and received 13 years in prison, the maximum penalty at the time. He was released for good behavior after serving 6 1/2 years.

In 1990, the boy, who told prosecutors he never wanted to see his father again, changed his name to David Jordan Robinson, in honor of professional basketball stars Michael Jordan and David Robinson, who befriended him.

The 10 new counts against the father include charges he withdrew money from cash machines using other people's ATM cards, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Under the state's three strikes law, enacted in 1994 to punish repeat offenders, he could face a sentence of 25 years to life.

In 1996, a jury acquitted Rothenberg, then known as Charles Bocca, of charges he shot a man in the head.

I assure you that if given the opportunity to do so legally, I would personally throw the switch on an electric chair for this worthless piece of shit and not lose a moment's sleep over it.

[AMX]

You said that the ONLY purpose of the law is protection, and dismissed deterrent, remember?

Where, exactly, did I say that?
"Primary responsibility"...
"Punishment is a means to that end"...

I can't find the part where I dismiss deterrence, can you show me?
In fact, where do I say that protection is the ONLY purpose?

<snip example>

Yep, people are fucked up.
Kinda wondering why they let him out early...

[Darth Wong]

You said that the ONLY purpose of the law is protection, and dismissed deterrent, remember?

Where, exactly, did I say that?
"Primary responsibility"...
"Punishment is a means to that end"...

You said it as a way of refuting the statement that retribution also has a place. Obviously, in context, it's intended as an exclusive statement, otherwise it does not even remotely address the argument it is intended to address. So which is it? Did you phrase it incorrectly, or did you mean to post a "rebuttal" that was totally worthless and irrelevant?

[AMX]

Checking...

It appears that I misinterpreted your post.
In fact, I also appear to have misled you with this:

-Lack of counterarguments. The only actual pro-CP arguments I know are "deterrant" and "savings", neither of which appears to be justified.

It was not meant to mean that deterrence is wrong, but that the argument about capital punishment having a stronger deterrent effect is wrong; I don't technically "totally disagree with retributive justice" - but retribution is, in my opinion, not an end, but a means to an end.

[Robert Walper]

quit the strawman bullshit. you weren´t talking about a slap on the wrist. you were talking about life in prison and were dismissing it as no punishment.

Dismissing it as inadaquate and counter productive punishment, yes. You're obviously not grasping that what I'm pointing out is anything can be labelled punishment subjectively. Being forced to eat chocolate cake can be punishment if a person doesn't like it.

Let me state my position more clearly: I don't consider life imprisonment a rational punishment for severe crimes where the guilty party is remorseless or a repeat offender. It's a drain on resources that can be best used elsewhere.

Being executed is not a permanent solution, deterrent or source of satisfaction(for some)? How fucking stupid are you?

no. they´re red herrings because you state that capital punishment is all of these as a counter argument to life in prison which implies that llife in prison is non of them, moron.

Bullshit. My arguement is that expense is the counter arguement to life imprisonment. I merely listed permenant solution, deterrent and satisfaction to illustrate that life imprisonment is inferior because it costs more resources best utilized elsewhere. Of course, feel free to try and prove that it's cheaper to support a living person than a dead one.

you brought up these irrelevant points in order to distract from the argument.

See above.

you admited that all of that was bullshit, by aknowleging that everything except the financial reasons is the same.

Since expense has always been my primary arguement, you're claim that imprisonment accomplishes the "same" effects of execution is moot. This of course ignoring things like death sentences are far more feared than life sentences, hence a stronger deterrent. Or that it's a far more effective permanent solution, since imprisonment carries the risk of escape, or that greater satisfaction can be felt knowing the guilty party is not living on free meals, free shelter and other necessities that starving kids in the world are far more deserving of.

yeah, keep evading. i´m getting used to it.
why don´t you post your brilliant solution which lets us find the killer in short time with this irrefutable proof of yours at low cost.

I'm evading, eh? How the guilty party is determined guilty is irrelevent, it's the punishment that is the issue dumbass. Unless you think the nature of the punishment is what should determine how much effort is put towards finding guilt. "He's only going to get life imprisonment, so don't put as much effort into finding out the truth. We can always release him/her later."

You're just too stupid to realize you cannot logically assert it's cheaper execute someone then to support them for the rest of their life. You're only counter arguement has been to cite examples where execution is more expensive because...duh...it takes so long to execute them in the first place and they must be supported in the meantime (which is what life imprisonment does, except for longer). Since I already stated the justice system is far from perfect, repeating this does not constitute a rebuttal.

And what part of irrefuteably guilty, remorseless or repeat offenders did you not understand? They're the only ones I'd not hesistate to execute, and by that definition appeals and other time consuming efforts (which jack up the costs) are not necessary.

what part of how is this irrefutable evidence found are you incapable of understanding?

So you think the method of punishment should determine how much effort is put into finding a person guilty or innocent? Glad I don't live in your world.

also, how would this work out anyway.

scenario 1:
judge: "mr. killer, we found a videotape and 10 independant people saw you killing mr. victim, so you go on death row right away without any possibility of appeal. "

Crude and overly simplistic, but essentially yes. You'd realize that if you actually read what I've posted.

scenario 2: "mr. killer, we didn´t find a videotape and evidence is not that hard and since we not THAT sure you don´t go on dath row like the other guy. you only get sentanced to life in prison. because we´re sure. just not THAT sure."

No, you do more investigating in that case. I've clearly stated I'd only support execution if the guilty party is so beyond reasonable doubt.

by that you´d make a passion killing in general be punished harder than cool planned killings because passion killings are more likely to have harder evidence than planned killings.

Further evidence you can't read worth shit, since I've mentioned "remorseless" and "repeat offenders" many times now.

[Knife]

Law is for protection.

Laws alone can not protect.
Only if they are enforced, through justice, can they be effective.
(There may be a semantic problem involved here.)

Laws can be inforced without justice (or a small bit of justice, anyways). Look at the dumb drug laws. What is the justice there, but the law exsists. Like I said, justice is the 'satifaction' durring the resolution of Law. Some one can come up with all sorts of kooky laws and the end result can be far from justice.

Satisfaction for killing someone - actually, for killing anything - counts as bloodlust in my book.
Even when killing a real rabid dog, satisfaction is a completely wrong feeling.

Hence your problem with the opinions of everyone else. 'Murder' killing with out justification is wrong and bloodlust. But there are time's when killing something/someone is valid. On an individual scale, killing someone trying to kill you if justifiable. On a larger scale, eliminating a person with no hope of rehibilitation, killing someone who will most likely kill again if given the chance, is justifyable.

Granted, that doesn't mean our system doesn't need some work but the concept of 'you should never kill someone' is wishfull thinking at best.

[Robert Walper]

Satisfaction for killing someone - actually, for killing anything - counts as bloodlust in my book.
Even when killing a real rabid dog, satisfaction is a completely wrong feeling.

Hence your problem with the opinions of everyone else. 'Murder' killing with out justification is wrong and bloodlust. But there are time's when killing something/someone is valid. On an individual scale, killing someone trying to kill you if justifiable. On a larger scale, eliminating a person with no hope of rehibilitation, killing someone who will most likely kill again if given the chance, is justifyable.

Granted, that doesn't mean our system doesn't need some work but the concept of 'you should never kill someone' is wishfull thinking at best.

I think the problem is alot of people's perception of death itself. It's considered "wrong" or "bad". Yes, it hurts horribly when you lose a close or loved one. It hurts to see needless suffering and killing. But death is as natural as life, as anything alive is destined to eventually die. Furthermore, a living being must kill in order to survive. It's a fact of our existence.

Morally justifiable killing I have no problem with. Whether you eat meat or vegetables, you're routinely participating in the death of a form of life.

I suspect the common arguement that "every human life is precious, we should never kill a human being regardles of the circumstances" can usually be linked to religious influences. That, or an irrational mindset. Objectively, I see no reason why human life is more precious than any other form.

[AMX]

Hence your problem with the opinions of everyone else. 'Murder' killing with out justification is wrong and bloodlust. But there are time's when killing something/someone is valid. On an individual scale, killing someone trying to kill you if justifiable. On a larger scale, eliminating a person with no hope of rehibilitation, killing someone who will most likely kill again if given the chance, is justifyable.

Granted, that doesn't mean our system doesn't need some work but the concept of 'you should never kill someone' is wishfull thinking at best.

Did it look like I was arguing for killing absolutely never?
Because I didn't, and wouldn't.

I'm arguing against the notion of killing for satisfaction, which is, simply put, perverted.
If you have to kill, I don't have a problem with it.
But in most cases, it's simply not necessary and should be avoided (even if you think the person in question will kill again if given the chance - just don't give him the chance).

@Walper: Quit the philosophical BS. Human life > animal-bred-as-food's life. A very basic concept, except for PETA.

[Robert Walper]

I'm arguing against the notion of killing for satisfaction, which is, simply put, perverted.

Agreed in the sense of killing for no other purpose than satisfaction.

If you have to kill, I don't have a problem with it.
But in most cases, it's simply not necessary and should be avoided (even if you think the person in question will kill again if given the chance - just don't give him the chance).

Killing them works wonders. We also don't waste resources supporting them for the rest of ther lives. Or do you think it's fair to support murderers with free meals, shelter, and other luxuries while kids starve on the street?

@Walper: Quit the philosophical BS. Human life > animal-bred-as-food's life. A very basic concept, except for PETA.

You obviously missed the "objective" part of my statement, despite me even putting it in italics. Explain, objectively, why a human life is more valueable or worth more than, say, a dolphin's life.

[AMX]

Killing them works wonders. We also don't waste resources supporting them for the rest of ther lives. Or do you think it's fair to support murderers with free meals, shelter, and other luxuries while kids starve on the street?

Then make them to work for it.

You obviously missed the "objective" part of my statement, despite me even putting it in italics. Explain, objectively, why a human life is more valueable or worth more than, say, a dolphin's life.

Because they belong to the same species as us?

[Robert Walper]

Killing them works wonders. We also don't waste resources supporting them for the rest of ther lives. Or do you think it's fair to support murderers with free meals, shelter, and other luxuries while kids starve on the street?

Then make them to work for it.

And if they refuse?

You obviously missed the "objective" part of my statement, despite me even putting it in italics. Explain, objectively, why a human life is more valueable or worth more than, say, a dolphin's life.

Because they belong to the same species as us?

In other words, a non objective response. I said objectively. "Because they're the same species as us" is not objective.

[Broomstick]

one would, of course, have to ask what you do believe in. Rehabilitation? Take a hypothetical scenario where someone commits one murder but you know he will never commit another because it was a very unique circumstance and he's gotten it out of his system now. Do you set him free, pat him on the back, and give him a nice candy?

Wow, that would have to be a very unusual circumstance.

Actually, there IS a circumstance where the law allows just that - self defense. You can kill someone in self-defense and suffer no penalty. Why? Because unless some tries to kill you (and attempted murder is a crime) you won't engage in killing. Therefore, the only person you are a danger to are potential murderers.

Accidental killing, depending on circumstances, may or may not involve penalties. If, for instance, someone throws themself under the wheels of your car while you're driving down the freeway because they want to commit suicide you may kill them by driving over them, but not suffer any penalty because there is no intent - indeed, you might have done everything possible to avoid killing them but have simply been unable to avoid it.

So yes, it is possible to kill someone and be set free... which is why the law distinguishes between self-defense, manslaughter, and pre-meditated murder.

But let's say, hypothetically, someone commits an act of murder (meaning the killing wasn't in self-defense and was not accidental) and we know absolutely for a fact that this was an extremely unusual circumstance and this person will never again commit such a crime... hmmm.... well, I do think some punishment is called for and in this case I'd be willing to consider creative alternatives - but man, proving such a person is no longer a threat is a very, very high hurdle.

In such a case, I'd be willing to consider heavy fines, restitution towards the victim's family, extended probation, confinement in minimum security, house arrest, work-release, and other such punishment rather than locking them up for life in a maximum security prison or execution.

[Broomstick]

Killing a 'rabid dog' does give society a sence of staifaction and resolution after the fact. If for nothing else, that 'rabid dog' will never again kill someone.

Actually, we try to kill the rabid dog before he kills anyone.

You know, I don't think that's a good analogy. If I kill a rabid dog it's self-defense - I'm doing it to protect myself and society, not to punish the dog. I may even feel sorry for the dog. Ideally, I'd prefer to cure the dog, remove the threat, and let everyone live another day but that's not possible with rabies.

Even if the dog doesn't have rabies and is just a dangerous, vicious, deadly dog it's still largely a matter of self-defense. I'm doing it to protect myself/other from the threat the dog represents, not to inflict punishment and not to gain some sort of satisfaction from killing. If there is some way other than death to neutralize the threat then there is much less justification for killing the dog.

[salm]

*snip*

ok, you brainless baboon. you claim that it´s not important to know how to implement something in reality if you want to implement it. that´s probably the single, most moronic thing i´ve heard this month.

I'm evading, eh? How the guilty party is determined guilty is irrelevent, it's the punishment that is the issue dumbass.

if you don´t know how to gain irrefutable proof in a cheap way you obviously can´t do it.

so for the last time, explain how you´d get this proof. otherwise just fuck off.

[Robert Walper]

But let's say, hypothetically, someone commits an act of murder (meaning the killing wasn't in self-defense and was not accidental) and we know absolutely for a fact that this was an extremely unusual circumstance and this person will never again commit such a crime... hmmm.... well, I do think some punishment is called for and in this case I'd be willing to consider creative alternatives - but man, proving such a person is no longer a threat is a very, very high hurdle.

In such a case, I'd be willing to consider heavy fines, restitution towards the victim's family, extended probation, confinement in minimum security, house arrest, work-release, and other such punishment rather than locking them up for life in a maximum security prison or execution.

Other possibilities I suppose could be mandatory tracking (GPS perhaps) and checkups by the authorities. I'm in agreement that first time offenders, depending upon the circumstances, have the right to a second chance, although they still pay for the crime (as examples in above, losing some rights).