dagblog - Comments for "Quick Hits"

They took the Fifth out of

Barth — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:57:29 +0000

In reply to How many witnesses have blood

They took the Fifth out of caution given the atmosphere, and on advice of counsel. If a crime was committed here it would be a securities fraud in that they conveyed an optimisim that they knew was unwarranted, but I doubt that to be the case. The government surely did nothing wrong in trying to help them, before the market for solar panels crashed.

How many witnesses have blood

Resistance — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:46:24 +0000

In reply to Quick Hits

How many witnesses have blood on their hands?

As for #8 The managers of the company have claimed the Fifth amendment.

Solyndragate?

#6 I liked how the term Jew came from the term Judea; as in the ancient land of Judea,

Had the Romans not interfered, the Jews would have continued to rule over their lands.

The UN reversed this action .

DD, barth and VA, thanks for

AmericanDreamer — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:48:53 +0000

In reply to Well, for what it's worth

DD, barth and VA, thanks for your thoughts on this, good ones all.

I definitely don't think supporting the death penalty makes a person, thereby, immoral.

I happen to think it is immoral because, mainly, people who are innocent--which, to clarify, I am not asserting is the case with Troy Davis--have lost their lives many times; because human error is a permanent phenomenon whereas the continuation of a person's life is not, and because there is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime more than life imprisonment so there isn't that potential counter-argument for it.

I hesitate on whether the act of supporting the death penalty is, or can be, immoral. It seems to me any citizen can verify that the 3 points I make in the preceding paragraph are all true. If a fellow citizen sees these statements are true and supports the death penalty anyway, what should we think about that? What are the legitimate reasons to support it anyway?

That amounts to saying "I know innocent people die because of it, and there is no evidence it protects the rest of us. But I support it anyway because..." Because what? I don't say I could not hear an argument for why supporting it anyway might be legitimate (understandable, yes--I do understand why so many people support it. But what is understandable is not necessarily legitimate on that account). I just haven't heard one yet.

I'd be all for sending

Donal — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:25:43 +0000

In reply to Well, for what it's worth

I'd be all for sending criminals to the phantom zone.

Well, for what it's worth

Verified Atheist — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:59:44 +0000

In reply to I guess you caught me in a

Well, for what it's worth here's my position on the death penalty:

Sure, those guilty of the heinous crimes usually associated with it deserve to die, as much as anyone deserves anything. However, I feel that executing that punishment demeans us as a society.

Furthermore, the scientist in me doesn't believe in free will*, and so thinks that "justice" is a far less useful concept than "prevention", as in we should do what we can to keep people from committing crimes in the first place. With regards to "punishment", that suggests to me that our goals should be to (a) prevent this particular offender from committing such a crime again (which the death penalty is actually pretty good at, assuming we have the correct offender), (b) deter future similar crimes by other potential offenders (there's no evidence to suggest the death penalty is better or worse than life in prison in this regard), and (c) not lessen our respect for our fellow humans.

These are my beliefs with respect to the death penalty. I definitely don't pretend to know everything, and respect that other people can come to different conclusions.

*The part of me that has to get out of bed every morning, however, feels compelled to act as if free will exists.

I guess you caught me in a

Barth — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:33:12 +0000

In reply to I honestly have no moral

I guess you caught me in a quandry. I do not think that people who support the death penalty are immoral. I do think that government should not be in the business of deciding who lives and who dies.

I believe very much in punishment for the commission of cries proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I think prison is the place for murderers both to protect the rest of us from the murderer and as a a deterrent to others who might contemplate murder. Others think that is not enough.

For me anyway, I never have

Richard Day — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:37:06 +0000

In reply to I honestly have no moral

For me anyway, I never have to get to that question.

Equal Protection as a concept takes away our right to execute someone under the law!

That is why procedure takes precedence over the subject as far as I am concerned.

There are certainly metaphors out there for all to see.

I mean why did Libby (who is a traitor) get 8 years and Liddy (who is a traitor) served no sentence at all?

Barth underlines that there are issues concerning conviction that vary from issues concerning punishment.

But we are in the real world and equal protection is only a concept and will be applied by human beings and therefore the death penalty should never be imposed.

When it is imposed I do not always lay awake at night worrying about it.

Sometimes I do!

I honestly have no moral

AmericanDreamer — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:19:51 +0000

In reply to I honestly have no moral

I honestly have no moral issue against the death penalty, beyond the idea that the state should not take a person's life.

I'm confused by this statement. It sounds as though you do have a moral objection to the death penalty, because it involves the state taking a person's life.

Or did you mean by that that you think people who commit particularly heinous crimes may in some cases morally in some sense "deserve" to be killed, just not by the state (by whom, then? anyone?)

To paraphrase Elizabeth

kyle flynn — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:47:50 +0000

In reply to I honestly have no moral

To paraphrase Elizabeth Warren, no one has ever killed anyone on his own. It's either all of us to the gallows or none of us.

I honestly have no moral

Barth — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:43:25 +0000

In reply to You cover a hell of a lot of

I honestly have no moral issue against the death penalty, beyond the idea that the state should not take a person's life. I have been outvoted on this in many jurisdictions including one I know very well.

I suspect the issue in Georgia is not so much Davis' criminal responsibility (and, btw, I believe the principle you describe has a moral basis as well; if you help someone to kill another person, you are as responsible as the person who pulled the trigger). The death penalty, in most states, requires aggravating factors that make a murder into a capital crime. One of them could be (though it really ought not to be) whether the defendant was the actual actor. (It makes no sense for that to be an aggravator, which become easy to see when you consider the murder for hire situation. The guy hired to the deed should not be subject to worse punishment than applicable to the person who set the crime in motion and likely benefits the most from its commission.) If Georgia has such an aggravator requirement, I understand the issue raised since this defendant was convicted. Since I do not live in Georgia, it is of little concern to me. I am against the death penalty for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Troy Davis and, from what I have read, I would have no inclination to argue for anything on his behalf but even if I did, it would not be on the ground that he is "innocent."