Lethal Injection Under Fire Again

[Chaerophon]

For one, I do not wish a McCarthyist or an authoritarian government which can override parental judgement at any time and take away kids from their parents at the government's whim.

I'm not sure whether that is your intent or not, but if that is in response to my earlier point, I think that you have, to put it nicely, made a caricature of my point. Setting reasonable limits on what constitutes child abuse/neglect is not McCarthyism.

Not to mention that this:

The governement's power over our lives should be limited, and not extended, especially over family domain.

...is simply propaganda; it has no content.

[Chaerophon]

Yes, essentially, we live like this: You can do whatever you want, as long as you do exactly what we(those in power) want you to.

I can't speak for the U.S., but in Canada, we don't dictate religion, child-rearing strategies, or any other such thing to citizens. We're free to believe what we want, within certain limits that exist on the far edge of the "reasonable". The limits are intended as protection for individuals. Those who want to, e.g. CHANGE religions should be free to do so.

To address the point more specifically; in our society, children are not property - they are human beings, and so have certain (albeit limited) rights that are inviolable. You can spank your kids. You can raise them as Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews or any kind of Christian that you like. You can even raise them as atheists. Child-rearing is NOT prescribed to parents. Parents have wide freedoms in that respect.

However, you can't force them to marry someone, you can't pull them out of school to go work in the mines, and you can't beat them when you're angry or disappointed with them. In this case, it's not about "what the people in power want", its about what are considered the "reasonable" OUTER (double emphasis!) bounds for parental behaviour given the rights generally ascribed to children (as individuals) in our social context.

Yes, and ironically the ones that need it the most, ones treated extremely poorly in horrible conditions are often not helped because of the low standards in them, while people with comparitively minor problems outward, in the suburbs and the like, are essentially harassed in some cases by social workers that are know-it-all control freaks.

So instead we should do nothing at all? How does this fact (or your anecdotes) contribute to that conclusion? Whether or not there are some bad social workers, or even bad institutions is not the point - the solution is not to remove all limits and sweep the unlucky ones under the rug.

As in Drasca's post: this is contentless propaganda.

[kandrathe]

Yes, essentially, we live like this: You can do whatever you want, as long as you do exactly what we(those in power) want you to.
[right][snapback]107348[/snapback][/right]

The government (which for us, is the democratic voice of the society) tells you what you cannot do (the outer boundaries on behavior), rather than what you must do (with exceptions for paying taxes and serving in the military when called).

Yes, and ironically the ones that need it the most, ones treated extremely poorly in horrible conditions are often not helped because of the low standards in them, while people with comparitively minor problems outward, in the suburbs and the like, are essentially harassed in some cases by social workers that are know-it-all control freaks.[right][snapback]107348[/snapback][/right]

I agree. The system is imperfect (more chaotic perhaps), but no better or worse than the institutionalization and selling children as laborers from 100 years ago. I believe that children in the US are more likely today to be left in abusive homes. From my distant perspective, I see a system trying to rehabilitate family rather than what happened in the 70's where social workers would break up families at the first instance of alleged abuse.

[Occhidiangela]

Ah, but the issue then arises as to whether or not the parents are competent enough to dole out such judgements.  What about the parents who are otherwise incapacitated? (Perhaps those waiting in the padded confines of death row isolationism?) The parents who aren't there, and who shuttle the kids off to the grandparents'/aunt or uncle's/other relative's house?  There are an infinite amount of variable that could stem from every possible circumstance, which is why I think the Constitution is a bit vague.

If the parents are unable to make sound decisions as to the welfare of their children, what then?
[right][snapback]107338[/snapback][/right]

Why is a parent presumed incompetent by participants in this conversation? It seems to me that a rather large urban myth is overtaking the mundane reality. The presumption of inadequacy smacks of an assumption that the writer, or the "authority," is wiser and more competent than the postulated "parent."

As to the Constitution, it didn't get into child rearing. As I see it, it was presumed by the Founders that people would raise their children, and that is wasn't the government's business to get into their knickers about it. Raising the "Constitution" in this context is a red herring. As I understand the issue, most of the statutes on "child" issues are codified at the State rather than Federal level, but I may be wrong on that.

The overbearing interference of The State is a by product of the Progressive and Socialist movements in the modern context, however, a case could be made that in morally based societies, which the U.S. no longer is, "everyone" got involved in the rearing of children. Certain norms and taboos were rarely violated, due to the force of morals, or cultural norms.

Back to the modern world. Once child labor issues were being addressed, during the industrial revolution, that concern, coupled with "what to do with orphans" was used as the thin end of the wedge to put "The State" into a Paternalistic or Maternalistic role -- we now live with the various attempts to replace parents by "the all wise and all knowing experts." Who are these people, and what is their aim? Where does this core idea come from, that children are the property and wards of the state? The economies of scale are logically used for public education. Benefit, or another thin end of another wedge?

What preconceived ideas must one harbor about "parents" to presume that "they" won't or don't care enough to raise their children? I smell an example of a modest sample size being used to feed a generalization.

Occhi

[Drasca]

So instead we should do nothing at all?. . . the solution is not to remove all limits and sweep the unlucky ones under the rug.

What nice imaginary straw men you have talking. Firstly, I still suggest you take a close look at your state and provincial child services policies and actual actions. Secondly, 'all limits' is highly unlikely to happen. Secondly, if Age of Consent were to be moved to 12, the limits would likely be redefined around that age. 18+ would still likely go to jail, but those under 18 would not likely achieve an unnecessary statutory rape charge when some DA or parent feels particularly vengeful. Third, laws, like walls, are only as effective as the will and manpower enforcing them. A 15 year old isn't going to be magically protected if they're caught in bed with someone in their 30's. There's no substitute for training good judgement. Even with good intentions, these laws, when hastily made and ill thought out, can be used vengefully and end up protecting no-one except certain people's wallets.

we now live with the various attempts to replace parents by "the all wise and all knowing experts."  Who are these people, and what is their aim?  Where does this core idea come from, that children are the property and wards of the state?  The economies of scale are logically used for public education.  Benefit, or another thin end of another wedge?  [right][snapback]107362[/snapback][/right]

There's quote from Frank Herbert's Children of Dune "The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery." When you give your life over to machines, The government is an machine-like entity with no individual property. When something becomes perceived as non specific as everyone's responsibility, it become's no one's responsibility. The sense of personal responsibility and initiative becomes so diluted it soon become no one's. "It's not your responsibility." Given lack of responsibility in a non specific (public) state control, property in question suddenly becomes subject to the whim of whoever has current power over it, to be vandalized, mistreated, stolen, or misused.

The government is not a parent. It does not take action with the child's interests in mind. The goverment is not designed for that, and if we enable that power, those powers will be taken with the state's interest in mind, not the child's.

[Taem]

If you had tried to tell me that crap at the age of 8 or 9, I would've told you to go #$%& yourself and don't treat me like I'm property(The idea of not being able to choose for myself has always pissed me off, such as the idea of some judge deciding who should get custody of you, instead of yourself)

and why is it automatically sick and wrong? It's not sick and wrong if the other person is understanding and willing, no matter the age.(conversely it's always sick and wrong if they arent both understanding and willing)

Also, in some(perhaps many or even most) cases most of the trauma comes from the reactions to it of those around them(people freaking out about what happened or whispering about you and pointing fingers and generally acting like youre diseased, or being piteous can be profoundly detrimental, as they internalize that something truly horrible has happened to them making it difficult to deal with, instead of possibly just being confused and hurt.)
[right][snapback]107280[/snapback][/right]

You've been watching too much South Park I take it. The children I'm referring too were between the ages of 6-9 and were molested by 30+-year-old perverts. I don't care what the hell you say or think, but children of that age (and don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I have a 9-year old, 6-year old, 4-year old, and 1.5 year old) CANNOT adequately choose for themselves in THIS TYPE of situation because - excluding their innocence - they simply lack the experience or development to understand the ramifications of their actions (or at least the actions of the perpetrator if they just laid there in shock). If you honestly believe sexual relations between a 6-9 year old and a 30+-year-old man is all right, you’re a sick person without a doubt, however I think you may have been thinking of the situation more as a 13 year old and an 18 year old, which in my mind is still on shaky ground. I thought there was a 3 or 5-year leeway, so a 16-year old and a 21-year old could still be safe within the law?

[Occhidiangela]

There's quote from Frank Herbert's Children of Dune "The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery." When you give your life over to machines,  The government is an machine-like entity with no individual property. When something becomes perceived as non specific as everyone's responsibility, it become's no one's responsibility. The sense of personal responsibility and initiative becomes so diluted it soon become no one's. "It's not your responsibility." Given lack of responsibility in a non specific (public) state control, property in question suddenly becomes subject to the whim of whoever has current power over it, to be vandalized, mistreated, stolen, or misused.

The government is not a parent. It does not take action with the child's interests in mind. The goverment is not designed for that, and if we enable that power, those powers will be taken with the state's interest in mind, not the child's.
[right][snapback]107369[/snapback][/right]

Well said, I'm keeping that one for future reference. :D Thanks.

Occhi

[Doc]

Ok. Read this and then tell me... Do you honestly believe that a man like this can be rehabilitated and returned to society? Or perhaps, perhaps he should have a very long comfortable life in prison, where he has access to television with more channels than you probably get, movies, video games, fully stocked libraries, a gym packed with better exercise equipment than you could afford, a rec room with pool tables, fooseball, air hockey, and other fun recreational activities, basketball courts, gardens, a baseball field mayhap, and plenty of things to do? One of the prisons round here actually has tennis courts now! (They call it career rehabilitation, stating that an ex con has a good chance of making good in his life as a tennis instructor, I don't buy this crap and neither should you)

Honestly, what is the point of keeping this man alive?

Allow me to make a little quote here for you to enjoy.

Regarding a potential motive, this appears to have been part of a plan to kidnap a person, rape them, torture them, kill them, cut off their head, drain the body of blood, rape the corpse, eat the corpse, then dispose of the organs and bones," Purcell Police Chief David Tompkins told a news conference.

Now, who is going to stand up and defend this man's right live a comfortable secure life? Which one of you would actually stand beside this man in public and state that he has a right to live?

There is no point in a life time of punishment for this man, as he will never be rehabilitated, nor will he see the error of his ways and get better. His mind is diseased, and there is no cure but to humanely terminate his living status. There is no useful purpose in keeping him alive. None at all.

[Chaerophon]

What nice imaginary straw men you have talking.

Sorry, what straw men? The post that you quoted was not directed towards you, it was directed towards Griffonspade, in light of his use of anecdotes to draw a conclusion that was unclear at best.

As for the post that I DID point in your direction: you seem to have missed my central point. This whole conversation started when Roland asked whether it was the government's place to put such a limit in force.

I simply said yes, it is. Everything that I have said since was in defence of that particular point. I'm not arguing that implementation is not often flawed, I'm not even arguing for a particular form of implementation. All that I'm saying is that, in principle, the government must be able, in certain situations, to legally enforce the rights of children.

You're points re: implementation are not incorrect - the devil may very well be in the details. However, that is simply not an argument against my point. My point is removed from practical concerns. Any argument against my point would have to be saying that there ought not to be such limits placed on age of consent, and that it should be left up to the parents to enforce. When the radical fundamentalist Mormons start marrying off 12 year olds, I think that they have moved beyond a reasonable limit around which their is a wide social consensus - that is simply not appropriate, and amounts to child abuse, end of story. There is undoubtedly a lot of grey area here - do the parents know? Do they approve? Do they encourage? Do they force? Doesn't change the fact that there IS a line, there HAS TO BE a line, and even if that line needs to be better defined, that is not much of an argument against having a line at all. Why? Because NOT having a limit is completely unacceptable.

There are no straw men here, just one fairly straightforward and coherent line of argument, with which you have mixed issues that have no bearing on my point.

[GriffonSpade]

Not to mention that this:

QUOTE
The governement's power over our lives should be limited, and not extended, especially over family domain.

...is simply propaganda; it has no content.
[right][snapback]107358[/snapback][/right]

No, this is an opinion/belief, the very same thing you have.

I can't speak for the U.S., but in Canada, we don't dictate religion, child-rearing strategies, or any other such thing to citizens.  We're free to believe what we want, within certain limits that exist on the far edge of the "reasonable".  The limits are intended as protection for individuals.  Those who want to, e.g. CHANGE religions should be free to do so. 

To address the point more specifically; in our society, children are not property - they are human beings, and so have certain (albeit limited) rights that are inviolable.  You can spank your kids.  You can raise them as Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews or any kind of Christian that you like.  You can even raise them as atheists.  Child-rearing is NOT prescribed to parents.  Parents have wide freedoms in that respect. 

However, you can't force them to marry someone, you can't pull them out of school to go work in the mines, and you can't beat them when you're angry or disappointed with them.  In this case, it's not about "what the people in power want", its about what are considered the "reasonable" OUTER (double emphasis!) bounds for parental behaviour given the rights generally ascribed to children (as individuals) in our social context. 
So instead we should do nothing at all?  How does this fact (or your anecdotes) contribute to that conclusion?  Whether or not there are some bad social workers, or even bad institutions is not the point - the solution is not to remove all limits and sweep the unlucky ones under the rug.

As in Drasca's post: this is contentless propaganda.
[right][snapback]107359[/snapback][/right]

You present things that they really don't care about to prove that we don't have to do what they want us? They only really care about this in so far as their control freakish tendencies are loyal to their own beliefs. To be fair, it was a fairly offtopic comment aimed at the ability of government agencies and the like to essentially bypass your rights and do whatever they want to you.

Did you even read that part of my post at all? I do not see how you could possibly have concluded that from reading what I posted. To summarize, they do far too little in many cases that need it badly, and too much in cases that probably don't need it at all. Suburbian social workers have a tendency(in my own experience) to be control freakish and decide emotionally, which includes how annoyed they were with you and how much they like you.

The government (which for us, is the democratic voice of the society) tells you what you cannot do (the outer boundaries on behavior), rather than what you must do (with exceptions for paying taxes and serving in the military when called).
I agree.  The system is imperfect (more chaotic perhaps), but no better or worse than the institutionalization and selling children as laborers from 100 years ago.  I believe that children in the US are more likely today to be left in abusive homes.  From my distant perspective, I see a system trying to rehabilitate family rather than what happened in the 70's where social workers would break up families at the first instance of alleged abuse.
[right][snapback]107361[/snapback][/right]

Ah, I forgot, being in the majority gives you the right to oppress people. How silly of me.
Poorly Applied and Conceited are better descriptions of the system and its workers in general. My sister had some 3 or 4 social workers at various times, and all but one were control freakish who did more dictating and reporting than anything else(the other was actually a kind, caring individual that really listened and discussed the situation and terms she had to follow)
Finally, to top it all off, she was eventually institutionalized for a few years(for her behavior mind you), the conditions there actually being WORSE than at home, with drugs, bullies, and, from what I'm told, caretakers that were basically arsehole wardens that didnt care about the feelings of anyone in there(despite them being minors, and this WAS NOT juvie). To top it off, they charged my dad 1/4 of his paycheck every month, made us buy her toiletries and clothing, and charged my NON-WORKING mom 1/4 of full time minimum wage's paycheck, leaving us with less than 1/3 of my dads paycheck to feed the 3 of us and pay bills. As you can see, I have a lot of reason to resent these people and their policies. They say "welfare," I say "oppression."

You've been watching too much South Park I take it. The children I'm referring too were between the ages of 6-9 and were molested by 30+-year-old perverts. I don't care what the hell you say or think, but children of that age (and don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I have a 9-year old, 6-year old, 4-year old, and 1.5 year old) CANNOT adequately choose for themselves in THIS TYPE of situation because - excluding their innocence - they simply lack the experience or development to understand the ramifications of their actions (or at least the actions of the perpetrator if they just laid there in shock). If you honestly believe sexual relations between a 6-9 year old and a 30+-year-old man is all right, you’re a sick person without a doubt, however I think you may have been thinking of the situation more as a 13 year old and an 18 year old, which in my mind is still on shaky ground. I thought there was a 3 or 5-year leeway, so a 16-year old and a 21-year old could still be safe within the law?
[right][snapback]107371[/snapback][/right]

If you don't care what I think or say, then why are you even bothering to say anything, stupid?

Sorry, what straw men?  The post that you quoted was not directed towards you, it was directed towards Griffonspade, in light of his use of anecdotes to draw a conclusion that was unclear at best. 

As for the post that I DID point in your direction: you seem to have missed my central point.  This whole conversation started when Roland asked whether it was the government's place to put such a limit in force. 

I simply said yes, it is.  Everything that I have said since was in defence of that particular point.  I'm not arguing that implementation is not often flawed, I'm not even arguing for a particular form of implementation.  All that I'm saying is that, in principle, the government must be able, in certain situations, to legally enforce the rights of children.

You're points re: implementation are not incorrect - the devil may very well be in the details.  However, that is simply not an argument against my point.  My point is removed from practical concerns.  Any argument against my point would have to be saying that there ought not to be such limits placed on age of consent, and that it should be left up to the parents to enforce.  When the radical fundamentalist Mormons start marrying off 12 year olds, I think that they have moved beyond a reasonable limit around which their is a wide social consensus - that is simply not appropriate, and amounts to child abuse, end of story.  There is undoubtedly a lot of grey area here - do the parents know?  Do they approve?  Do they encourage?  Do they force?  Doesn't change the fact that there IS a line, there HAS TO BE a line, and even if that line needs to be better defined, that is not much of an argument against having a line at all.  Why?  Because NOT having a limit is completely unacceptable. 

There are no straw men here, just one fairly straightforward and coherent line of argument, with which you have mixed issues that have no bearing on my point.
[right][snapback]107379[/snapback][/right]

OK, well, I was trying to point arrows and get people to think as much as argue my point, as I find that people who see my point will immediately go defensive and then deny it til their last breath whether I was right or wrong. However, this approach doesn't seem to be working, because people aren't even bothering to pay attention to the "arrows." I'll put it out plainly, and wait for the mindless flamers to reply and entrench themselves against all reason.

Allow the younger party the opportunity to make it acceptable/dismissable by proving they are understanding, freely concenting & accepting, and not abused. Simple as that. If they are unable to prove they understand as is so often decreed, there won't be a problem ANYWAY, because they are unable to do so. The punishments then, would range from unwilling or not understanding&abused(death); abused, not understanding, or maliciously manipulated into concenting/accepting(severe permanent imprisonment); reluctantly convinced/manipulated & limited/poor understanding(imprisonment until younger party becomes "of age"); limited/poor understanding, but willing(institutionalization for reform, released when younger party is deemed competant)

[Mithrandir]

Executions are insanely expensive because of inefficiency.

No, executions are insanely expensive because of the appeals process. Whether it is "inefficient" or not is merely a value judgement. How many fewer appeals would you suggest? Where do you draw the line? How many people of the 123 exonerated on death row since 1973 would have been murdered by cutting down on the number of appeals?

The cycle of bloodshed and murder ends when people start respecting or at least being courteous to others, everyone has everything they could ever want, and when everyone more or less agrees on everything, or when we lose our free will, or WHEN WE ARE ALL DEAD.[right][snapback]107345[/snapback][/right]

Umm, okay? It is fully within our power to stop, all we have to do is say "we're done executing other human beings". Will there still be murder and crime? Of course. But we can divert money into more worthy causes and we will no longer to complicit in the killing. The primary reason for crime is due to poverty and uneducation. Putting the money we would have used to execute people into education and poverty-assistance programs would help to curb crime. Thus, there's less people in correctional facilities and who would have been on death row. Then there's more money for education and poverty-assistance programs... etc. Let's break the cycle of killing and start a better cycle up.

I fail to see how murdering other human beings helps people be more courteous and agree wth each other more. The. Death. Penalty. Does. Not. Deter. Crime.

Ok. Read this and then tell me... Do you honestly believe that a man like this can be rehabilitated and returned to society? Or perhaps, perhaps he should have a very long comfortable life in prison, [...]

Honestly, what is the point of keeping this man alive?

What's the point of keeping him alive? Possibility of rehabilitation and less cost for the state.

I'll turn the question around... what's the point of killing him? Killing him does not bring the little girl back. How does it hurt you in any way that he have a long life in prison? He has been removed from society and is no longer a threat (hopefully considering he gets life without parole). Do I believe that these correctional facilities should have video games, rec rooms, etc.? Probably not, but the environment cannot also be so harsh as to completely destroy any possibility of rehabilitation. Where's the line drawn? I'm not sure.

I do however feel that correctional facilities should be giving inmates the skills and education that they need to return to society and make a contribution. Some individuals - i.e. Kevin Underwood - have performed acts so heinous that they certainly deserve life without the possibility of parole. Contributions to society can still be made form behind bars however (see: Tookie).

There is no point in a life time of punishment for this man, as he will never be rehabilitated, nor will he see the error of his ways and get better. His mind is diseased, and there is no cure but to humanely terminate his living status.

You cannot possibly make this statement. Is it 1,000 to 1 that he'll be rehabilitated? Yep. Maybe worse. But killing him just sucks money that could be used to help other people and maybe prevent more crime in the future. And in the off chance that he's rehabilitated, he will have to opportunity to add to society once again (from behind bars of course).

[Chaerophon]

Griffonspade;

1.) Threaded view is your friend. You are replying to posts that I have directed towards other people as though they were pointed at you.

2.) You seem to have missed the point of my posts, even after I specifically dedicated a post to explicitly clarifying that point. In fact, you responded to that post with more of the same argument (if you can call it that).

3.) I will reiterate one last time: since you addressed my post, which was nothing more than an argument that it IS the government's role to enforce some sort of limits on child welfare in this respect (AND DID NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THESE LIMITS ARE PRESENTLY IMPLEMENTED APPROPRIATELY OR EFFICIENTLY), I could only assume that your anecdotal evidence regarding the poor implementation of such limits was intended to demonstrate that their structure and enforcement should be controlled by parents, and not the government.

4.) As for "contentless propaganda": given my warranted assumption that you were trying to make a point re: the role of government in enforcing limits on child welfare, your anecdotal evidence contained no useful content, and appeared to be intended to spark an emotional response as a supporting "point".

Please take the time to digest this and have a look at the course of the discussion in threaded view.

[Occhidiangela]

  The primary reason for crime is due to poverty and uneducation.

Nonsense. The primary reason for crime is behavior. It is a combination of selfishness, greed, emotion, and lack of internal moral limits, and in some crimes, a lack of integerity. (Enron) And pride.

Putting the money we would have used to execute people into education and poverty-assistance programs would help to curb crime.

Standard platitude, and of dubious veracity. Throwing money at a problem won't change human nature. It may sometimes alleviate some of the stressors on a person. The War on Poverty didn't end poverty, did it? You will always run into the problem: how much is enough?

Thus, there's less people in correctional facilities and who would have been on death row. Then there's more money for education and poverty-assistance programs... etc. Let's break the cycle of killing and start a better cycle up.

Bogus correlation. Murders and other capital crimes, which put criminals on death row, make up a fairly small percentage of the imprisoned population. Take them all off of death row and you change the prison population by a small amount.

Granted, a factor in that ratio is plea bargaining to lesser offenses, like manslaughter, which preclude the death penalty. The system is curiously merciful by administrative procedure.

By basing your point on the death row issue, you shoot yourself in the foot. The much discussed lack of deterrent power is not reflected when plea bargaining, due to a heavy case load, changes the correspondence between murder, conviction, and sentencing.

The presumption that the money "spent elsewhere" will be well spent, and that a positive correlation will exist between the money spent and a desired outcome, is an enormous leap of faith. I have less trust in the system until the myths are rooted out, and until the double standards are taken out of the equation. Why is Andrea Yates still breathing air?

Given my experiences with the way attorneys and angry people (with one another) use CPS, to cite a social work tool in the system, as a weapon against one another, I'd say that throwing more money at social workers is of little value.

If you want results based on your poverty model of crime causation, which I find bogus but we'll grant you its possibility, a massive campaign to actively promote birth control among the indigent would, if successful, at least take that pressure off of the people who have the least margin for handling fiscal upset. Babies aren't cheap.

I fail to see how murdering other human beings helps people be more courteous and agree wth each other more. The. Death. Penalty. Does. Not. Deter. Crime.  What's the point of keeping him alive? Possibility of rehabilitation and less cost for the state.

The word is execute. Interesting attempt to redefine terms in a discussion. Do you distribute propaganda much?

The death penalty punishes.
Interesting Stats on murder and execution rates.
Beyond that, the death penalty is a matter of justice, which is subjective. A long prison sentence punishes. That satisfies a balance on the emotional level. It is also costly. The observations earlier on the efficacy of rehabilitation are germane. All of it is money thrown down a rat hole, any cent spent on rehabilitating someone who will never leave prison. I feel it is far crueler to put someone in jail with no hope of parole than to execute him, but that is amittedly a subjective assessment.

Your 123 is a number without scale.

Last year 60 people were executed in the entire nation. Let's presume that is an average since 1973, roughly 30 per year. The order of magnitude is close enough for illustration.

Out of 1800 people to be executed, plus the spared 123, (1923,) 6.4% (123/1923) were shown to be in the wrong box. 6.4%, which means a 93.6% rate of success. So, in grosser terms, nine times out of 10 the sytem gets it right, in those rare cases where the death penalty applies and is sought. More fun with numbers follows.

A national murder rate of 22 per 100,000 in 2004 (from the above link) tells us that out of roughly 300,000,000 people we get 66,000 murders per year. Needless to say, not all murders are solved.

You are getting all indignant about 4 people per year possibly wrongly executed? I find your sense of justice lacking proportion, and please don't chime in with a slippery slope. Since justice is subjective, no big deal that we disagree.

Put another way, 4 people per year, out of a prison population of 3 million.

What kind of a zero defects standard do you hold your fellow man to, Mith?

What kind of tax burden are you willing to put on the taxpayers to achieve zero defects? The laws of marginal returns suggest that you'll never get to zero defects, no matter how much money we throw at it. I think we are at a "good enough" standard. Why? Let's look at some more numbers.

About 60,000 were murdered in 2004. Were they justly treated? No. Did they get an appeal? No. Does DNA evidence help them? No. Where is the balance, where is that ever elusive justice?

The murder convictions in 1997, (easiest to get to chart, we'll assume order of magnitude has remained similar) numbered about 15,000. 4 (from annualizing your 123) out of 15,000. That performance is well within the boundary of outstanding system performance. Even if only 10 % were assigned the death penalty, 4 out of 1500 is still a superb performance metric for a bounded system. Over 99% correct on an annual basis. I'll suggest that with wider use of DNA, that number over the next 30 years will be considerably less that 123. (Hopefully to approach zero) in cases where DNA can be used effectively as a criterion base.

I'll turn the question around... what's the point of killing him? Killing him does not bring the little girl back.

That's not the point. That line of thought lends itself to shrugging off the murder victim, since we can't bring her back, but only if we play slippery slope, which I won't.

It hurts us all as an opportunity cost -- those tax dollars can't be spent on anything else. Perhaps the dollars and cents, in the larger sense, are accomodated by economies of scale when considering the population we have in prison. (Again. booo.) That may be a wash.

Execution satisfies what justice is fundamentally about: a balance. It is as much emotional as it is rational. Since one is dealing with the human element in attempting to "Establish Justice, Ensure the Domestic Tranquility," and so on, the implementation of justice will stay in the variable, human realm. Applying reason to it as a safeguard is a good idea. But justice, other than God's justice, won't ever reach zero defects. (That shortcoming is somewhat mitigated by the appeals process, by the way.) (Addendum: for those who hold that there is no God, there is NO zero defects justice to be had anywhere. )

Justice is like beauty: in the eye of the beholder, and SUBJECTIVE. I find there to be enough checks in the system if it can meet a considerably better than 99% standard of performance.

To digress for a moment: One Arab legal custom that I find worthy of copying is the general appeal, once someone is judged guilty, to the family or wronged person to show mercy. I don't know if that is codified in our laws, or in some states' laws, but I have heard of cases where victims or families of victims were reported to have pleaded for forgiveness on behalf of convicted criminals.

I do however feel that correctional facilities should be giving inmates the skills and education that they need to return to society and make a contribution. Some individuals - i.e. Kevin Underwood - have performed acts so heinous that they certainly deserve life without the possibility of parole. Contributions to society can still be made form behind bars however (see: Tookie).

You have to reshape someone's world view, and particularly their view of themselves, to rehabilitate them. Ask any recovering alcoholic. Prison does a poor job of that. How do you measure what someone is really thinking? How do you know you have "changed them?" You don't, and you can't. How do you get that kind of control over people's behavior, and withstand the legal challenges that prisoners have rights too? I don't think you can.

You cannot possibly make this statement. Is it 1,000 to 1 that he'll be rehabilitated? Yep. Maybe worse. But killing him just sucks money that could be used to help other people and maybe prevent more crime in the future. And in the off chance that he's rehabilitated, he will have to opportunity to add to society once again (from behind bars of course).

[right][snapback]107395[/snapback][/right]
Killing him zeroes out the expense line as of that afternoon. Society's machinery is funded by finite resources. There are not infinite resources to expend on "rehab" just as there are finite resources to expend on health care.

All prisoners with terminal life senteces are pure cost. They are Zero Value Added, and have demonstrated by their actions their disdain for the rules of society, and are indeed resource sinks: the money spent on them should and could be spent elsewhere, be it on better rehab sytems, on a few better teachers, better public defenders, or even on your postulated social workers.

Until we reinstitute the chain gang, which means putting to work the felons who are doing hard time, and getting useful work out of them that benefits the greater whole at the state or national level, the "add to society myth" you propose is an unrealizable fantasy. Prisoners who are in forever will remain a money sink. A disposable item that keeps showing up on your VISA bill.

Occhi

EDIT for an addendum and some spelling goof ups.

[Occhidiangela]

Griffonspade;

1.) Threaded view is your friend.  You are replying to posts that I have directed towards other people as though they were pointed at you.

2.) You seem to have missed the point of my posts, even after I specifically dedicated a post to explicitly clarifying that point.  In fact, you responded to that post with more of the same argument (if you can call it that).

3.) I will reiterate one last time: since you addressed my post, which was nothing more than an argument that it IS the government's role to enforce some sort of limits on child welfare in this respect (AND DID NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THESE LIMITS ARE PRESENTLY IMPLEMENTED APPROPRIATELY OR EFFICIENTLY), I could only assume that your anecdotal evidence regarding the poor implementation of such limits was intended to demonstrate that their structure and enforcement should be controlled by parents, and not the government.

4.) As for "contentless propaganda": given my warranted assumption that you were trying to make a point re: the role of government in enforcing limits on child welfare, your anecdotal evidence contained no useful content, and appeared to be intended to spark an emotional response as a supporting "point".

Please take the time to digest this and have a look at the course of the discussion in threaded view.
[right][snapback]107407[/snapback][/right]

His anecdote is not an isolated incident. Far from it. You may have a different level of confidence in your nation's CPS.

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

His anecdote is not an isolated incident.  Far from it.  You may have a different level of confidence in your nation's CPS.

Occhi
[right][snapback]107424[/snapback][/right]

Occhi, it has nothing to do with the frequency of his anecdotal evidence. Again I ask: is the proper response then to do nothing or to reform the institutions!?!?

[Guest]

Lame topic. Shame on people for answering it a second time.

[Chaerophon]

The primary reason for crime is due to poverty and uneducation.

Nonsense. The primary reason for crime is behavior. It is a combination of selfishness, greed, emotion, and lack of internal moral limits, and in some crimes, a lack of integerity. (Enron) And pride.

That point is far from nonsense. Crime has been shown to correlate with poverty, it is an empirically verifiable statistical fact. Unless you can defend the idea that the "impoverished" find themselves in such a position because they lack the "character" of the well-to-do, and that poverty effects are entirely non-systemic, then your point is lacking. Since a grossly disproportionate percentage of the population living below the poverty line are visible minorities who have been the historical subject of systematic disadvantages, I hope that you're willing to concede that systemic factors do contribute to crime rate... Otherwise, your claim might reasonably be extrapolated to become "minorities intrinsically lack moral fibre", a conclusion that I doubt you would like to draw.

Standard platitude, and of dubious veracity. Throwing money at a problem won't change human nature. It may sometimes alleviate some of the stressors on a person. The War on Poverty didn't end poverty, did it? You will always run into the problem: how much is enough?

Funny, there are many countries in the world that HAVE reduced poverty and relative advantage through systematic modification that involves "throwing money at" the problem of inequality. You know what else has gone along with movement in that direction? Reduced crime rates. I'm sure that you will try to throw me off the chase by claiming that "America's situation is unique" in light of the nation's diversity, but that would be bollocks. America is not the only country in the world facing problems of diversity, nor is it the only country in the world with open borders and permissive immigration policy.

There is not an absolute standard of "how much is enough". That is socially determined by how much people are willing to concede - and that is often dependent on what understanding they have of the reasons for impoverishment (at a systematic level), in the first place.

You are getting all indignant about 4 people per year possibly wrongly executed? I find your sense of justice lacking proportion, and please don't chime in with a slippery slope. Since justice is subjective, no big deal that we disagree.

Easy to say until it's your brother, father, sister or mother.

Put another way, 4 people per year, out of a prison population of 3 million.

What kind of a zero defects standard do you hold your fellow man to, Mith?

Interestingly, all of your numbers belie a simple point: his suggested solution does meet a zero defects standard. And by spending less money, to boot. Sweet trade-off, no?

You have to reshape someone's world view, and particularly their view of themselves, to rehabilitate them. Ask any recovering alcoholic. Prison does a poor job of that. How do you measure what someone is really thinking? How do you know you have "changed them?" You don't, and you can't. How do you get that kind of control over people's behavior, and withstand the legal challenges that prisoners have rights too? I don't think you can.

Killing prisoners is "better", in view of justice, than reforming the system? I'm afraid that there is no comparison... And don't come at me with "you're being pie-in-the-sky" - the cost of incarceration is a dead weight on the United States economy, and it is not entirely obvious (and there is no evidence that I know of to support the view) that a move towards crime prevention-via-social-reform rather than your increasingly expensive punishment-in-lieu-of-social-programs model would be any less cost-effective.

Anyways, how do you reshape someone's world view? I think that you know what I think - take some measures to reform their world. Before you say it, that's not socialism, that's pragmatism. If systemic factors are contributing to crime rate (and powerfully strong correlation between the two has been shown to exist), then perhaps it IS the system that requires reform in order to reduce crime and decrease the number of violators in the system/prisoners in the first place. BTW, this point on your part seems to contradict your earlier thoughts that crime is "behavioural" and unrelated to systemic factors such as poverty.

All prisoners with terminal life senteces are pure cost. They are Zero Value Added, and have demonstrated by their actions their disdain for the rules of society, and are indeed resource sinks: the money spent on them should and could be spent elsewhere, be it on better rehab sytems, on a few better teachers, better public defenders, or even on your postulated social workers.

Because society justifiably does demand a zero-defect standard for executions, the costs for execution will always be high - the appeals process is proof in the pudding. The American system is built on a belief in checks and balances; remove the checks on execution, and you will have less than desirable effects.

[Chaerophon]

Lame topic. Shame on people for answering it a second time.
[right][snapback]107430[/snapback][/right]

I bow to your high horse.

[Roland]

That point is far from nonsense.  Crime has been shown to correlate with poverty, it is an empirically verifiable statistical fact.

Right... Because impoverished people commit murder because their poor. That truly helps them get ahead in life. It surely puts food on their cardboard table, and blankets over their shoulders.

I love it when someone brings up the connection between poverty and crime, especially in a discussion involving the death penalty. Find me statistical data that proves a significant (hell, ANY) correlation between poverty and murder. Go ahead. Then you can pull that BS argument in this discussion. Until then, it's a straw man. A distraction. A zero value added post.

Stealing is not a crime punishable by death, anywhere in the U.S. that I know of. Murder and rape of some of the only crimes punishable by death. The order of magnitude between the two is so astounding it amazes me you can even attempt to draw a line connecting them.

This discussion is convoluted enough. Let's not make it any worse, ok?

[Drasca]

Easy to say until it's your brother, father, sister or mother.
[right][snapback]107433[/snapback][/right]

Cheap. That is too much of an assumption to make.

Funny, there are many countries in the world that HAVE reduced poverty and relative advantage through systematic modification that involves "throwing money at" the problem of inequality

More likely, money disappears into the hands of the corrupt. Money is a means, not an end. Take a basic economics course, and among the first lessons is: Money has no inherent value by itself, it is traded for goods and services. When you throw money at a situation, it disappears into the pockets of whoever is controlling it.

is the proper response then to do nothing or to reform the institutions!?!?

Stinks of herring. Where do you see us proposing we do nothing? Harumph. Getting the knowledge out that these institutions are corrupt is the first step. You cannot do anything until you're first aware of its existence.

than reforming the system?

Do you have an unquestionably better one? If so, write your governmental respresentative.

This discussion is convoluted enough. Let's not make it any worse, ok?

Agreed. Poverty and Crime have no direct correlation. There are millions of law abiding poor, and a whole lot of high profile, money embezzeling, drug cartelling, murdering rich. Poverty is irrelevant here.