DD Social Thread (v1)

[djr33]

I don't think that's necessarily true; but something along those lines is fine. The question isn't whether any particular person should be executed; it's whether anyone ever should be executed if it came to that, and whether that should be an option at all. Maybe even he isn't bad enough to warrant it; but someone else could be. Essentially, is there a limit at which the death penalty applies? I think that's the fundamental (and first) question to determine, and also the one around which we seem most divided. On a lot of the rest we agree.

[bernie1227]

Well, via te fact of whether an individual should be executed, we see whether anyone should be executed.

[jscheuer1]

John, I'll respond in detail to your post. From your tone, it's hard to tell whether you're using sarcasm as a rhetorical tactic or if you're upset by this-- if the latter, just say so and there's no need to continue. I'll assume the former.

I guess I am getting a little frustrated. Like when I'm trying to help someone with a script. I can only explain it so many ways. Usually they get it the first or second time. If not I'll give up after 4 or 5 tries.

Really parking tickets? You can bounce back from a parking ticket. Get real. You're a fine debater but it's not always sufficient to pick away at the edges of things hoping they'll collapse. I just don't see how you can justify unfairness when the penalty is irreversible and it's been demonstrated time again that innocents are put to death. You even state that it's inefficient, not a deterrent and not cost effective. It's almost as though you're making my case for me. It's just that there's some part of you that seems to want or need to hold onto the death penalty. Like it's sexy, or exciting to you in some way. Regardless of all the logic and good morals you have against her, she's still so much more fun to be with than that dull life in prison chick.

Whatever the case may be though, I probably should bow out of the discussion. I think your 4 o 5 tries at understanding are up for now.

[djr33]

Bernie,
If yes, then that means the death penalty is useful.
If no, then that means we don't know-- maybe someone could be worse.

[djr33]

John,

I guess I am getting a little frustrated. Like when I'm trying to help someone with a script. I can only explain it so many ways. Usually they get it the first or second time. If not I'll give up after 4 or 5 tries.

The difference between this and a script is that these are all opinions; a script is usually more or less a right-or-wrong situation, with one answer that works.
By that I mean to emphasize that just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand or don't respect your opinion.

Really parking tickets? You can bounce back from a parking ticket.

The point I was making was that your argument against the death penalty applied to parking tickets as well. Your reaction to my comment shows clearly that your argument against the death penalty [that one] isn't the real reason-- it's because the death penalty is such a big thing, final and so forth. If that's the reason, that's fine. But that's exactly what I was trying to clarify before.

I just don't see how you can justify unfairness when the penalty is irreversible and it's been demonstrated time again that innocents are put to death.

I've said I agree with you that it's implemented badly-- I wouldn't oppose suspending it as you suggested a while ago. Indefinitely probably.

You even state that it's inefficient, not a deterrent and not cost effective.

Yes. We agree on this as well.

It's just that there's some part of you that seems to want or need to hold onto the death penalty. Like it's sexy, or exciting to you in some way. Regardless of all the logic and good morals you have against her, she's still so much more fun to be with than that dull life in prison chick.

I'm more interested in working out the details of the argument and finding the position that makes the most sense than to advocate one position or another. As far as I can tell, my position is that I don't find enough evidence against the death penalty to eliminate it-- suspend for practical reasons, yes, but not to eliminate it entirely as an option. I don't even think it needs to be used "sometimes" for some vague reason-- if it's never used that's fine. But to eliminate it as an option doesn't make sense to me. So the "sexy chick" metaphor doesn't apply to me (not sure about the others, but I think you're addressing only me here).

Whatever the case may be though, I probably should bow out of the discussion. I think your 4 o 5 tries at understanding are up for now.

That's fine if you don't want to discuss it, and you're welcome to your opinion. I disagree with your implication, though, that there's some reason it's my job to understand your opinion (and accept it?)-- in fact, I do understand it and have from the beginning (although perhaps not in some details-- and thanks for clarifying), but I still have objections to it. I don't take your objections to my points to show that you don't understand mine, but rather that you disagree with them; the same is true for me for your points. I don't intend at all to suggest that you should chance your views to match mine, especially if I'm not convincing to you.

I'll admit that my perspectives tend to be highly theoretical rather than effectively practical-- I have no problem with literally everything you've said as purely a practical reaction to the problems in the system. I just don't stretch that to mean that then the idea is a bad idea in itself or that it could never be useful. I hope that makes sense.

[bernie1227]

I think the murder of 77 innocents for misguided gains deserves the death sentence.

I think that we should close the thread, as John doesn't seem to be comfortable with the topic.

[djr33]

I think the murder of 77 innocents for misguided gains deserves the death sentence.

Ok, I can certainly accept that as your opinion, and in many ways I'd probably agree. I'd never to review the evidence before making any commitment to that, but, sure, that's as good a case as any I think. And no question on your point about it being life in prison instead of 22 years.

I think that we should close the thread, as John doesn't seem to be comfortable with the topic.

John, if you want to close this thread feel free to do so. But I'll let you do that rather than deciding for you. I don't mind leaving it open. However, we do seem to have reached a potential stopping point.

[bernie1227]

Ok, I can certainly accept that as your opinion, and in many ways I'd probably agree. I'd never to review the evidence before making any commitment to that, but, sure, that's as good a case as any I think. And no question on your point about it being life in prison instead of 22 years.

One last clarification, that conclusion is assuming that the alternative is 22 years in jail.

[djr33]

That's a crucial distinction then. So you'd find it acceptable to have a literal "life in prison" sentence instead? I have to say I generally agree there-- it's hard to see any big downside to that.

[bernie1227]

See with actual life in prison, you see the arguments of John and Keyboard come into play, they have all the punishment of a long stint in prison, as well as, eventually, death.