The least cruel method of execution?

steissd wrote:

I wonder, what may be so expensive in lethal injection?

. . .

Well, if the convict is a drug addict, it may be a bit more costly due to his/her narcotic drug tolerance.

0 Replies

Joe,

You quoted me saying:

Quote:

I further note that all punishments are unique -- periods of incarceration are definitely unique when compared with fines. Crimes come in all shades and colors. Some warrant fines; some warrant incarceration; and some PERHAPS warrant execution.

...and then wrote:

Quote:

No, you're wrong. A one-year sentence differs from a ten-year sentence only as a matter of degree. A life sentence differs from the death penalty as a matter of kind. Different sentences, short of execution, are not unique, they're just different.

No, Joe, you are wrong here -- and I suspect it is because you didn't read my comment carefully enough.

I specifically said "...periods of incarceration are definitely unique when compared with fines."

At no point was I inferring that a 6 month sentence was unique from a 20 year sentence.

But sending a person to jail or prison for any amount of time -- is unique from simply fining a person.

That was my point.

The rest of your post is well-taken.

But right now (this might change next year) I feel that the argument that capital punishment should be eliminated BECAUSE IT IS BARBARIC does not hold.

And if we get to the question of whether or not it is MORALLY acceptable -- well, then we have to go to the religious arguments -- and the major religions of our nation are based on the teachings of the Bible, Torah, and Koran -- and all of those religious books evidence moral acceptability of capital punishment.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

No, Joe, you are wrong here -- and I suspect it is because you didn't read my comment carefully enough.

My apologies, Frank, I clearly misunderstood your point. Let me address it now.

You're still wrong.

You wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

But sending a person to jail or prison for any amount of time -- is unique from simply fining a person.

That was my point.

At the lower end of the scale, the commensurateness between fines and imprisonment is explicit. Persons convicted of misdemeanors are frequently given the choice between a fine and jail time, showing that the state considers the fine to be an equivalent punishment to imprisonment. Even higher up the scale, the same sort of "exchange rate" between money and time is evident. For instance, a person convicted in federal court of bank fraud (18 U.S.C. 1344) faces a fine of up to $1 million or 30 years in jail or both. In the eyes of the state, then, a person convicted of bank fraud who pays a fine is just as "punished" as the person who serves time in the pen. Thus fines and imprisonment are, according to the state's calculus, roughly interchangeable.

But the same cannot be said about the commensurateness of any type of punishment and capital punishment. There is no amount of money that, according to the state, serves as an equivalent punishment to execution, just as no amount of time in jail (even life without parole) is equivalent to execution. As such, my previous statement stands: when choosing punishments, the state has only two choices -- capital punishment or something other than capital punishment.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But right now (this might change next year) I feel that the argument that capital punishment should be eliminated BECAUSE IT IS BARBARIC does not hold.

I've never made the argument that capital punishment should be eliminated because it's barbaric. Indeed, I've been arguing that death penalty proponents should be lobbying to make executions more painful and cruel.

0 Replies

Joe

When one argues in a thread as long as this one -- with as many people as have participated here, it is easy to start mistaking what one person said with something someone else mentioned.

I re-read most of your posts -- and indeed you are correct that you have not actually called capital punishment "barbaric" -- although the arguments you've made suggesting hypocrisy on the part of a proponent of capital punishment who does not advocate more torturous means of implementation -- did suggest to me that you consider it barbaric in spite of the fact that you have not actually described it as such. And as Craven pointed out, it is to your debating advantage to distance yourself from that argument -- no matter how you feel about it.

In any case, the re-reading of the postings was an eye-opener for me.

I'll have to pay even more attention to what you write than I have been in the past -- and that will take some doing, because I honestly consider your comments to be outstanding and have paid lots of attention right along.

But there is no doubt that I have missed the bull-headedness that is so blatant -- and so prevalent -- in this thread -- and I cannot help but assume it must exist in the others.

Hey, don't get me wrong. Incredible as it may seem -- there are people who consider me to be bullheaded also.

I'll continue to inform myself by listening to your arguments -- although I will be on guard to detect when you've stopped arguing on the merits and have begun arguing just to be right.

BOTTOM LINE:

1) If I had my druthers, we would eliminate capital punishment and warehouse capital crime felons in a way that prevents them from being a danger to society in general and to people who might have to guard them -- but still allows them more space and freedom than death row kinds of incarceration allows.. (See my comments on the movie "Escape from New York.")

2) Until them, I consider capital punishment to be an acceptable and moral undertaking of government.

3) I reject out-of-hand your notion that a person is being hypocritical if he/she advocates (or condones) capital punishment, but argue for more humane methods of implementation. (That notion, in my estimation, does irreparable and unnecessary intellectual violence to the balance of your arguments on this issue. You really ought to reconsider it.)

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

No, there you're wrong. Any goal served by the system of punishment in general must first be consistent with the goals served by specific forms of punishment.

Well, to cut this short I'll simply say (ERROR) to this. It's not ignoring an inconsistency. It's simply not ignoring the bigger picture. The inconsistency exists only if a narrow viewpoint is isolated from the bigger picture. Since it's unlikely that this is going to go anywhere I will, as you do, simply state that this is where you go wrong.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

...I will be on guard to detect when you've stopped arguing on the merits and have begun arguing just to be right.

I have trouble telling the difference myself.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
...I will be on guard to detect when you've stopped arguing on the merits and have begun arguing just to be right.

I have trouble telling the difference myself.

I know what you mean, Joe. I have trouble telling when I've crossed that line also.

0 Replies

All I have to say is that this has been a bloody good read so far.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

(1)capital punishment serves only two permissible goals; (ERROR)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back I pointed out that you assert this but asserting it does not make it a fact, yet you treat it as one. As I wrote before, the death penalty can serve the third* goal of permanently removing the individual (as a threat) from society. This is not for retribution, nor to deter others, but simply to safeguard us against EVER being harmed by this person again.

Based on that rather obvious point, your logic appears flawed; you can't simply say A must be barbaric because it is only used for B and C when it can also have D as its goal.

================
* there are likely others as well

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Wilso wrote:

The cost argument doesn't hold water. I've seen some stat's on the costs of executing someone, and it's absolutely staggering.

I wonder, what may be so expensive in lethal injection? Even if illicit commercially unavailable drugs like heroin are used for this purpose, the price of execution should not exceed $200-300... Well, if the convict is a drug addict, it may be a bit more costly due to his/her narcotic drug tolerance. By all means, not more expensive than $500. And how much does it take to keep a person in jail for 10-30 years? I guess, much more...

My understanding is that the lion's share of the expense is in the lengthy and mandatory appeals process that must be waded through. Simply executing the person is not terribly costly.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back I pointed out that you assert this but asserting it does not make it a fact, yet you treat it as one.

Waaaaaaaaaay back, I noted that your responses indicated a significant lack of familiarity with what I actually wrote. I see that this remains a problem.

Scrat wrote:

As I wrote before, the death penalty can serve the third* goal of permanently removing the individual (as a threat) from society. This is not for retribution, nor to deter others, but simply to safeguard us against EVER being harmed by this person again.

Here, Scrat, I'll give you another opportunity to ignore what I wrote in Post 460138:
5. Capital punishment can only serve the goals of deterrence and retribution...Capital punishment certainly incapacitates a criminal, in that executed criminals are not likely to commit subsequent crimes. But punishment short of death can also accomplish this goal. Pace the objections raised by Scrat, we can, at least theoretically, devise a system of incarceration that minimizes the likelihood of a prisoner, condemned to life without parole, committing further crimes. As such, given that the goal of incarceration/incapacitation can be served by a punishment short of death, the state is obliged to choose it.

Contrary to what you suggest, I specifically dealt with the issue of incarceration/incapacitation. Indeed, I specifically dealt with your objections on this point.

Let me explain again (maybe smaller words will help): It's true that execution permanently incapacitates a criminal, but then so does life imprisonment. And, as I set forth in greater detail and as you no doubt missed in my earlier posts, since the goal of incapacitation can be served by imprisonment, the state must choose that method over capital punishment.

Scrat wrote:

Based on that rather obvious point, your logic appears flawed; you can't simply say A must be barbaric because it is only used for B and C when it can also have D as its goal.

I never said that capital punishment was barbaric. As a matter of fact, this issue was explicitly addressed in my exchange with Frank several posts back, although it's clear that you couldn't have been bothered to read it. Indeed, I'm not sure why I'm even pointing this out to you, Scrat, as I'm sure you stopped reading long ago.

0 Replies

Joe -

I bet you are president and founding member of your own fan club. :wink:

The fact that you can make arguments against using the death penalty for the 3rd goal I mentioned does not mean that third goal doesn't exist. My point is that ALL of your arguments start with the premise that JOE IS CORRECT and then ask everyone to follow along from there. You treat anyone who disagrees or (heaven forfend) points out the weakness of your arguments as intellectually inferior to you; the mark of a man with an inferiority complex, by the way. Shocked

You are of course welcome to make arguments against the choice to use executions as a means for permanently removing dangerous people from our midst, but you cannot argue away its existence as a goal of executions. Whether it is a "good" goal or not is not at issue. What is at issue is your absurd claim that there are and can only be TWO goals to the death penalty. THAT PREMISE IS FLAWED, making all conclusions flowing from it baseless.

It speaks volumes for how badly made your argument is that I agree with your position against the death penalty, yet can't help but object to the absurd "you must agree with me or you are all stupid" argument you offer to support your conclusion. Frankly, you give the anti-death penalty stance a bad name.

0 Replies

Joe

In response to Scrat, you quoted what you had written earlier:

Quote:

5. Capital punishment can only serve the goals of deterrence and retribution...Capital punishment certainly incapacitates a criminal, in that executed criminals are not likely to commit subsequent crimes. But punishment short of death can also accomplish this goal. Pace the objections raised by Scrat, we can, at least theoretically, devise a system of incarceration that minimizes the likelihood of a prisoner, condemned to life without parole, committing further crimes. As such, given that the goal of incarceration/incapacitation can be served by a punishment short of death, the state is obliged to choose it.

Let's forget for a second whether or not the state IS OBLIGED TO CHOOSE one goal over another for ANY REASONS...

...earlier I questioned the reasoning you used on the balance of the matters you covered in this paragraph. I honestly do not remember a reply -- and apologize if I've overlooked it.

Here is my contention:

Your comment: "Capital punishment certainly incapacitates a criminal, in that executed criminals are not likely to commit subsequent crimes" ...

...misstates the actuality of the situation.

"Executed criminals" are not "not likely to commit subsequent crimes -- THEY DAMN WELL WILL NOT COMMIT SUBSEQUENT CRIMES. They will be dead -- which is the usual result of execution.

Your subsequent comment: "But punishment short of death can also accomplish this goal. Pace the objections raised by Scrat, we can, at least theoretically, devise a system of incarceration that minimizes the likelihood of a prisoner, condemned to life without parole, committing further crimes"...

...misstates the actuality also, in that ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY preventing the criminal from EVER committing a subsequent crime CANNOT be ensured via incarceration PERIOD -- and that includes incarceration so onerous and severe as to be inhumane.

The ONLY way this argument works, Joe, is to make it seem that the goal is to "minimize the chances of the criminal committing crimes again" - when in fact, a legitimate goal can (and apparently is) to ensure that the criminal does not commit crimes again. Which, of course, can only be met with execution.

Would you comment on that?

0 Replies

Well played, Frank! You have pointed out exactly what galls me about Joe's arguments... He states his beliefs as if they are facts then gets in a tizzy when you point out that he's using shorthand to smudge across inconvenient but important points of reality.

Now, let's sit back and watch while he attacks your intellect for disagreeing with him. :wink:

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

The fact that you can make arguments against using the death penalty for the 3rd goal I mentioned does not mean that third goal doesn't exist.

I never said that the goal of incarceration/incapacitation did not exist. On the contrary, I specifically noted that it did exist, and I dealt with it as a legitimate, if ultimately unpersuasive issue.

Scrat wrote:

My point is that ALL of your arguments start with the premise that JOE IS CORRECT and then ask everyone to follow along from there.

No, you've got it backwards. My arguments end with the conclusion that I'm right. Starting from that premise, on the other hand, would constitute an impermissible ipse dixit. For examples of this kind of flawed reasoning, I suggest you review any of your numerous posts on this and other discussion threads.

Scrat wrote:

You treat anyone who disagrees or (heaven forfend) points out the weakness of your arguments as intellectually inferior to you; the mark of a man with an inferiority complex, by the way.

I have treated everyone who has disagreed with me here (and elsewhere) to a thorough response befitting the nature of their comments. I have not accused anyone of being my "intellectual inferior." But in your case, Scrat, I'm inclined to make an exception.

Scrat wrote:

It speaks volumes for how badly made your argument is that I agree with your position against the death penalty, yet can't help but object to the absurd "you must agree with me or you are all stupid" argument you offer to support your conclusion.

Your inability to understand (or even read) my argument speaks volumes about me? Really, Scrat, it is to laugh.

Scrat wrote:

Well played, Frank! You have pointed out exactly what galls me about Joe's arguments... He states his beliefs as if they are facts then gets in a tizzy when you point out that he's using shorthand to smudge across inconvenient but important points of reality.

Tizzy? Moi? I pride myself on being untizzyable.

Scrat wrote:

Now, let's sit back and watch while he attacks your intellect for disagreeing with him.

I have never attacked Frank's intellect. Indeed, I consider him a pretty smart guy, as I have pointed out earlier. As for you, Scrat, I need say nothing; rather, I'm confident that you'll continue to give ample demonstration of your own intellectual shortcomings.

0 Replies

Joe - Just keep spinning. Maybe some people will buy it. For myself, I'm thankful that there are some reasonable people arguing against the death penalty.

0 Replies

I'll go get the popcorn if someone else will pop for the soft drinks . . .

There's a real comfy sofa here, anyone?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Here is my contention:

Your comment: "Capital punishment certainly incapacitates a criminal, in that executed criminals are not likely to commit subsequent crimes" ...

...misstates the actuality of the situation.

"Executed criminals" are not "not likely to commit subsequent crimes -- THEY DAMN WELL WILL NOT COMMIT SUBSEQUENT CRIMES. They will be dead -- which is the usual result of execution.

One of the disadvantages of this type of electronic interchange is that subtleties of expression are often lost. Of course, executed criminals absolutely, positively will not commit further crimes. My earlier comments about the likelihood of them not committing further crimes was mildly ironic -- the expression of which, evidently, did not translate well in this medium.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Your subsequent comment: "But punishment short of death can also accomplish this goal. Pace the objections raised by Scrat, we can, at least theoretically, devise a system of incarceration that minimizes the likelihood of a prisoner, condemned to life without parole, committing further crimes"...

...misstates the actuality also, in that ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY preventing the criminal from EVER committing a subsequent crime CANNOT be ensured via incarceration PERIOD -- and that includes incarceration so onerous and severe as to be inhumane.

Well, first of all, we're dealing with theoretical possibilities here. Furthermore, we're dealing with evolving standards of "cruel and unusual punishment." After all, remember that I'm arguing that death penalty proponents should favor more brutal and cruel methods of execution, which would necessarily entail the repeal of the Eighth Amendment. So "inhumane" forms of incarceration are largely irrelevant to the argument. And, as I mentioned before, if there is ever a question of which type of punishment is worse -- incarceration or death -- the proper response would be to let the prisoner decide which punishment to endure.

Your point, though, is that no method of incarceration can guarantee that a prisoner, convicted of a capital crime, won't commit another crime. I'll grant you that, but at what point are we entitled to insist upon that guarantee? Certainly, capital punishment would also end the criminal careers of habitual rapists, arsonists, check-forgers, burglars, and marijuana growers. Yet we don't extend capital punishment to these types of crimes, even though, in these instances, the permissible goals of incarceration/incapacitation are imperfectly met as well.

As I have mentioned before, capital punishment is unique: thus, it must serve its goals in a unique fashion. If incapacitation can be achieved in a manner short of execution, the state is obliged to choose that method. And if incapacitation is always imperfectly achieved, why are we entitled to insist upon perfect incapacitation in the case of capital crimes?

Anyone who argues that execution should serve the goal of incapacitation must provide additional justification (as I have explained in detail before) why capital punishment is needed. And if we accept imperfect incapacitation in non-capital cases, we need additional justification why perfect incapacitation is needed for capital cases.

Frank, you seem to assume that perfect incapacitation (through means of the death penalty) is justified for prisoners convicted of capital crimes. Yet that is, at this point, an unsupported assumption. Your task, then, is to explain why it's necessary to resort to capital punishment to achieve a level of incapacitation that we don't insist upon for any other crime.

1 Reply

Isn't the least cruel method of execution simply giving the accused enough rope to hang themselves?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I'll go get the popcorn if someone else will pop for the soft drinks . . .

There's a real comfy sofa here, anyone?

(hands Setanta a twenty)

I'll have a Verner's Ginger Ale, please...

(plops down)

What's the score?

0 Replies

The least cruel method of execution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know