Page 8 of 11
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:20 am
by Foo
Hannibal wrote:Foo wrote:tnf wrote:My biggest fear, and something that I am fairly certain will occur at some point (if it hasn't already), is that an innocent man be executed and exonerated post-execution.
Christ, do some reading will you?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... =6&did=110
The 'post-execution' bit is the important part Foo. Chill Winston.
You're right, but since "Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved." and combine this with the fact that people on death row are being acquitted/pardoned as per that list, I think it's a given that it's already happened. Probably in more cases than listed here:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... 1#executed
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... 1#executed
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:25 am
by Canis
Massive Quasars wrote:Canis wrote:How about the idea that someone can only be truly redeemed if he does (among devoting his life to his changed ways) break down in tears as you described? What about an idea that the only way for him to be redeemed is to gain the favor of the family members who he's affected (provided they are not blind to any possibility of redemption)?
Are you serious?
I am. Those are hypothetical questions up for discussion, as folks interviewed over this have hinted at these topics, and I think they're pertinent to the point of what it means to be "redeemed".
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:25 am
by SplishSplash
what the fuck does rap music have to do with this
wasp americans are still afraid of black people
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:30 am
by Canis
On a side note, I saw the media's coverage, and was not surprised to see the only reporters who answered questions giving opinions and on-the-spot interpretations of events in terms of intent and demeanor, were those from Fox news and MSNBC. The rest, being independent reporters or those from newspapers and radio, refused to answer such questions or be part of coloring the events with interpretation. Good for them.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:42 am
by So... Who Wants Smasht?
"Coloring the events…"
Is that a pun?
What can we do to completely destroy the communications infrastructure, and to what specificity can we enact such a large event?
Is it possible to ruin something that handles the AM radio band and cable television without hurting any essential networks, such as person to person communications?
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:43 am
by Massive Quasars
Canis wrote:I am. Those are hypothetical questions up for discussion, as folks interviewed over this have hinted at these topics, and I think they're pertinent to the point of what it means to be "redeemed".
Alright.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:43 am
by Foo
[xeno]Julios wrote:I believe it is a logical impossibility for one to truly understand the nature of a crime, yet still commit it, since implicit in this true understanding would be an aversion so strong that the mind would not commit to the crime.
Delightful non-sequiter to this thread, but I assume here you mean strictly what you would define as universal crimes against humanity? Because your impossibility would fall apart as soon it's applied to a bad law.
Of course this again depends on what you mean by understanding the nature of a crime. One could understand perfectly well all the issues surrounding the crime of copyright infingement, and still commit it.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:43 am
by Canis
Massive Quasars wrote:Canis wrote:I am. Those are hypothetical questions up for discussion, as folks interviewed over this have hinted at these topics, and I think they're pertinent to the point of what it means to be "redeemed".
Alright.
:icon14:
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:56 am
by Massive Quasars
Canis wrote::icon14:
I'm curious. Do you believe in retributive justice?
If not, is your support for CP based strictly on percieved utility? Is your support of it's application, situational rather than universal? (e.g. more effective in developing countries, perhaps, than in developed countries)
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:58 am
by [xeno]Julios
Foo wrote:Delightful non-sequiter to this thread, but I assume here you mean strictly what you would define as universal crimes against humanity?
well anything that caused undue suffering.
Because your impossibility would fall apart as soon it's applied to a bad law.
not sure i follow your meaning. Bad law?
Foo wrote:
Of course this again depends on what you mean by understanding the nature of a crime. One could understand perfectly well all the issues surrounding the crime of copyright infingement, and still commit it.
yep i haven't really formulated in my mind what it would entail, and this is partially because it's not clear that concepts like "understand, believe, and know" actually correspond to our actual cognitive topology (i.e. they may be folk psychological terms, similar to how aether, caloric, and phlogiston are folk physical terms).
*ponders*
hmm you may have caught me out. I was thinking of a case where someone tortures another, knowing full well what the victim goes through, yet has a (pathological) desire to torture.
Would this case constitute a misunderstanding of the nature of the crime?
Perhaps I should rephrase my original statement so that it involves a "full understanding of the suffering involved in the crime, coupled with a compassionate and empathic attitude towards the victim of suffering".
Perhaps a full understanding would entail such an empathic response.
I believe it is a feature of pscyopaths that they are unable to do this. They lack natural "emotional feedback".
So the question is: would it be logically possible to commit such an act even
with such a response?
Perhaps, but if so, maybe it wouldn't be a behaviour experienced as volitional (although i believe even volitionally experienced behaviours aren't really free).
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:05 am
by Canis
Massive Quasars wrote:Canis wrote::icon14:
I'm curious. Do you believe in retributive justice?
If not, is your support for CP based strictly on percieved utility? Is your support of it's application, situational rather than universal? (e.g. more effective in developing countries, perhaps, than in developed countries)
CP's application is definitely situational. I'm not going to cross political boundaries and say what other countries should do with the application of CP, but I believe for america it's situational.
I do believe in retributive justice, but its dependent on whether or not the given justice system works properly (given errors are not made resulting in wrong convictions). Everyone has to be aware of the consequences for their actions in a given society. You kill someone, expect the possibility of life behind bars or even death. Any exemption beyond this is a fortunate leniency on your behalf (possibly aided by a show of redemption that is seen as true and sincere).
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:14 am
by Massive Quasars
Canis wrote:
CP's application is definitely situational. I'm not going to cross political boundaries and say what other countries should do with the application of CP, but I believe for america it's situational.
Okay.
I do believe in retributive justice, but its dependent on whether or not the given justice system works properly (given errors are not made resulting in wrong convictions). Everyone has to be aware of the consequences for their actions in a given society. You kill someone, expect the possibility of life behind bars or even death. Any exemption beyond this is a fortunate leniency on your behalf (possibly aided by a show of redemption that is seen as true and sincere).
As I understand it, retributive punishment functions upon the assumption that all human persons are endowed with free will (usually in the classical sense). Do you believe in free will?
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:16 am
by Canis
Massive Quasars wrote:Canis wrote:
CP's application is definitely situational. I'm not going to cross political boundaries and say what other countries should do with the application of CP, but I believe for america it's situational.
Okay.
I do believe in retributive justice, but its dependent on whether or not the given justice system works properly (given errors are not made resulting in wrong convictions). Everyone has to be aware of the consequences for their actions in a given society. You kill someone, expect the possibility of life behind bars or even death. Any exemption beyond this is a fortunate leniency on your behalf (possibly aided by a show of redemption that is seen as true and sincere).
As I understand it, retributive punishment functions upon the assumption that all human persons are endowed with free will (usually in the classical sense). Do you believe in free will?
Why dont you get to your point.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:17 am
by Hannibal
uh oh.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:22 am
by Massive Quasars
Canis wrote:Why dont you get to your point.
I'm simply curious, do you intend to answer the question?
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:22 am
by Foo
Canis wrote:CP's application is definitely situational. I'm not going to cross political boundaries and say what other countries should do with the application of CP, but I believe for america it's situational. What are the specifics of the American situation which you believe justify the application of capital punishment?
I do believe in retributive justice, but its dependent on whether or not the given justice system works properly (given errors are not made resulting in wrong convictions).To clarify this point, you believe a trial system exists which is infallible?
For my own part, to answer the first question:
* What are the specifics of the American situation which you believe justify the application of capital punishment?
I dont see any specifics which mark America out as being notably different to other western societies, and since America is predominantly christian, and the pope has had a long-standing and outspoken objection to capital punishment, the continuation of it seems both inconsistent with comparable states, and widely hypocritical in the context of the population.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:25 am
by Foo
Canis wrote:Massive Quasars wrote:Canis wrote:
CP's application is definitely situational. I'm not going to cross political boundaries and say what other countries should do with the application of CP, but I believe for america it's situational.
Okay.
I do believe in retributive justice, but its dependent on whether or not the given justice system works properly (given errors are not made resulting in wrong convictions). Everyone has to be aware of the consequences for their actions in a given society. You kill someone, expect the possibility of life behind bars or even death. Any exemption beyond this is a fortunate leniency on your behalf (possibly aided by a show of redemption that is seen as true and sincere).
As I understand it, retributive punishment functions upon the assumption that all human persons are endowed with free will (usually in the classical sense). Do you believe in free will?
Why dont you get to your point.
He's not trying to get to a point. What he's trying to do is draw out your underlying reasoning for the stance you have. The result of that will either be:
* Agreeing with your underlying reasoning and adopting your opinion
* Agreeing with your reasoning but disputing your conclusion
* Disagreeing with some element of your reasoning
Which is much more functional for both parties than just back-and-forth at the higher level of debate which never really gets anywhere on a subject this complex.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:26 am
by Canis
I'm not going to blindly play 20 questions with you.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:27 am
by Foo
I wasn't asking for you to do so blindly. That's why I answered one of the questions before asking you to.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:27 am
by Massive Quasars
Canis wrote:I'm not going to blindly play 20 questions with you.
Alright.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:28 am
by [xeno]Julios
Canis wrote:I'm not going to blindly play 20 questions with you.
how is it blind?
He explained the logic of such a question:
MQ wrote:As I understand it, retributive punishment functions upon the assumption that all human persons are endowed with free will (usually in the classical sense). Do you believe in free will?
You say you believe in retributive punishment.
MQ says how this ideal of punishment is founded upon the free will assumption.
He is asking you if you believe in this assumption.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:31 am
by Canis
It just appears like a cross examination of sorts.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:34 am
by Canis
[xeno]Julios wrote:Canis wrote:I'm not going to blindly play 20 questions with you.
how is it blind?
He explained the logic of such a question:
MQ wrote:As I understand it, retributive punishment functions upon the assumption that all human persons are endowed with free will (usually in the classical sense). Do you believe in free will?
You say you believe in retributive punishment.
MQ says how this ideal of punishment is founded upon the free will assumption.
He is asking you if you believe in this assumption.
Ok. Folks are on me about this for some reason and my responses to one person are being taken by multiple folks.
To answer, yes I generally believe in free will, though the concept of free will is a complex one and needs to be qualified to an extent (just like most other similar questions).
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:42 am
by Massive Quasars
Canis wrote:Ok. Folks are on me about this for some reason and my responses to one person are being taken by multiple folks.
To answer, yes I generally believe in free will, though the concept of free will is a complex one and needs to be qualified to an extent (just like most other similar questions).
Needless to say, that's consistent with your support of retributive punishment.
While I would like to further explore your belief in free will, you seem unwilling to continue this exchange so I'll leave it at that.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:45 am
by Canis
Massive Quasars wrote:Canis wrote:Ok. Folks are on me about this for some reason and my responses to one person are being taken by multiple folks.
To answer, yes I generally believe in free will, though the concept of free will is a complex one and needs to be qualified to an extent (just like most other similar questions).
Needless to say, that's consistent with your support of retributive punishment.
While I would like to further explore your belief in free will, you seem unwilling to continue this exchange so I'll leave it at that.
I'm not unwilling, but I was under the impression you were cross examining me to some end, seemingly out of the blue. I'm perfectly happy to discuss this with you, but the curt "yes or now" questions really didnt leave much room for discussion.