Do you support the death penalty?

[Baked]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
In sentiment I'm all for it. The world has produced some real shit bags that won't be missed. Like this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/...nap.penalty/index.html

However on the off chance that we do screw up I'm willing to let a few obvious ones live to ensure that nobody innocent dies.

This is a fairly recent change for me (within the last 5 years), mostly due to work done by the Innocence Project.

Viper GTS

What a heart breaking story proving once again there's no god. That piece of shit needs to get fried. Good to know the jury didn't fall for the mental retardation as an excuse for rape and murder. Dumb as he may be, he knew exactly what he was doing. I suppose some people will come up with excuses to set this guy free because of his low IQ so he can do it all over again.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I think the death penalty should be expanded to encompass more crimes like drunk driving and mullets.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Except you are, again, completely butchering the definition of self-defense. Self-defense has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with self-preservation. In cases of self-defense, government representatives are not given the right to execute a person. They are simply not inhibited from defending themselves. These are two different situations: the former is about justice, the latter is about self-preservation.

Why is this too difficult to grasp?

Ok, keep them separate. You can have self-defense and you can have the death penalty. But the death penalty can only occur in cases where deadly force would have been justified. Are you now satisfied?

No, because the two aren't the same.

For example, let's say I am in my local convenience store when a gun-toting robber walks in, pulls out a gun, and aims it at the cashier. Hell, let's say he shoots the cashier in the chest. I'm standing at the counter and have my concealed handgun. I have every right to shoot the thief not only to defend myself but to defend the cashier and other patrons in the store. It doesn't matter if the cashier, who was shot, lives or dies. I am fully justified in using deadly force.

However, if the thief escapes and is captured by the police, the state has no right to execute the guy if the cashier lives.

This is because state imposed death penalties are about justice and self-defense is about self-preservation. The two have distinct meanings and requirements.

See, that is exactly what I was saying. That "justification" exists because it makes an assumption, though immediate, that you are providing a benefit to society--not only to yourself but for everyone else. yes, self-defense is certainly warranted, but we make this act legally defensible BECAUSE it is assumed it will provide a positive service to society. You are, in fact, choosing that your life is greater than another's. no problem with that, of course, but that choice remains a part of the issue. Anyone would make that same choice--it is only natural.

We choose to put criminals to death because it is determined that their life is worth less than others; the murderer's life being a threat to the lives of others.

In this, there is no difference in the two situations.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I support whatever is the most effective crime deterrent. My gut tells me that the potential for getting the death penalty should be the most effective deterrent imaginable, but my gut has been wrong before. In fact, I've seen statistics which seem to indicate that countries with no death penalty and generally shorter prison sentences often have lower crime rates. I also think that better educational standards would go farther in preventing crime than any form of punishment ever could. If you're someone like me, who values your life enough to not risk committing a crime that might result in the death penalty, then the death penalty is working on you. Apparently many of the people committing capital offenses aren't anything like me though. I don't understand those people, but my understanding isn't a prerequisite for determining the best course of action. All that matters to me is results.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
....I think Dullard offers an efficient are far cheaper method. The worries of abuse of power and the erosion of fundamental rights (as defined by our constitution) are certainly warranted, but why is it not possible for such a a method to be effectively managed?

Because combining executive duties (law enforcement) with judicial review (determing a person's guilt and imposing punishments) is a terrible public policy decision. The separation of powers is paramount to justice and liberty.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
See, that is exactly what I was saying. That "justification" exists because it makes an assumption, though immediate, that you are providing a benefit to society--not only to yourself but for everyone else. yes, self-defense is certainly warranted, but we make this act legally defensible BECAUSE it is assumed it will provide a positive service to society. You are, in fact, choosing that your life is greater than another's. no problem with that, of course, but that choice remains a part of the issue. Anyone would make that same choice--it is only natural.

We choose to put criminals to death because it is determined that their life is worth less than others; the murderer's life being a threat to the lives of others.

In this, there is no difference in the two situations.

Wrong on so many levels.

First, when one is acting in self-defense, they are not doing so to provide a benefit to society, nor because they're life is of any more value than someone else. They are doing so because no one has the right to take another life (unless, of course, it is in response to an attack).

And, criminals are not put to death because their lives are of any less value that another person. Criminals are punished for any of three reasons: retribution, deterrence, or rehabilitation.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: spidey07
Cost of bullet = 50 cents.
Price of preventing violent crimes = priceless

Belief that the death penalty deters violent crimes = naive

PHAIL.

due to the fact that 65% of violent crimes are done by repeat offenders...
the death penalty on the first conviction would reduce violent crime.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: spidey07
Cost of bullet = 50 cents.
Price of preventing violent crimes = priceless

Belief that the death penalty deters violent crimes = naive

PHAIL.

due to the fact that 65% of violent crimes are done by repeat offenders...
the death penalty on the first conviction would reduce violent crime.

Specific deterrence has little to no effect on general deterrence when it comes to violent crimes.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: zinfamous
See, that is exactly what I was saying. That "justification" exists because it makes an assumption, though immediate, that you are providing a benefit to society--not only to yourself but for everyone else. yes, self-defense is certainly warranted, but we make this act legally defensible BECAUSE it is assumed it will provide a positive service to society. You are, in fact, choosing that your life is greater than another's. no problem with that, of course, but that choice remains a part of the issue. Anyone would make that same choice--it is only natural.

We choose to put criminals to death because it is determined that their life is worth less than others; the murderer's life being a threat to the lives of others.

In this, there is no difference in the two situations.

Wrong on so many levels.

First, when one is acting in self-defense, they are not doing so to provide a benefit to society, nor because they're life is of any more value than someone else. They are doing so because no one has the right to take another life (unless, of course, it is in response to an attack).

And, criminals are not put to death because their lives are of any less value that another person. Criminals are punished for any of three reasons: retribution, deterrence, or rehabilitation.

well, you missed my point. I'm talking about how we justify the self-defense argument, not how the individual acts in the immediate. I mentioned that the individual makes that conscious decision to end someone's life immediately as the accused is a threat--yes, this is a choice. Though for the life of me, I don't understand how you can reach the conclusion that someone choosing to take the life of another over themselves does so without the understanding that that person CLEARLY values their life over that of the perpetrator's. That's only natural and to think otherwise is completely silly...but I digress.

My main point is that outside of the situation, we as a society create the notion of self-defense for various reasons:

--one individual sees an immediate threat
--a value judgment will be made in that instant, no doubt.
--we, as society, must decide how to justify the killing. using your logic, the robber would be just as easily exonerated with the self-defense argument. 2 armed individuals, each now defending themselves. Where do we draw the line?
AH!
--we label one a criminal (the robber, obviously and for good reason), and place value in the concept that the robber's death was a necessary act. Why? he could have robbed again! He could have killed others! etc, etc.

How else can one look at this, if not through the understanding that we accept self defense based on the fact that a necessary killing occurred? How else would you define necessary?

How else would you look at the constant posts:

"Good job. one less criminal off the street." :thumbsup:

You can, in no possible way, interpret that outside the lens of how society is assumed to benefit as a whole. This is repeatedly used to justify self defense, and I'm not criticizing that, mind you....I'm simply baffled as to how this isn't plainly obvious to a supposed lawyer-to-be?

 

[keird]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: spidey07
Cost of bullet = 50 cents.
Price of preventing violent crimes = priceless

Belief that the death penalty deters violent crimes = naive

PHAIL.

due to the fact that 65% of violent crimes are done by repeat offenders...
the death penalty on the first conviction would reduce violent crime.

Specific deterrence has little to no effect on general deterrence when it comes to violent crimes.

I think deterring a specific murderer by execution is what he's getting at.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: zinfamous
....I think Dullard offers an efficient are far cheaper method. The worries of abuse of power and the erosion of fundamental rights (as defined by our constitution) are certainly warranted, but why is it not possible for such a a method to be effectively managed?

Because combining executive duties (law enforcement) with judicial review (determing a person's guilt and imposing punishments) is a terrible public policy decision. The separation of powers is paramount to justice and liberty.

OK, you got me there. 😛

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: keird

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: spidey07
Cost of bullet = 50 cents.
Price of preventing violent crimes = priceless

Belief that the death penalty deters violent crimes = naive

PHAIL.

due to the fact that 65% of violent crimes are done by repeat offenders...
the death penalty on the first conviction would reduce violent crime.

Specific deterrence has little to no effect on general deterrence when it comes to violent crimes.

I think deterring a specific murderer by execution is what he's getting at.

But death penalty on the first conviction would essentially do no less to curtail specific murders by that individual if they instead received life without parole on that first conviction. if the only goal is to prevent a specific criminal from committing more murders, then life imprisonment achieves the exact same effect.

The death penalty exists due to some notion that the potential of receiving this punishment will deter overall violent crime...which we know to be completely false.

We, as humans....also like some manner of retribution to be enforced for specifically heinous acts.

Honestly, I feel that the death penalty is the easiest way out (for the criminal).

 

[keird]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
But death penalty on the first conviction would essentially do no less to curtail specific murders by that individual if they instead received life without parole on that first conviction. if the only goal is to prevent a specific criminal from committing more murders, then life imprisonment achieves the exact same effect.

The death penalty exists due to some notion that the potential of receiving this punishment will deter overall violent crime...which we know to be completely false.

We, as humans....also like some manner of retribution to be enforced for specifically heinous acts.

Honestly, I feel that the death penalty is the easiest way out (for the criminal).

No argument regarding retribution.

There's quite a few cases involving convicted murderers serving life who've escaped and killed again. What did they have to lose, anyways?

A quick Google lead me to this article boston.com

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

well, you missed my point. I'm talking about how we justify the self-defense argument, not how the individual acts in the immediate. I mentioned that the individual makes that conscious decision to end someone's life immediately as the accused is a threat--yes, this is a choice. Though for the life of me, I don't understand how you can reach the conclusion that someone choosing to take the life of another over themselves does so without the understanding that that person CLEARLY values their life over that of the perpetrator's. That's only natural and to think otherwise is completely silly...but I digress.

My main point is that outside of the situation, we as a society create the notion of self-defense for various reasons:

--one individual sees an immediate threat
--a value judgment will be made in that instant, no doubt.
--we, as society, must decide how to justify the killing. using your logic, the robber would be just as easily exonerated with the self-defense argument. 2 armed individuals, each now defending themselves. Where do we draw the line?
AH!

That is the worse use of logic I've seen, at least today. The defense of "self-defense" has very strict requirements. Simply screaming "self-defense" is not enough. First, a person must subjectively believe that one is acting in self-defense (i.e., I saw the thief shoot the cashier). Second, it must objectively be a reasonable belief (i.e., any reasonable person would have believed the same). The thief would not be able to meet the second requirement (what is he going to say, that any reasonable person would see that he was simply defending himself after shooting the cashier?). There is no unknown line here.

--we label one a criminal (the robber, obviously and for good reason), and place value in the concept that the robber's death was a necessary act. Why? he could have robbed again! He could have killed others! etc, etc.

How else can one look at this, if not through the understanding that we accept self defense based on the fact that a necessary killing occurred? How else would you define necessary?

How else would you look at the constant posts:

"Good job. one less criminal off the street." :thumbsup:

You can, in no possible way, interpret that outside the lens of how society is assumed to benefit as a whole. This is repeatedly used to justify self defense, and I'm not criticizing that, mind you....I'm simply baffled as to how this isn't plainly obvious to a supposed lawyer-to-be?

I don't even know what your argument is here. I have said nothing except that self-defense and state imposed capital punishment are different. I'm pretty sure that 100% of lawyers would agree since it's a fact.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
For example, let's say I am in my local convenience store when a gun-toting robber walks in, pulls out a gun, and aims it at the cashier. Hell, let's say he shoots the cashier in the chest. I'm standing at the counter and have my concealed handgun. I have every right to shoot the thief not only to defend myself but to defend the cashier and other patrons in the store. It doesn't matter if the cashier, who was shot, lives or dies. I am fully justified in using deadly force.

However, if the thief escapes and is captured by the police, the state has no right to execute the guy if the cashier lives.

This is because state imposed death penalties are about justice and self-defense is about self-preservation. The two have distinct meanings and requirements.

You still don't understand what I was trying to say. Either I'm saying it very poorly, your ears are shut, or both. So, let me try one very last time with your example. Will you please tell me which line you disagree with or don't understand:

1) A robber shoots a chashier in the chest.
2) If you are there at the same time, then you have the right to shoot.
3) If police are there at the same time, then the police have the right to shoot.
4) If the robber escapes, and three days later you find him, you don't have the right to shoot.
5) If the robber escapes, and three days later the police find him, the police don't have the right to shoot.

Now for what I've been arguing all along:
6) If the police are there at the same time, they can shoot or they can arrest him. If they arrest him the death penalty is allowed in my justice system.
7) If the police are there at the same time, and the robber escapes, and three days later the police catch someone, then the death penalty is NOT allowed in my justice system.

8) What is the difference between #6 and #7. In case #6, if you arrest the person while that person is doing the crime, you have virtually undisputable proof that he is the criminal. In case #7, three days have passed, evidence may have been tampered, they may THINK they have the criminal but arrest the wrong man, etc. There is plenty of disputable proof. In my justice system, this disputable proof means the death penalty will not be allowed in trial.

The key is that if shooting was allowed at the time of the arrest (criminal caught in the act), then the death penalty will be allowed. If shooting was not allowed (criminal caught later), then the death penalty will not be allowed. The rules for self-defense are a perfect starting point for the rules of the death penalty. I merge the two for simplicity and for practicality. I'm not saying the police should shoot him there in cold blood if not necessary. I'm just saying that if shooting him was legal possible in self defense, then you pretty much have indisputable proof that you arrested the correct person. In that case, the death penalty will likely apply.

Remember though, in my outline above, for the death penalty to apply, there must be multiple murders at multiple different occasions. The first murder has the standard trial and conviction because the death penalty can't apply yet. The second time (with indisputable proof that you have the correct person in a second murder), skip the trials and just hang the repeat murderer.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: dullard
You still don't understand what I was trying to say. Either I'm saying it very poorly, your ears are shut, or both. So, let me try one very last time with your example. Will you please tell me which line you disagree with or don't understand:

1) A robber shoots a chashier in the chest.
2) If you are there at the same time, then you have the right to shoot.
3) If police are there at the same time, then the police have the right to shoot.
4) If the robber escapes, and three days later you find him, you don't have the right to shoot.
5) If the robber escapes, and three days later the police find him, the police don't have the right to shoot.

Now for what I've been arguing all along:
6) If the police are there at the same time, they can shoot or they can arrest him. If they arrest him the death penalty is allowed in my justice system.
7) If the police are there at the same time, and the robber escapes, and three days later the police catch someone, then the death penalty is NOT allowed in my justice system.

8) What is the difference between #6 and #7. In case #6, if you arrest the person while that person is doing the crime, you have virtually undisputable proof that he is the criminal. In case #7, three days have passed, evidence may have been tampered, they may THINK they have the criminal but arrest the wrong man, etc. There is plenty of disputable proof. In my justice system, this disputable proof means the death penalty will not be allowed in trial.

The key is that if shooting was allowed at the time of the arrest (criminal caught in the act), then the death penalty will be allowed. If shooting was not allowed (criminal caught later), then the death penalty will not be allowed. The rules for self-defense are a perfect starting point for the rules of the death penalty. I merge the two for simplicity and for practicality. I'm not saying the police should shoot him there in cold blood if not necessary. I'm just saying that if shooting him was legal possible in self defense, then you pretty much have indisputable proof that you arrested the correct person. In that case, the death penalty will likely apply.

Remember though, in my outline above, for the death penalty to apply, there must be multiple murders at multiple different occasions. The first murder has the standard trial and conviction because the death penalty can't apply yet. The second time (with indisputable proof that you have the correct person in a second murder), skip the trials and just hang the repeat murderer.

You've been quite clear. My point is that no matter how you attempt to justify it, self-defense and capital punishment simply cannot be combined. Let me address you questions directly.

1. What is the difference between #6 and #7?
There are many differences. The first difference is that if the police have the option to shoot or arrest, then they have no choice but to take the latter option. There is no justification for shooting if it isn't absolutely necessary (or, reasonably believe to be necessary). So, your example falls apart. Either the cops need to shoot in order to put an end to an immediate threat, in which case it is self-defense, or they arrest the guy, in which case he goes to trial. This is not capital punishment.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, having "virtually indisputable proof" is not enough. Not everything is as it seems, especially if you are an officer rushing to the scene of a crime. There are always pieces of evidence that will be missed, defenses that will not be heard, etc. Simply finding a perpetrator with a gun is no sufficient. How do you know he wasn't forced into committing the crime? Committing a crime under duress isn't criminal much less punishable by death. So, you've just killed an innocent person. Well done. Put more eloquently, the mens rea (mindset, reasoning, etc.) of a criminal is just as important as the actus reas (the actual act). It is pretty much impossible to know the mindset of a criminal as the crime is in progress, but it is absolutely necessary to determine culpability and eventually to impose proper punishment.

2. If shooting him was legal possible in self defense, then you pretty much have indisputable proof that you arrested the correct person.

Besides my above commentary which already addresses this issue ("pretty much" is not enough when sentencing someone to death) I've already outlined two situations where that is not true. There are many more. Your test fails.

3. In my outline above, for the death penalty to apply, there must be multiple murders at multiple different occasions.

So now it is up to law enforcement to identify perpetrators on the spot and immediately recognize if they are a repeat offender? I'm sure this will work well.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: zinfamous

well, you missed my point. I'm talking about how we justify the self-defense argument, not how the individual acts in the immediate. I mentioned that the individual makes that conscious decision to end someone's life immediately as the accused is a threat--yes, this is a choice. Though for the life of me, I don't understand how you can reach the conclusion that someone choosing to take the life of another over themselves does so without the understanding that that person CLEARLY values their life over that of the perpetrator's. That's only natural and to think otherwise is completely silly...but I digress.

My main point is that outside of the situation, we as a society create the notion of self-defense for various reasons:

--one individual sees an immediate threat
--a value judgment will be made in that instant, no doubt.
--we, as society, must decide how to justify the killing. using your logic, the robber would be just as easily exonerated with the self-defense argument. 2 armed individuals, each now defending themselves. Where do we draw the line?
AH!

That is the worse use of logic I've seen, at least today. The defense of "self-defense" has very strict requirements. Simply screaming "self-defense" is not enough. First, a person must subjectively believe that one is acting in self-defense (i.e., I saw the thief shoot the cashier). Second, it must objectively be a reasonable belief (i.e., any reasonable person would have believed the same). The thief would not be able to meet the second requirement (what is he going to say, that any reasonable person would see that he was simply defending himself after shooting the cashier?). There is no unknown line here.

--we label one a criminal (the robber, obviously and for good reason), and place value in the concept that the robber's death was a necessary act. Why? he could have robbed again! He could have killed others! etc, etc.

How else can one look at this, if not through the understanding that we accept self defense based on the fact that a necessary killing occurred? How else would you define necessary?

How else would you look at the constant posts:

"Good job. one less criminal off the street." :thumbsup:

You can, in no possible way, interpret that outside the lens of how society is assumed to benefit as a whole. This is repeatedly used to justify self defense, and I'm not criticizing that, mind you....I'm simply baffled as to how this isn't plainly obvious to a supposed lawyer-to-be?

I don't even know what your argument is here. I have said nothing except that self-defense and state imposed capital punishment are different. I'm pretty sure that 100% of lawyers would agree since it's a fact.

sigh....I suppose it's impossible for you to step outside of the courtroom line to consider why such concepts exist--this is what I'm referring to. I don't give a flying flip about how cases are prosecuted in court--that is ALL you are talking about.

This means that I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. What it means is that I am examining the actual why of the situation, the actual concept, how we justify such acts as a society, and how such acts, through such justification, eventually come to be accepted as legal arguments.

All you seem to care about is the end result--the legal argument. Let me make an important suggestion:

Take some time to stop and consider WHY such laws exist, where they come from. Try, for once in your life, to understand the actual human condition (difficult for a lawyer, I know... 😀). Understanding the concept behind the law (not simply spouting the language used to define it in a trial situation) would go pretty far into making one a good lawyer.

When I say "the societal defense of self defense," you apparently read that as "self defense is defended in court by a very rigid process of proof by claimant A, vs proof by claimant B, blah blah blah."

yeah, I get that. no shit, Sherlock. Now go back and try to read what I'm actually talking about 😛

How about this: society (read: society = society, and not simply the world inside the courtroom, which may be all that you understand?) ACCEPTS the self defense argument based entirely on the concept that a killing was necessary based on x situation, and therefore, it exists as a potential legal defense, and then and only then do you get to the point where you can start telling me how self defense, once established as a legal defense, can then be argued in court. Again--it exists as a legal defense for A REASON--Telling me how it is defended in court does nothing to address this issue.

clear yet?

Are you not the least bit interested as to WHY this argument exists in the first place? Why do we justify self defense?

I assure you that in your myriad responses, you have convinced me that you are well-versed in concepts of HOW. All that I have ever been getting at, however, is WHY.
😉

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: zinfamous

well, you missed my point. I'm talking about how we justify the self-defense argument, not how the individual acts in the immediate. I mentioned that the individual makes that conscious decision to end someone's life immediately as the accused is a threat--yes, this is a choice. Though for the life of me, I don't understand how you can reach the conclusion that someone choosing to take the life of another over themselves does so without the understanding that that person CLEARLY values their life over that of the perpetrator's. That's only natural and to think otherwise is completely silly...but I digress.

My main point is that outside of the situation, we as a society create the notion of self-defense for various reasons:

--one individual sees an immediate threat
--a value judgment will be made in that instant, no doubt.
--we, as society, must decide how to justify the killing. using your logic, the robber would be just as easily exonerated with the self-defense argument. 2 armed individuals, each now defending themselves. Where do we draw the line?
AH!

That is the worse use of logic I've seen, at least today. The defense of "self-defense" has very strict requirements. Simply screaming "self-defense" is not enough. First, a person must subjectively believe that one is acting in self-defense (i.e., I saw the thief shoot the cashier). Second, it must objectively be a reasonable belief (i.e., any reasonable person would have believed the same). The thief would not be able to meet the second requirement (what is he going to say, that any reasonable person would see that he was simply defending himself after shooting the cashier?). There is no unknown line here.

--we label one a criminal (the robber, obviously and for good reason), and place value in the concept that the robber's death was a necessary act. Why? he could have robbed again! He could have killed others! etc, etc.

How else can one look at this, if not through the understanding that we accept self defense based on the fact that a necessary killing occurred? How else would you define necessary?

How else would you look at the constant posts:

"Good job. one less criminal off the street." :thumbsup:

You can, in no possible way, interpret that outside the lens of how society is assumed to benefit as a whole. This is repeatedly used to justify self defense, and I'm not criticizing that, mind you....I'm simply baffled as to how this isn't plainly obvious to a supposed lawyer-to-be?

I don't even know what your argument is here. I have said nothing except that self-defense and state imposed capital punishment are different. I'm pretty sure that 100% of lawyers would agree since it's a fact.

sigh....I suppose it's impossible for you to step outside of the courtroom line to consider why such concepts exist--this is what I'm referring to. I don't give a flying flip about how cases are prosecuted in court--that is ALL you are talking about.

This means that I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. What it means is that I am examining the actual why of the situation, the actual concept, how we justify such acts as a society, and how such acts, through such justification, eventually come to be accepted as legal arguments.

All you seem to care about is the end result--the legal argument. Let me make an important suggestion:

Take some time to stop and consider WHY such laws exist, where they come from. Try, for once in your life, to understand the actual human condition (difficult for a lawyer, I know... 😀). Understanding the concept behind the law (not simply spouting the language used to define it in a trial situation) would go pretty far into making one a good lawyer.

When I say "the societal defense of self defense," you apparently read that as "self defense is defended in court by a very rigid process of proof by claimant A, vs proof by claimant B, blah blah blah."

yeah, I get that. no shit, Sherlock. Now go back and try to read what I'm actually talking about 😛

How about this: society (read: society = society, and not simply the world inside the courtroom, which may be all that you understand?) ACCEPTS the self defense argument based entirely on the concept that a killing was necessary based on x situation, and therefore, it exists as a potential legal defense, and then and only then do you get to the point where you can start telling me how self defense, once established as a legal defense, can then be argued in court. Again--it exists as a legal defense for A REASON--Telling me how it is defended in court does nothing to address this issue.

clear yet?

Are you not the least bit interested as to WHY this argument exists in the first place? Why do we justify self defense?

I assure you that in your myriad responses, you have convinced me that you are well-versed in concepts of HOW. All that I have ever been getting at, however, is WHY.
😉

I refuse to perpetuate this discussion with someone that repeatedly insults both me and my intended profession. Your assumptions about me and lawyers are not only unfounded but juvenile. Don't lecture to me about things you know nothing about (and I'm not talking about the law).

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: zinfamous

well, you missed my point. I'm talking about how we justify the self-defense argument, not how the individual acts in the immediate. I mentioned that the individual makes that conscious decision to end someone's life immediately as the accused is a threat--yes, this is a choice. Though for the life of me, I don't understand how you can reach the conclusion that someone choosing to take the life of another over themselves does so without the understanding that that person CLEARLY values their life over that of the perpetrator's. That's only natural and to think otherwise is completely silly...but I digress.

My main point is that outside of the situation, we as a society create the notion of self-defense for various reasons:

--one individual sees an immediate threat
--a value judgment will be made in that instant, no doubt.
--we, as society, must decide how to justify the killing. using your logic, the robber would be just as easily exonerated with the self-defense argument. 2 armed individuals, each now defending themselves. Where do we draw the line?
AH!

That is the worse use of logic I've seen, at least today. The defense of "self-defense" has very strict requirements. Simply screaming "self-defense" is not enough. First, a person must subjectively believe that one is acting in self-defense (i.e., I saw the thief shoot the cashier). Second, it must objectively be a reasonable belief (i.e., any reasonable person would have believed the same). The thief would not be able to meet the second requirement (what is he going to say, that any reasonable person would see that he was simply defending himself after shooting the cashier?). There is no unknown line here.

--we label one a criminal (the robber, obviously and for good reason), and place value in the concept that the robber's death was a necessary act. Why? he could have robbed again! He could have killed others! etc, etc.

How else can one look at this, if not through the understanding that we accept self defense based on the fact that a necessary killing occurred? How else would you define necessary?

How else would you look at the constant posts:

"Good job. one less criminal off the street." :thumbsup:

You can, in no possible way, interpret that outside the lens of how society is assumed to benefit as a whole. This is repeatedly used to justify self defense, and I'm not criticizing that, mind you....I'm simply baffled as to how this isn't plainly obvious to a supposed lawyer-to-be?

I don't even know what your argument is here. I have said nothing except that self-defense and state imposed capital punishment are different. I'm pretty sure that 100% of lawyers would agree since it's a fact.

sigh....I suppose it's impossible for you to step outside of the courtroom line to consider why such concepts exist--this is what I'm referring to. I don't give a flying flip about how cases are prosecuted in court--that is ALL you are talking about.

This means that I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. What it means is that I am examining the actual why of the situation, the actual concept, how we justify such acts as a society, and how such acts, through such justification, eventually come to be accepted as legal arguments.

All you seem to care about is the end result--the legal argument. Let me make an important suggestion:

Take some time to stop and consider WHY such laws exist, where they come from. Try, for once in your life, to understand the actual human condition (difficult for a lawyer, I know... 😀). Understanding the concept behind the law (not simply spouting the language used to define it in a trial situation) would go pretty far into making one a good lawyer.

When I say "the societal defense of self defense," you apparently read that as "self defense is defended in court by a very rigid process of proof by claimant A, vs proof by claimant B, blah blah blah."

yeah, I get that. no shit, Sherlock. Now go back and try to read what I'm actually talking about 😛

How about this: society (read: society = society, and not simply the world inside the courtroom, which may be all that you understand?) ACCEPTS the self defense argument based entirely on the concept that a killing was necessary based on x situation, and therefore, it exists as a potential legal defense, and then and only then do you get to the point where you can start telling me how self defense, once established as a legal defense, can then be argued in court. Again--it exists as a legal defense for A REASON--Telling me how it is defended in court does nothing to address this issue.

clear yet?

Are you not the least bit interested as to WHY this argument exists in the first place? Why do we justify self defense?

I assure you that in your myriad responses, you have convinced me that you are well-versed in concepts of HOW. All that I have ever been getting at, however, is WHY.
😉

I refuse to perpetuate this discussion with someone that repeatedly insults both me and my intended profession. Your assumptions about me and lawyers are not only unfounded but juvenile. Don't lecture to me about things you know nothing about (and I'm not talking about the law).

sorry for the colorful comments--but maybe you should get used to lawyer jokes?

Anyway, nothing was meant personal. If you read it that way then I apologize.

I find it interesting that you repeat "intended profession." As it as been clear in your responses that you have skimmed my posts based on your narrow understanding of my argument.

Still in school, buried in books, maybe? I can understand if you have been mired in the direct legal argument--issues of a trial situation, but I assure you that really has nothing to do with my point. And again, I haven't disagreed with what you've said about how the law defines x, y or z...all I'm talking about is why x, y or z exists--why x y or z has become acceptable, in society, as legal arguments. You have yet to address this comment.

Also, I would assume you understand how frustrating it is when someone clearly misreads your comments repeatedly, ignores your point entirely, then spouts off the same responses again and again. It makes it easy for further responses to become more and more frustrated in nature; and if the emoticons do nothing to show you that any gentle prodding is meant only in jest, then I don't know what to tell you, other than your opinion of yourself is clearly too high, as perceived "juvenile assumptions" miss the boat entirely.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
There are many differences. The first difference is that if the police have the option to shoot or arrest, then they have no choice but to take the latter option. There is no justification for shooting if it isn't absolutely necessary (or, reasonably believe to be necessary). So, your example falls apart. Either the cops need to shoot in order to put an end to an immediate threat, in which case it is self-defense, or they arrest the guy, in which case he goes to trial. This is not capital punishment...

So now it is up to law enforcement to identify perpetrators on the spot and immediately recognize if they are a repeat offender? I'm sure this will work well.

All of your attempts of defending your side are not defences, they are simply misunderstandings. You have yet to give an example of where it falls apart - you give side examples that have nothing to do with it. Red herrings.

If the cop needs to shoot, he should shoot. If he doesn't need to shoot, he should arrest and the death penalty should be an option. The determination of a repeat offender comes later. I gave 30 days for it which should be plenty of time for an already convicted murderer who was caught in the act of murdering again. If that isn't enough time, then the whole system needs an overhaul.

Your first red herring: I agree 100% that there is no justification for shooting if arresting is a possibility. I said, in that case that either the cop shoots (if necessary), arrests (if he can), or lets the criminal go. I never once said the cop must shoot. I said that if the criminal is let go, then there is no justification for the death penalty. Please don't put words into my mouth. You keep trying to make it sound like I'm saying the cop must shoot. I'm only saying the cases where the death penalty should be applied, not when the cop should shoot. Shooting when not justified is murder on the cops part and should be prosecuted fully.

Your second red herring: If you are an officer rushing to the crime, you don't have indisputable proof. Shooting right away is murder on the cop's part. The death penalty comes 30 days later if justified - not right away. If a crime could have been committed under duress, then you don't have indisputable proof of a murder. Again, the death penalty doesn't apply.

Care to try again? The merger of the two is just an analogy - it doesn't mean that a cop must shoot. It just means when the death penalty would be a valid route. The death penalty only should apply where it isn't disputable.

My entire premise once more: If shooting in self-defense could have been justified, then the death penalty is a viable option. Anything you add to that is just purposeful distractions. Let me try again. It doesn't mean the cop must shoot. Do I need to say it again?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: BudAshes

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Yeah but I believe in cheaper execution methods. As it stands now it costs more to put a guy to death than to house them for life. Why? Let's make this simpler and cheaper already. How much does it cost for a firing squad? Couple dollars of gas, burial, whatever. Tops $1000. Bill the family too.

umm i dont think the execution part is much of the cost. It's the court time/lawyers.

If the guy loses in court and loses his appeal...toss his lawyer in with him...😛


I'm not only pro-death penalty, I believe its use should be expanded to include other crimes. "Habitual Criminals," the ones often sentenced under "3 Strikes" laws, have repeatedly shown that they have no desire to become "productive members of society," nor to get along with other humans.

Forcible rape-death penalty (not "date rape," or cases that are questionable)

Child molestation (not "he touched me there" cases, actual child molestation)

There are other crimes that sometimes (IMO) deserve the death penalty, but they vary on a case-by-case basis.
(I know when my garage was burglarized a few years back...I wished the fuckers death...and would have gladly done it myself)

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: spidey07
Cost of bullet = 50 cents.
Price of preventing violent crimes = priceless

Belief that the death penalty deters violent crimes = naive

PHAIL.

due to the fact that 65% of violent crimes are done by repeat offenders...
the death penalty on the first conviction would reduce violent crime.

Specific deterrence has little to no effect on general deterrence when it comes to violent crimes.

You're choosing to only look at half the equation. It might not have that big an impact as a deterrence on OTHER criminals, but it's 100% effective when it comes to preventing recidivism.

There's also a point to be made that capital punishment doesn't have a good deterrence rate because it's applied so haphazardly and so unwillingly that most criminals simply can't imagine a set of circumstances where it would happen to them. If it was more common and less easy to get out of it would very possibly be more effective.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: keird

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: spidey07
Cost of bullet = 50 cents.
Price of preventing violent crimes = priceless

Belief that the death penalty deters violent crimes = naive

PHAIL.

due to the fact that 65% of violent crimes are done by repeat offenders...
the death penalty on the first conviction would reduce violent crime.

Specific deterrence has little to no effect on general deterrence when it comes to violent crimes.

I think deterring a specific murderer by execution is what he's getting at.

But death penalty on the first conviction would essentially do no less to curtail specific murders by that individual if they instead received life without parole on that first conviction. if the only goal is to prevent a specific criminal from committing more murders, then life imprisonment achieves the exact same effect.

The death penalty exists due to some notion that the potential of receiving this punishment will deter overall violent crime...which we know to be completely false.

We, as humans....also like some manner of retribution to be enforced for specifically heinous acts.

Honestly, I feel that the death penalty is the easiest way out (for the criminal).

it does no such thing. murder can happen in prison. prisoners can escape.
life in prison is an undue burden to the taxpayers.

the death penalty is not about crime deterrant, its about vengeance. And rightfully so, it prunes the criminal members of our society away so that the remaining society may flourish.

 

[KillerCharlie]

I don't mind executing the guilty, but it's just so darn expensive with all the appeals and everything.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Baked
Do you really believe 10% of these murderers are innocent? That they're just in the wrong place in the wrong time? How many people do you know personally who are put in that situation? While there are some really crooked cops and DAs in the justice system, the criminals who got put on the spot aren't saints either.

No, I don't. I believe that the percentage of wrongfully convicted is higher.