Now the bastard has thirty to fifty years to stew in his own juices, alone 23 hours a day...until someone shanks him, anyway.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
From the book of Karnaj, chapter 3, verse 16:
Good.Now the bastard has thirty to fifty years to stew in his own juices, alone 23 hours a day...until someone shanks him, anyway.
I hope he gets a good taste of Oz before that happens, though.
He was clearly gunning for martyrdom via the death penalty in the courtroom and for a while I thought they'd give it to him.
In terms of assigning the most fitting possible punishment, life without chance of parole is probably the best possible thing they could have done. My faith in the justice system has increased somewhat.
edit:
quote:
"America, you lost," Moussaoui taunted, clapping his hands as he left the courtroom. "I won."
He was VERY obviously trying to goad them into killing him. I am very, very happy with this. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 05-04-2006 at 12:48 AM.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Maradon! said:
Holy shit, that's unbelievable. That's really the best thing that could have happened.He was clearly gunning for martyrdom via the death penalty in the courtroom and for a while I thought they'd give it to him.
In terms of assigning the most fitting possible punishment, life without chance of parole is probably the best possible thing they could have done. My faith in the justice system has increased somewhat.
edit:
He was VERY obviously trying to goad them into killing him. I am very, very happy with this.
QFT
I mean what practical purpose does he serve? I mean let's be blunt; he's NOT being rehabilitated. He's not being groomed to eventually re-enter the population. He can sit in his cell eating up taxpayer money while he files lawsuits, appeals, etc etc ad nauseum. And we're going to pay for it. Some may think it's a sign of just how badass we are that we'll pay this fucker to live in a hole, but not me.
I have never understood why some people are kept around. Charles Manson, Richard Reid, Terry Nichols. Why do we feel the need to keep these guys around?
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Doomie said this:
I wonder how long till he manages to find a way to off himself.
He's on 24/7 suicide watch, atm.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Doomie!
I wonder how long till he manages to find a way to off himself.
All he has to do is stick his tongue out and fall forward so his jaw hits the edge of his bed. He'll bite his tongue off and bleed to death fairly quickly.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'baeling:
I respectfully disagree. Moussaui is going to be watched on camera 24/7, not mix with other inmates, even on exercise, etc etc. There's not going to be any asspounding sodomania.
It's a little ridiculous to consider illegal assault in prison to be a part of the justice system anyways.
quote:
I still don't feel the need to pay for his existence.
The justice system isn't about efficiency any more than it's about rehabilitation. The justice system is about justice.
Killing this man would, from his perspective, be doing him a great service. The court decided that he deserves no such service in light of his actions, and I'm inclined to agree. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 05-05-2006 at 12:18 AM.
Besides, if you're so concerned about your taxes going to pay for the prison population, why don't you go jump on that illegal immigration issue.
50% of california's prison population is comprised of illegal aliens with some other boarder states being even worse.
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael wrote this stupid crap:
I mean what practical purpose does he serve?
What practical purpose does Rick Santorum serve? What about you? Me? The Pope? People have a right to life independent of the practicality of their existance.
quote:
Mod had this to say about dark elf butts:
What practical purpose does Rick Santorum serve? What about you? Me? The Pope? People have a right to life independent of the practicality of their existance.
Not if they're that degree of asshole. Charles Manson was involved with mass murder, Terry Nichols helped with the Oklahoma City bombing, Moussaui may be essentially seeking a "suicide by authority" variant, and we're falling for it. I have little sympathy for this sort of thing. If you go around murdering other people (something I can honestly say I have not done) then your worth is that of the component chemicals you are comprised of. And if people think that the appeals regarding a death penalty case is going to run up a bill, news flash, they're going to be running up a bill running appeals anyway.
As for the immigration thing, I don't think I've ever said that immigrants should be allowed in wholeheartedly. Come to think of it, save for a passing comment, I don't think I've ever said anything about immigration at all.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Nobody really understood why Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael wrote:
If you go around murdering other people (something I can honestly say I have not done) then your worth is that of the component chemicals you are comprised of.
Ok then, if you're so quick to divide people by categories of worth, let's leave the 'easy' absolutes. What's the relative worth of a Korean car thief to that of an elderly Australian government official known for taking bribes? Also name some people whose life is worth more than yours.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Mod absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
What practical purpose does Rick Santorum serve? What about you? Me? The Pope? People have a right to life independent of the practicality of their existance.
Maybe, but that right, like many others, can be lost as a result of one's choices.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Mod booooze lime pole over bench lick:
What practical purpose does Rick Santorum serve? What about you? Me? The Pope? People have a right to life independent of the practicality of their existance.
Hello false moral equivalency.
If you can't tell the difference between killing an innocent and executing a murderer for his crimes, you are truely morally bankrupt.
Death is the price that we place on the life of an innocent. If you take life, you pay that price. To remove that price would be to devalue life.
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabbits doth run and play while Maradon! gently hums:
Hello false moral equivalency.If you can't tell the difference between killing an innocent and executing a murderer for his crimes, you are truely morally bankrupt.
Death is the price that we place on the life of an innocent. If you take life, you pay that price. To remove that price would be to devalue life.
To be fair to Mod, though, that's not his argument. He's saying that executing someone based on their value as a human being isn't right.
I have to say I agree.
On the other hand, I have no problem executing someone on the basis of their actions, if those actions are sufficiently grave. It has nothing to do with the value of human life.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Demos fucked around with this message on 05-05-2006 at 12:55 PM.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Bloodsage who doth quote:
On the other hand, I have no problem executing someone on the basis of their actions, if those actions are sufficiently grave. It has nothing to do with the value of human life.
That human life has value is the reason those actions are sufficiently grave in the first place.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Death is the price that we place on the life of an innocent. If you take life, you pay that price. To remove that price would be to devalue life.
So then why are you supportive of a life sentence for Moussaoui? Simply because he might get turned into a martyr? Seems like a violation of the moral code you seem to be advocating here.
quote:
Maradon scribbled this on the back of a napkin:
To remove that price [the death penalty] would be to devalue life.
I still find it contradictory that not killing someone could be considered devaluing of life. While I can see killing someone to stop them from in the act, like in a situation of war, its not like a prisoner for life is going to kill more innocents.
quote:
Quoth Maradon!:
That human life has value is the reason those actions are sufficiently grave in the first place.
No, not really. He's not being executed because of his value as a human being, whatever that may or may not be, but as punishment for his actions, by which he forfeited his right to continue living. It's an important distinction.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
And coming in at #1 is Bloodsage with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
No, not really. He's not being executed because of his value as a human being, whatever that may or may not be, but as punishment for his actions, by which he forfeited his right to continue living. It's an important distinction.
Since it's my own thread, I feel like hijacking it; I still don't get the idea of punishment by death. Once the punishment has been administered, the punished no longer exists to be aware that he was punished in the first place. The punishment and the punished are mutually exclusive by definition; to butcher a quote by a Greek philosopher whose name I forget at the moment, when the punishment exists (that is to say, when it is carried out), the person cannot. So long as the person exists, the punishment cannot. Can it not be said that death as punishment is pointless, because it's impossible for the punished to even realize that he's been punished this way?
And finally, can it also not be said that punish looks really strange when you see it a dozen times in a paragraph? Punish. Punish.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Can it not be said that death as punishment is pointless, because it's impossible for the punished to even realize that he's been punished this way?
Not by those who think they're sending people to Hell.
quote:
Demos still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
Not by those who think they're sending people to Hell.
Right, which is why I have maintained and still maintain the assertion that support for the death penalty as punishment presupposes an afterlife of some sort.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Quoth Karnaj:
Right, which is why I have maintained and still maintain the assertion that support for the death penalty as punishment presupposes an afterlife of some sort.
Not at all.
Your definition of punishment errs in assuming punishment is for the benefit of the person being punished, some sort of therapeutic tool, as it were. Some punishments are that way, but it's by no means a requirement.
What does the awareness of the person being punished have to do with anything? The goal at this level isn't rehabilitation so much as--dare I say it?--retribution. But other than the clever play on words, that's not really the point, either. Certain conduct forfeits certain rights. Ultimate bad conduct forfeits the most basic right: that to life.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
And frankly, the idea that the punishment has to be some ongoing thing assumes an excluding definition of "punishment" that inherently leaves death and the death penalty off the table to begin with. It's a cyclical argument. "Punishment doesn't include the death penalty because the death penalty by definition can't be a punishment without the punished existing to suffer it" is a self-reinforcing cylical argument. It's not like a term of incarcertation. It's carried out, and when complete it AND the convict, are finished. Over. Done with. We killed him. Can't keep killing him. Can't kill him again.
And that is the weight of the punishment; not that the punished gets to contemplate the punishment after it's been carried out, not that the person gets to suffer the torture of knowing more is coming, but rather that the punishment is The End. Even if you're the most devoutly religious person in the world, there has to date been absolutely no confirmed cases of someone rendered unto death coming back and screwing with the living. Your tampering with this world is done with. You go from, more word play, being hanged to being hung, meatbag.
So I can legitimize the death penalty quite easily.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
And coming in at #1 is Bloodsage with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
Not at all.Your definition of punishment errs in assuming punishment is for the benefit of the person being punished, some sort of therapeutic tool, as it were. Some punishments are that way, but it's by no means a requirement.
What does the awareness of the person being punished have to do with anything? The goal at this level isn't rehabilitation so much as--dare I say it?--retribution. But other than the clever play on words, that's not really the point, either. Certain conduct forfeits certain rights. Ultimate bad conduct forfeits the most basic right: that to life.
If I might mince words like the word-mincing faggot I aspire to be, firstly, I work with only the barest definition of the word: a punishment is a transitive act performed in response to or as a conseqeunce of an individual's "bad" actions, for want of a better term. Someone may not intransitively punish; he must punish someone.
Now if I might set aside death as punishment for a moment, I present this: when considering the relationship between the punisher and the punishee and the criteria of punishment, three things seem to be necessary. No matter what the type of punishment that is inflicted, the punisher is aware that he is punishing, and the punishee is aware that he is being punished. Finally, I also yield that there are and must always be objective evidences of the punishment, so that we don't get mired down in some sort of Descartesian nightmare("I think, therefore fuck you!" and so on).
Upon these three criteria all punishment may, I assert, be judged. If one fails, then there cannot be punishment.
Consider: if the punisher cannot perceive the punishment, then the legitimacy of the objective evidence of punishment is called into question, as is the punishee's perception of the punishment. We cannot be sure if action administered to the punishee was, in fact, a punishment.
Secondly, if there is no objective evidence of punishment, despite the punisher and punishee's claims to the contrary, then there can have been no punishment. For all punishment there must exist some sort of objective, measureable action taken. No collective solipsism for us, Winston (+10 awesome points for getting that reference, everyone!).
Finally, if the punishee cannot perceive that punishment was administered, then it cannot be punishment. The punisher may have performed an action that he considers punishment, and there may be objective evidence of this action, but if the punishee cannot determine that this action took place for whatever reason, then it cannot be punishment.
Recall that I defined punishment as a transitive act. There must be a punisher and a punishee, and, of course, a punishment. If one or none is present and/or defined as such, then the objective action taken cannot be punishment. As far as I can tell, this definition is self-consistent and doesn't raise any horrid practical problems or make any unreasonable leaps.
We then now move to death as punishment. As I asserted before, the punishee cannot know that this particular punishment occurs. He may know that it will occur very shortly, but again, the moment it does occur, he ceases to exist. Because of this, I assert that death must fail as punishment, because there is no punishee to receive the punishment. When the punishment exists, the punishee ceases--in effect, he cannot be the object of punishment, because they mutally exclude each other. With every other practical example of punishment I can imagine, this does not occur, and it is for this reason that I claim that death is not a punishment, but rather something else--retribution, if you like. It is done without regard for the condition of the obect (that is, prisoner); it is only done to the object.
Even when I put myself in the position of the soon-to-be-executed, I cannot describe my death as punishment, because I know I won't exist to think of it as such. I could, perhaps, conceive of the time leading up to my execution as punishment, because it meets the criteria for punishment in toto. My actual death, however, is simply my death. It marks the cessation of me, and nothing more.
And, at last, this is also why I assert the presuppositon of an afterlife for death to work as punishment, because although death would occur, the punishee would still be aware; the punishee and the punishment are no longer mutually exclusive.
...my head hurts. I need a shot of tequila. 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Why do you think it's necessary that the person being punished realize he's being punished? That is the question at hand, not how adroitly we can each construct self-serving definitions. One must note that murder, too, is a transitive act, and never intransitive. . .and you can see the absurdity that creates if one follows your logical framework.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Perhaps I should clarify. The value isn't on the idea of something living. A frog in a research lab is alive but I wouldn't exactly halt medical research to save a toad or a monkey or whatever. The value is on a person's worth to society. If he proves himself of no value to society (there's no indication that the threat of life imprisonment is any more effective a deterrent to criminal activity than the death penalty is), and there is no hope of him ever being released, then he has no societal value. At that point, maintaining said individual is akin, frankly, to zoo maintenance. You're keeping a biological engine alive for no purpose other than someone watching it. The difference is that there's something exotic to the animals in the zoo, while maintaining a prisoner with no chance of ever being released is in theory supposed to be a punishment.
Right, then name some people whose worth to society is greater than yours and whom you would thus accept the state forcibly killing you in order to save. The idea of measuring someone by their 'worth to society' sounds incredibly totalitarian to me.
quote:
Mod said this about your mom:
Right, then name some people whose worth to society is greater than yours and whom you would thus accept the state forcibly killing you in order to save. The idea of measuring someone by their 'worth to society' sounds incredibly totalitarian to me.
I agree with you here. You definitely cannot have a democracy where you have to prove your worth to live.
I think what Ja'Deth might have been trying to get at is the same idea that Bloodsage has: you have the inherent right to live, but under the law, once you take another's life, you forfeit that right.
It's *sort* of like proving your worth to society, except in reverse? I'm not too sure and I'm not agreeing with him. I've been contemplating the issue of capital punishment for some time now and I haven't reached much of a conclusion yet.
"No person executed for murder ever committed another one."
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Mightion Defensor said this:
Lewis Grizzard said it best:"No person executed for murder ever committed another one."
The question being do executions prevent other people from murdering?
quote:
Bloodsage got served! Bloodsage got served!
Why do you think it's necessary that the person being punished realize he's being punished?
Because, quite simply, and again, as far as I can tell, every other act of punishment we term as such demands it, or it occurs because the punishee realizes it of his own accord. I can think of no other counter-example to this, and certainly no broad subset of punishments to prove me wrong. Every other punishment, at minimum, allows the punishee to realize that he's being punished. What occurs from there is incidental and varies.
Death, on the other hand, cannot allow this. Neither would a severe lobotomy, I suppose, if such things were done, but one might consider that the equivalent of brain death, depending upon its severity. At any rate, I am forced to ask: why do we consider death a punishment when it differs from every other punishment in this aspect of perception? My explanation here and in my previous post demonstrates why I assert it to not be a punishment. Is there a flaw in my reasoning? Have I made a leap in logic that is, in practicality, unworkable or flat-out false?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Injuries, for example, run the gamut from minor to fatal, yet no one insists that one realize one's injury for it to exist. So there's obviously no logical tie between a recipient being conscious of something and the fact that it exists. Why does it have to be true for punishment?
What requires that punishment be recognized as such after the fact by its recipient in order to remain punishment? Also, one could argue that the anticipation, the knowing in advance that one's actions will lead to one's death, qualifies under your definition anyway.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about (_|_):
The question being do executions prevent other people from murdering?
Statistics say no.
quote:
Aw, geez, I have Bloodsage all over myself!
The only flaw in your reasoning is adding an irrelevant criterion to the definition of punishment.Injuries, for example, run the gamut from minor to fatal, yet no one insists that one realize one's injury for it to exist. So there's obviously no logical tie between a recipient being conscious of something and the fact that it exists. Why does it have to be true for punishment?
Because punishment is invariably and necessarily done in response to an action. Your example of injury doesn't hold because one need do nothing to get injured. One must do something to be punished. It doesn't matter if that action is conscious or unconscious; punishment is a consequence of the punishee's action. Assuming he is self-aware and not violently insane or severely retarded, he knows that he is being punished, and why. Furthermore, for the vegetables and the violently insane or re-re's, they are not punished, but rather removed from society. This would suggest to me that we tend not to punish unless the person is aware that we're doing it.
quote:
What requires that punishment be recognized as such after the fact by its recipient in order to remain punishment? Also, one could argue that the anticipation, the knowing in advance that one's actions will lead to one's death, qualifies under your definition anyway.
I freely admitted this above, that is, that the anticipation leading up to the actual death can be called punishment. Also, I would say the fact that every other punishment fulfills the abovementioned requirement that it be recognized by all parties as such. Death is, again, the counter-example to this. Why, if death is unique from every other punishment, do we still call it punishment? If there was a single example of punishment which was similar to death in its criteria, I would yield readily.
But, to really answer the question, I point out that we administer punishment so that it may be recognized as such by everyone, including the punishee. When you kill the punishee, he ceases to be able to recognize it. He recognized that he was going to be punished, but he cannot recognize that he was punished, or ruminate about it ex post facto. He never knows that he was punished. Up until the instant of his death, he was not punished. The instant of his death, he could no longer be punished or recognize the punishment. And afterwards, well, he's just worm food.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
You're dancing around the question I've asked several times: why is it necessary that the punishee recognize, after the fact, that he's been punished? That begs the question whether punishment is necessarily rehabilitative.
You know damned well that, "It has to be that way because all the other types of punishment have that aspect," isn't logical. You have to show why that particular aspect is essential to the character of the class of actions called "punishment."
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Mod stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Right, then name some people whose worth to society is greater than yours and whom you would thus accept the state forcibly killing you in order to save. The idea of measuring someone by their 'worth to society' sounds incredibly totalitarian to me.
Anyone is worth more than me if I were a cold-blooded killer or knowingly associated with cold-blooded killers, much less mastermind a serial-killing plot like Charles Manson.
If I've been convicted of a crime and sentenced to something where I'm essentially in a tiny hole by myself with no hope of ever getting out, I'm pretty sure I'm not worth more than any average citizen. That's part of the reason I'm off the street. The point of rehabilitative incarceration is to make me a worthwhile functional member of society. If I'm in non-rehabilitative incarceration, then my stock value is about as low as it gets.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
