viscousmemories

And what, for example, would be "due compensation" for someone who has spent 30 years of their life in prison?

Celsus

Insufficient.

viscousmemories

What if there is no error reversal, though, and the person spends their entire life in prison based on evidence that was not "absolute"?

In that case, the same wrong has been done, right?

My only point is that the "no absolute evidence" argument holds no water in a legal system that's based on the concept of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

Celsus

Allow me to jump in here...
It's just as bad. What's this got to do with your support for the death penalty?
And two wrongs make a...?
Begging the question.

Joel

viscousmemories

I'm suggesting that it makes no sense to say, "We must have evidence which is absolute before we can kill this criminal, but we can lock him in a cage for the rest of his natural life if we can prove he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

I'm not begging the question, either. What we are discussing is a matter of law. To say that our legal system is based on proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a statement of fact, not a presupposition.

Celsus

Sigh. Straw man. Life sentences are generally 20-30 years. They are not an absolute punishment. Go and reread what RG Ingersoll wrote. Anyway, what do you make of the other arguments?
You are assuming that your legal system that is ideally based on proving guilt beyond a reasonably doubt, also actually does prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Joel

viscousmemories

Try to quit thinking hypothetically and think realistically. Have you ever been imprisoned? To say that 30 years in prison is "the rest of a person's natural life" is not hyperbole, and it is not a "straw man". I admit you have a knack for identifying the various fallacious arguments and attempting to brand my every statement with one, but how about telling me what YOU think.

I am assuming nothing. I have mentioned (maybe in this thread, maybe only in others) many times that I think our legal system is flawed to the core, and in particular in how we administer the death penalty. This does not, however, convince me that there isn't an incarnation of DP laws that I would consent to supporting.

Celsus

I am.
Does 2 1/2 years of forced military service count? All those stupid duties guarding an empty camp? Armed with just an M16 older than myself, with 4 bullets in the magazine to ward off any potential intruders?
No, but during those thirty years, there's plenty of time for an appeal to get through, or the state to admit to a fuck-up. Death is absolute. Anything less is not absolute.
Thank you kindly. Is that an admission that you don't know what you're talking about? I think you've got your head stuck somewhere it shouldn't be. But you really don't want to know the rest of what I think. Oh wait. You meant what I think of the death penalty. Sorry, ignore all the above stuff. My first post in this thread summed up what I think.
If you are assuming nothing, then you are not thinking realistically. You originally said:
Which is merely a reiteration of its ideal. It doesn't work that way in practice, hence none of your arguments based on its ideal work. Unless of course, you are thinking realistically enough to want to abolish the death penalty until all those flaws are worked out. In which case, I'll leave you to it.

Joel

viscousmemories

Okay, I was going to respond to you point by point, but it gets so tedious with all those quote tags and all. So, you'll just have to try to figure out which responses of mine correlate to statements of yours. Ready? Here goes:

No you aren't.

I don't know anything about your military service, but I spent two years in the Army over here and it really doesn't count. Yes, it sucked pretty bad, but I have also had the opportunity to spend 90 days in a small County Jail cell, and it's really quite different. Besides, at least you had bullets! When I had to guard an empty motor pool in Germany throughout the night, I had an empty M16. I would've had to throw it at an intruder.

Death is absolute, that is true. Nothing else can offer as solid a guarantee that the offender will never offend again. IMO, that's what makes it the most effective solution.

I readily admit when I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't have a PhD in criminology, sociology, or psychology. If you do, you may have a more informed opinion than I do. Does that make your opinion the correct one? I didn't think so.

BTW, re-read my comment and you may realize that I wasn't complimenting you when I pointed out that you have a knack for trying to fit the label of various fallacious arguments around my every statement. I was more implying that you are spending more time trying to "win" than you are trying to convince me that your opinion is worthy of my attention.

I live in a world that is imperfect. We have no absolute knowledge, and our legal system is flawed. I do not, however, wish to throw the baby out with the bath water. I will agree to throw the DP out the window until our legal system is perfect as long as you agree that no law should be enforced until we have mastered the ability to prove absolutely that anyone is guilty of anything.

Tom

Celsus

Ok.

Celsus the lifestyle anarchist