Morality in American

[mitchellmckain]

So I guess the question is now, why are you opposed to the death penalty?

Because I do not want the innocent to suffer. Ironic, as I already stated this, yet you complain of me ignoring YOUR reasons.

But that is not a reason at all. You don't seem to understand that the innocent people are the victims and not the murderers.

We are not talking about a death sentence for people where circumstantial evidence suggest that they may have killed someone. We are talking about people where it is absurd to even doubt what they have done and by what they have done, shown no regard for people in the public at large. It is only such people that represent any threat to public safety. So this talk about those who are falsely accused and convicted just doesn't apply.

It was mainly 'saying' how ridiculously expensive it is to put people on death row through their various set of court trials.

And I don't buy it, because it is absurd. There is something seriously skewed with the premises your so called data is based upon. Why should the set of court trials for someone on death row be so much greater than court trials for someone in prison for life? Is it because people like you keep fighting to push their own personal convictions on other people. Sorry but that kind of blackmail type argument is not one I will listen to. It is basically saying that we should go along with anyone who pushes their opinions enough that it is costing us too much in court costs to oppose them.

Then do that; come up with a list of all the people killed by serial murderers who have escaped from a maximum security prison - I don't think they should be held in any random prison. I would absolutely love that. Data is my friend, without it I am rarely convinced my convictions are wrong.

As I said I am not interested in a numbers game. 35% of murders or more go unsolved and that only includes the people who are known to be murdered and not all the people who simply disappear. The people we are talking about would be among those making the greatest effort at avoiding discovery. But I am more than happy to start listing the people who you apparently do not think is worth the extra cost, lets start with the 3 by Bundy:
Lisa Levy
Margaret Bowman
Kimberly Ann Leech

couldn't find the names of the 2 vacationers killed by John McClusky

These names are difficult to find. There doesn't seem to be any great database of victims. Maybe people want to respect the privacy of their families, and maybe the prisons and government are not very motivated to publish this information either.

[PlunderBunny]

But that is not a reason at all. You don't seem to understand that the innocent people are the victims and not the murderers.

We are not talking about a death sentence for people where circumstantial evidence suggest that they may have killed someone. We are talking about people where it is absurd to even doubt what they have done and by what they have done, shown no regard for people in the public at large. It is only such people that represent any threat to public safety. So this talk about those who are falsely accused and convicted just doesn't apply.

What are you talking about!?!?!? Innocent people have been put on death row for YEARS - God forbid some might be or may have been put to death.

I don't think the criminals are innocent, I think that the innocent are innocent.

Innocent people ARE affected negatively by the death penalty. If you want evidence just ask, though I'm sure you will ignore it as well and retort with nothing but your opinions.

I honestly do not understand your point here. You have either totally misunderstood what I meant or have purposefully created a 'straw-man' to destroy.

And I don't buy it, because it is absurd. There is something seriously skewed with the premises your so called data is based upon. Why should the set of court trials for someone on death row be so much greater than court trials for someone in prison for life? Is it because people like you keep fighting to push their own personal convictions on other people. Sorry but that kind of blackmail type argument is not one I will listen to. It is basically saying that we should go along with anyone who pushes their opinions enough that it is costing us too much in court costs to oppose them.

Well good thing it wasn't PART OF MY ARGUMENT. It was data I thought was interesting, I specifically said that it wasn't addressed to you and I didn't use it EVER as part of my argument. This of course does not mean that you can not give your retort to it, I would never say that and I don't mean to offend, but I honestly did and do not care what you thought about that set of data because it wasn't useful to me in this discussion, merely something I found interesting. For those same reasons I do not care to defend said data, because it is not worth my time as it doesn't pertain to my argument.

The other data - on the murder rates of states - was what was pertinent to our discussion. The other data, which, by the way, you have ignored, was what I cared about. You can't just 'not buy' the other data, they ARE facts. It isn't hard to tally up the murder rates of states. I can easily provide you with more sets of data that reach the same conclusion as the two I have already posted - one of which was the FEDERAL CONSENSUS and the other of which was provided by the .org site DEDICATED to providing facts about the death penalty. If you ever care to actually reasonably address this data instead of just dismissing it or ignoring it and attacking the OTHER data be my guest.

As I said I am not interested in a numbers game. 35% of murders or more go unsolved and that only includes the people who are known to be murdered and not all the people who simply disappear. The people we are talking about would be among those making the greatest effort at avoiding discovery. But I am more than happy to start listing the people who you apparently do not think is worth the extra cost, lets start with the 3 by Bundy:
Lisa Levy
Margaret Bowman
Kimberly Ann Leech

couldn't find the names of the 2 vacationers killed by John McClusky

These names are difficult to find. There doesn't seem to be any great database of victims. Maybe people want to respect the privacy of their families, and maybe the prisons and government are not very motivated to publish this information either.

I'm not interested in a numbers game either. What I AM interested in is a discussion that is based more upon logic, facts, and data than purely 'gut' thinking.

You are also making me out to be a monster here. How DARE you say I don't believe these people are worth the extra cost? What a completely biased, rude, ignorant and cruel think to say about me. We may have different opinions, but I have yet to insult your person over the issue. Insult my argument, not my person.

Firstly, it's because I care about people that I want to abolish the death penalty. I feel incredibly sorry for any person or persons harmed by a serial murderer and extremely grateful for everyone who escapes. You act as if my not wanting to put them to death means I'm on their side.

And cost!?!? Cost is NOT my issue, AS I HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES. I think more money MUST be spent. On defense, prevention, capture, jailing (etc. etc.) of criminals. Where are you getting this idea that it's about the money for me? Again, you are either misunderstanding or creating a 'straw-man' to destroy.

How is the '35% of murders go unsolved' statistic relevant? We were talking about people who have escaped from maximum security prisons, not about general statistics on murders. I am interested in people who have been convicted, kept in a maximum security prison, and then escaped. That number is very small. Too high, yes, but incredibly small. If we limit it to the last thirty years that number drops even more - by percentage, of course - since prison escapes are becoming less and less likely (let me know if you want data). If we limit that to only federal 'supermax' prisons, that number drops to zero.

If you want to argue opinions all day just let me know. But we won't get anywhere without facts. I do appreciate the 'data' you supplied in your last post - even if it was the only 'data' you had already provided to me. . .

[PlunderBunny]

My 2 cents on this: I struggle to come up with any legitimate reasons to oppose polygamy, provided it occurs between consenting adults. Can anyone supply me with a reason why I should oppose a marriage between, say, one man and five adult consenting women?

Because the women. . . . .

WERE ZOMBIES THE WHOLE TIME!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


Brought to you courtesy of Mr. M. Night Shyamalan.

On a serious note, I agree completely. Polygamy feels slightly wrong to me - possibly because (in popular culture at least) it is always a man and multiple wives and never the other way around - but I can't really come up with any good, logical reasons as to oppose it, so I don't.

But it feels somewhat wrong to me. Not completely. Just a tad bit.

[Keep The Reason]

Actually, in practice there is a reason to push back on it and once again we can look to our simian cousins to see how polygamy actually plays out in practice. The alpha male in most chimpanzee troops is the only male who is "permitted" to breed. In short, all of the babesus belongs to hims. this doesn't actually stop the other males from mating, but they do it basically by grabbing whatever action they can.

Imagine that the story of Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines were true. Now main you lived in a tribe eBay where 1,000 women owned by one guy meant you did get any chance to marry because that one guy basically has all the females to himself. Given the very powerful urge to reproduce, it's pretty easy to see where the hell that's going to lead.

More recently, imagine you're on the frontier in the Old West where women were rarer than showers and baths. Now along comes some Mormon who's religion has given him 6 comely wives while you and every man for 500 miles in every directin is married to Mr. Left Hand. Guess where that's going to lead (and where it did lead)?

Today's its different, as how women are valued is a lot different, but even still, you can see examples where a guy like, says, Hugh Hefner has the galling consistency to have countless beautiful bountiful babes at his beck and call, even now that he probably wears Depends and has a hard time keeping his right eye from falling out of its socket, and needs both Viagra and a team of Liliputians to help him crank out a 38 second boner. If women were still chattel and rarer than hens teeth, Mr. H might conceivably be swinging not to Frank Sinatra, but from the limb of some desolate oak tree (and not from his neck necessarily).

That being said, today there's really little reason to oppose polygamy, but many of us seem to have inherited the cultural / hierarchal distaste for it by and large. Myself, I have discovered that its hard enough managing one woman in one's life, let alone two or three of them all vying for primacy. That reality boils down to asking oneself if the fucking one is getting is worth the fucking one is getting?

[StillSearching]

While I can certainly see its disadvantages in days of old, I just can't find a moral reason to oppose it given our current culture. The key to that is consent. If all parties are willing participants, what's the harm?

Myself, I have discovered that its hard enough managing one woman in one's life, let alone two or three of them all vying for primacy. That reality boils down to asking oneself if the fucking one is getting is worth the fucking one is getting?

No doubt. One wife is plenty for me, thank you very much. I just saw an interview with a family that consisted of a man married to four women, and 24 children (oy!), and the guy said, "It can be exhausting." Duh!

[ChristianHeretic]

Can someone help me understand what it is at the core of these two political idealogies which creates such a divide between the death penalty and abortion among republicans and democrats? Seems like they should be similar issues at the core to me but even I see them differently?

[Dr Mundo]

My 2 cents on this: I struggle to come up with any legitimate reasons to oppose polygamy, provided it occurs between consenting adults. Can anyone supply me with a reason why I should oppose a marriage between, say, one man and five adult consenting women?

I suppose it could be related to how we handle it with regards to taxes and other financial dealings. Who has the right of consent and can it be over-ruled some how? I don't see anything to oppose morally with Polygamy but I can see some legal issues arise from it so I would probably appose a state/federal recognized marriage with multiple people. I find it hard to believe that the amount of people that still don't approve of gay marriage is at the numbers that it is too, I think its disgusting on their part to appose it yet its compared to polygamy and other forms of marriage for fear of slippery slope sometimes. Isn't the differences obvious to people? I don't know, what do you think?

[mitchellmckain]

Can someone help me understand what it is at the core of these two political idealogies which creates such a divide between the death penalty and abortion among republicans and democrats? Seems like they should be similar issues at the core to me but even I see them differently?

It is not necessarily about ideologies. It is probably just about interest groups throwing in with a particular party.

Certainly the Republicans seem to appeal to the interests of big business and the Democrats seem to appeal to the interest of people who are not so well off.

The NRA and the anti-abortionists have certainly thrown in with the Republicans.
The gay rights and pro choice groups have certainly thrown in with the Democrats.

On the basis of the gay rights and abortion issues, the legalistic christian right sure seems to have thrown in with the Republicans, and that accounts for differences on issues like pornography, sex, suicide, gambling, divorse, polygamy.


I must admit that it does paint a peculiar picture, where one side seems preoccupied with sex and conception. In any case I not only don't fit on either side of this divide, but I find this assignment of morality to a lot of these things pretty hideous. The greater issues of morality are in the details not in the broad brush.

The exceptions are where we find a great deal of agreement, and I think those agreements tell us something. There is a lot of agreement that adultery, cloning humans, polygamy, and suicide are not what can be called moral alternatives, and that pornography and abortion are not the most morally ideal alternatives. The divide on a lot of these issues has more to do with what we do about them legally. Can abortion be treated as a black and white issue? The numbers here just do not support this at all. Does the immorality of pornography justify censorship? The fact is that many people just cannot see any logical justification. I find the numbers on divorce to be a bit disappointing in this regard, because it certainly is NOT an ideal alternative. I mean compare it too buying and wearing animal fur. Divorse is 16% more acceptable than wearing animal fur? Really?!? Of course I would be horrified at simply calling it immoral, but it does seem to me that the approval rating should be just a little bit closer to that of abortion -- admitting at the very least that this is not a good thing. Perhaps this is a measure of just how much divorce has become a norm of human life.

[gary_s]

Interesting topic. I was intrigued by Mitch's refusal to accept that the death penalty ultimately costs far more than lifelong imprisonment, but that has been the prevailing conclusion for a while now. Not that this is a justification of banning execution, but it is a valid, accurate point. Here are some links to data that support this:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/ju ... e-budgets/
http://www.kndo.com/story/15519792/what ... -in-prison
http://www.kndo.com/story/15519792/what ... -in-prison

And many studies have concluded that death sentences are not effective at deterring the same crimes by other criminals.

I'm not opposed to the death penalty, but you cannot deny the data of these two arguments. To me, a life in prison seems like a much more severe punishment, though. If I were guilty of murder, I think I'd rather be executed than spend the rest of my life in prison. The best argument I have heard opposing the death penalty is that innocent people are sometimes executed. We do need to do a much better job of preventing this.

[JustJim]

The reason the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment is that they don't take convicted people out into the courtyard and shoot 'em or hang 'em as soon as the verdict is rendered. Then it would only cost the price of a bullet or a rope and scaffold (both of which are reusable). Make the family pay the costs of the burial, or if they can't afford it, throw the body into the city dump and let it rot with the rest of the garbage....

Jim

[PlunderBunny]

The reason the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment is that they don't take convicted people out into the courtyard and shoot 'em or hang 'em as soon as the verdict is rendered. Then it would only cost the price of a bullet or a rope and scaffold (both of which are reusable). Make the family pay the costs of the burial, or if they can't afford it, throw the body into the city dump and let it rot with the rest of the garbage....

Jim

I'm sorry, but this is totally false. The reason the death penalty costs more is because the trials are way more expensive than non-death penalty trials, because extra money must be spent on investigation and defense where the death penalty is concerned.

There was a study - I believe it was also mentioned somewhere in gary's first link - that showed prisoners who had less money spent on representation were twice as likely to receive a death sentence. I don't know about you, but to me that seems like a terrible thing. If there must be a death penalty, I want it to be fair, rare, and most of all SURE of it's convicted.

[PlunderBunny]

Interesting topic. I was intrigued by Mitch's refusal to accept that the death penalty ultimately costs far more than lifelong imprisonment, but that has been the prevailing conclusion for a while now. Not that this is a justification of banning execution, but it is a valid, accurate point. Here are some links to data that support this:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/ju ... e-budgets/
http://www.kndo.com/story/15519792/what ... -in-prison
http://www.kndo.com/story/15519792/what ... -in-prison

And many studies have concluded that death sentences are not effective at deterring the same crimes by other criminals.

I'm not opposed to the death penalty, but you cannot deny the data of these two arguments. To me, a life in prison seems like a much more severe punishment, though. If I were guilty of murder, I think I'd rather be executed than spend the rest of my life in prison. The best argument I have heard opposing the death penalty is that innocent people are sometimes executed. We do need to do a much better job of preventing this.

Exactly. I have no vehemence towards anyone who holds to any belief, but it makes it extremely hard to have a discussion when people can't even agree on the facts surrounding the issue.

[JustJim]

The reason the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment is that they don't take convicted people out into the courtyard and shoot 'em or hang 'em as soon as the verdict is rendered. Then it would only cost the price of a bullet or a rope and scaffold (both of which are reusable). Make the family pay the costs of the burial, or if they can't afford it, throw the body into the city dump and let it rot with the rest of the garbage....

I'm sorry, but this is totally false.

LOL... Really??? You mean it's not true??? LOL....

I can't believe you took those as serious comments. Have you no sense of sardonic humor? Do you not understand sarcasm? Did you not see the " " at the end of my comment?

Jim

P.S. If I see someone rape and murder my child, I want to be allowed to torture him/her to death... but that's just my sick sense of vengeance speaking. In reality, as we've all heard before, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." (The Lord's sense of vengeance isn't sick... it's justice....)

[Tim-the-Hermit]

If we are looking at this from a public safety perspective, it might be worth comparing the level of violent crime and murders in countries with a death penalty with those without a death penalty. I'm not sure what such a search would show.

I imagine that the death penalty might in some instances cause a 'nothing to lose' or a 'lets play safe' [by killing a potential witness] attitude in some people committing crimes or thinking about doing so. I don't think that would improve public safety.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

The reason the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment is that they don't take convicted people out into the courtyard and shoot 'em or hang 'em as soon as the verdict is rendered. Then it would only cost the price of a bullet or a rope and scaffold (both of which are reusable). Make the family pay the costs of the burial, or if they can't afford it, throw the body into the city dump and let it rot with the rest of the garbage....

I'm sorry, but this is totally false.

LOL... Really??? You mean it's not true??? LOL....

I can't believe you took those as serious comments. Have you no sense of sardonic humor? Do you not understand sarcasm? Did you not see the " " at the end of my comment?

Jim

P.S. If I see someone rape and murder my child, I want to be allowed to torture him/her to death... but that's just my sick sense of vengeance speaking. In reality, as we've all heard before, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." (The Lord's sense of vengeance isn't sick... it's justice....)

Ha! I got the sarcasm, but only because of the cheeky devil, Jim!