MacInsiders Logo

Capital Punishment

 
Old 09-11-2009 at 06:53 AM   #136
lawleypop
I am Prince Vegeta.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,770

Thanked: 224 Times
Liked: 1,373 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by sew12 View Post
For me the bare minimum would mean space enough for a cot and a toilet with an aisle in between. I'd have to look into the prison work system further to see if working would be necessary but the more hard labour the better, they shouldn't get paid for the work though, consider it community service. Water of course is a necessity for life so they should be able to have as much water was they need to sustain life. No books and no other forms of entertainment or education, not a thing, if they wanted to read books they should have stayed out in society where they have libraries and book stores. Quality of food, bare minimum to sustain life, nothing tasty or good, just whatever they need to live off of. I'm not calling for bad conditions, just absolute bare minimum for them to be able to stay alive, not live comfortably or get special treats.
Milk and potatoes is all you need to survive.

Plus, they get to work out so it's not like the amount of starch (I think) is gonna make them unhealthy or anything. God forbid. 8-)
__________________

Mathematically it makes about as much sense as
(pineapple)$$*cucumbe r*.

Old 09-11-2009 at 09:08 AM   #137
Taunton
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,592

Thanked: 219 Times
Liked: 598 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by lawleypop View Post
Milk and potatoes is all you need to survive.

Plus, they get to work out so it's not like the amount of starch (I think) is gonna make them unhealthy or anything. God forbid. 8-)
Haha, when I was little my parents would tell me that in jail you only get toast and water.

Either way, they certainly don't need anything delicious. I would like to see them fed gruel personally.
__________________
Ben Taunton
Life Science IV
McMaster University
Old 09-11-2009 at 07:39 PM   #138
dukeb
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 32

Thanked: 0 Times
Liked: 7 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Marlowe View Post
I said borderline conspiracy theory. Its not like you're one of those "omg9/11wasaninsidejobObama isaMuslimtheyputFluor ideinthewatertocontro lus" people. I mean, yeah Corporations have scary amounts of influence over the Government, and there isn't much doubt that what they prefer is to get money directly through subsidies and grants that could be spent in better ways (or not even collected in the first place). But you say it like you think that the corporations benefit from or are indifferent to the poor. One of the only reasons that Walmart was able to offer the low low wages it did was because the people who worked there were all also able to qualify for Welfare. And anybody can tell you that people being able to afford your product is generally good for business.
Hmm, I mentioned how the government (and I'm talking about the US, I don't read that much about Canada) sends a huge proportion of people in slums to prison instead of spending money on social policies that would bring those people out of slums. But, the distinction I should have made is that government policy (in the US) has spent money on direct military subsidies for things like B-52 bombers and stealth bombers instead of spending on social welfare. That military spending occasionally has the effect of producing technology like computers (early silicon chip research was 100% US govt funded), but that isn't necessary for military spending to be beneficial to the wealthy sector. Chomsky covers it with fair footnotes in Understanding Power (footnotes here - relevant footnotes start around #9). So the lack of spending on social welfare along with laws that are very class biased against the poor (for example marijuana is illegal, while tobacco and alcohol are not -- marijuana is a weed and anyone can grow it; tobacco and alcohol are huge industries) led to the increased imprisonment. And before someone starts arguing, don't say 'oh I see no reason why poor people can't just stop doing crime' because you are not omnipotent. Data clearly suggests that it is the existence of slums that is causing the crime. It doesn't matter how many reasons you can think of why people in the slums are just immoral, or how many I can think of to "counter" you.

By the way I was thinking about this whole capital punishment thing and it occurred to me that the reason it has been abolished in so many developed countries might be that people see the death penalty as being inherently bad. Perhaps it doesn't matter if a person killed another person during an armed robbery at some point in their life: the view might be that we should still provide humane conditions for them (compassion and all that), even in jail. They are still human after all.
Old 09-12-2009 at 09:28 AM   #139
sew12
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,851

Thanked: 228 Times
Liked: 473 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by snaps View Post
It's not like we are all gonna make a difference, but its fun to argue...




Personally, I think that we should consider the greater good and not the right answer. And by that I mean this.

personally i would not mind having couple innocent people getting killed for these reasons. I would sleep better at night knowing that there isn't anyone that would murder my daughter because the convict only got a 25 year sentence. (Rehabilitation does not work. Just like a drug addict can never get rid of his addiction.) So why not house them in jail for the rest of their lives? Because I do not like paying for taxes when I know that part of that money is going to the person that killed my daughter.

Either way, someone is not gonna be happy. The innocent people wrongfully convicted or the innocent people getting killed by convicts. At least with capital punishment the people that are getting killed had something to do with the murder otherwise they would not get convicted. (And I am talking about present day, because there are cases in the past when some people got convicted on circumstantial evidence)


Democracy is all about making as many people happy as possible. Fortunately for me, convicts are a minority.



-snaps
I don't see how this is the right answer, killing innocent people can never be right.

You seem pretty nonchalant about "a few" innocent people being killed for the so called greater good. How many is a few? Is it okay to just kill like 10 what about 100?

Also you may not mind but I'm sure the families of innocent, wrongfully convicted people who get killed would mind. In the same way I'm sure you'd change your tune if you were wrongfully convicted or if someone in your family or circle of friends was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.

Democracy may be about making the majority happy but if you have to kill innocent people to may people happy I think you need to get back to the drawing board.
__________________
-Stefanie Walsh-
4th Year Multimedia 2010-2011
Old 09-13-2009 at 04:34 PM   #140
Taunton
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,592

Thanked: 219 Times
Liked: 598 Times




Something people might be interested in:





__________________
Ben Taunton
Life Science IV
McMaster University
Old 09-15-2009 at 10:01 PM   #141
Marlowe
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,621

Thanked: 196 Times
Liked: 422 Times




While Penn and Teller are occasionally entertaining, they take confirmation bias to an art form. =/

I will agree with at least one of their points though- if Google was the one running executions there would be much less wrongful executions. (Although giving the power of life and death over to a private corporation, no matter how amazing of one is kindof a scary thought).

Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeb View Post
Hmm, I mentioned how the government (and I'm talking about the US, I don't read that much about Canada) sends a huge proportion of people in slums to prison instead of spending money on social policies that would bring those people out of slums. But, the distinction I should have made is that government policy (in the US) has spent money on direct military subsidies for things like B-52 bombers and stealth bombers instead of spending on social welfare. That military spending occasionally has the effect of producing technology like computers (early silicon chip research was 100% US govt funded), but that isn't necessary for military spending to be beneficial to the wealthy sector. Chomsky covers it with fair footnotes in Understanding Power (footnotes here - relevant footnotes start around #9). So the lack of spending on social welfare along with laws that are very class biased against the poor (for example marijuana is illegal, while tobacco and alcohol are not -- marijuana is a weed and anyone can grow it; tobacco and alcohol are huge industries) led to the increased imprisonment. And before someone starts arguing, don't say 'oh I see no reason why poor people can't just stop doing crime' because you are not omnipotent. Data clearly suggests that it is the existence of slums that is causing the crime. It doesn't matter how many reasons you can think of why people in the slums are just immoral, or how many I can think of to "counter" you.
On Military Spending: The wealthy only benefit from increased military spending if they are heavily invested in companies that manufacture weapons. (Which I'm sure quite a few of them are) Keep in mind that they benefit just as much when the government increases spending in a different area, if they are heavily invested in that area. (ie. Telecommunications)

The other benefit they get is protection against foreign threats, but that is shared equally by all citizens. Military spending is a necesity for this reason (although obviously current military operations have migrated quite far from the defence principle).

On laws and class bias: While I would agree that Marijuana should be legal, you can't just attribute its illegality to an inherent class bias in the law system. There are so many complex factors involved with which drugs are illegal and which are legal. I would point out though that any one with some basic materials can make their own alcohol as well, and that illegal drug sales are a huge business as well (that also put pressure on the government to change laws to better suit them). That really isn't a good example of class bias in the law system.

In that Penn and Teller video one of the people they interviewed made a very good point- murder is committed for three reasons: Profit, Passion, Compulsion. Since compulsion is something that seems to affect all demographics equally (based on serial killer demographics), that one can't be linked to the poor. I guess you could make the argument that crimes of passion more likely to be committed by people who live harder lives, and the argument that people with less money are more likely to kill for profit reasons.

On logic: Openly discouraging responses is a terrible way to have a rational debate. Its not a question of omnipotence, nor of poor people being immoral. You may have data that suggests that crimes are more often committed in poorer areas, but I would really like to see if that data counts things like muggings and car jackings that, while still hugely illegal and immoral, are not things people are suggesting the death penalty for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeb View Post
By the way I was thinking about this whole capital punishment thing and it occurred to me that the reason it has been abolished in so many developed countries might be that people see the death penalty as being inherently bad. Perhaps it doesn't matter if a person killed another person during an armed robbery at some point in their life: the view might be that we should still provide humane conditions for them (compassion and all that), even in jail. They are still human after all.
There is a huge difference between what people in a country think, and what that county does. Most American citizens are against the war in Iraq, yet the US is still there. Most Utah citizens are against gay marriage, but it is (rightly) legal there. I once heard a quote from a member of the US House of Representatives that said roughly "If you were to have an anonymous vote on drug laws today, we wouldn't have drug laws tomorrow". It is often a matter of politicians doing things because they don't want to be seen in a negative light by special interest groups. Criminal's Rights is a huge special interest group.

lawleypop likes this.
Old 09-16-2009 at 08:06 AM   #142
Taunton
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,592

Thanked: 219 Times
Liked: 598 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Marlowe View Post
While Penn and Teller are occasionally entertaining, they take confirmation bias to an art form. =/
While they may be inherently biased (as all forms of media are), they tend to have strong rational arguments, which leads me to believe that their show "Penn & Teller: Bullshit" is a reasonable addition to this debate on Capital Punishment. Simply discarding or ignoring them because of "bias" isn't the way to go. It doesn't matter where you look (especially on topics like these) people and media are always biased.
__________________
Ben Taunton
Life Science IV
McMaster University
Old 09-16-2009 at 02:56 PM   #143
Marlowe
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,621

Thanked: 196 Times
Liked: 422 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton View Post
While they may be inherently biased (as all forms of media are), they tend to have strong rational arguments, which leads me to believe that their show "Penn & Teller: Bullshit" is a reasonable addition to this debate on Capital Punishment. Simply discarding or ignoring them because of "bias" isn't the way to go. It doesn't matter where you look (especially on topics like these) people and media are always biased.
I actually agree with them on most issues, but they go way beyond just some inescapable media bias. They tend to have strong rational reasons for believing what they believe, but they fill the show with sensationalism and ad hominem attacks instead of using those reasons. (Which is the reason that it is entertaining. If they just calmly discussed the issues people probably wouldn't watch).

They did make some very good points in that video against the death penalty, I'm not trying to ignore that. But they spent most of the time swearing instead of elaborating on them...
Old 09-18-2009 at 03:01 PM   #144
JeffB
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 172

Thanked: 24 Times
Liked: 26 Times




Although this is what I would like to see some more of, which is life in prison means life in prison.
Does sentencing a person to spend the rest of their life in prison technically give them a death sentence. Just with no predetermined time and method of death, you are still killing them indirectly. However it just takes longer and will cost the tax payers considerably more to jail a person for who knows how long. Say you are going to spend the next 45 years in jail. The national average for cost to house a prisoner is $143.03 a day. Removing inflation it will cost 2.35 million to house him for that long.
I make no judgments on the matter because I feel there is no true way to end crime whether it be through rehabilitation, imprisonment or capital punishment. Perhaps the methods should be used in combination or some form of combination. Not to say that a robber should be lethally injected. But if there is a true belief from health officials that you have been rehabilitated then you could be released but if not then you move onto the imprisonment end of the scale, where you have lots of time to think about what you did and be like well that was really stupid, and hope that you get a Morgan Freeman narration of your life in prison.

Its an argument that will never be settled because there are just too many what if's with way to serious of consequences.
Old 09-18-2009 at 03:43 PM   #145
Taunton
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,592

Thanked: 219 Times
Liked: 598 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffB View Post

Its an argument that will never be settled because there are just too many what if's with way to serious of consequences.
It would be settled if everyone valued human life and the moral high ground.
__________________
Ben Taunton
Life Science IV
McMaster University
Old 09-18-2009 at 03:58 PM   #146
JeffB
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 172

Thanked: 24 Times
Liked: 26 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton View Post
It would be settled if everyone valued human life and the moral high ground.
I agree with you but at the same time I know that it is being impractically idealistic. The question you also have to ask, who's life should we value. Yes everyone should value everyone elses life, and if that happened their would be no crime. But sadly we know that someone is bound to commit murder, so who's life do we value, the life of the person who commited a crime and save their life/release them back into the public and hope they do better next time or value the life of the person who did nothing wrong and keep the person in jail for life or a long time. One system values the victims and the other the offender. And this debate has already proven their is no clear moral high ground. Each has an element of a high ground but also a low ground. It comes down to which one do you prefer and sadly society is not going to agree on the same one.
Old 09-18-2009 at 06:47 PM   #147
Marlowe
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,621

Thanked: 196 Times
Liked: 422 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton View Post
It would be settled if everyone valued human life and the moral high ground.
Ouch. .
Old 09-19-2009 at 03:58 PM   #148
sew12
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,851

Thanked: 228 Times
Liked: 473 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton View Post
It would be settled if everyone valued human life and the moral high ground.
This is true b/c if everyone valued human life and the moral high ground there wouldn't be any rapes, murders etc.
__________________
-Stefanie Walsh-
4th Year Multimedia 2010-2011



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



McMaster University News and Information, Student-run Community, with topics ranging from Student Life, Advice, News, Events, and General Help.
Notice: The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the student(s) who authored the content. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by McMaster University or the MSU (McMaster Students Union). Being a student-run community, all articles and discussion posts on MacInsiders are unofficial and it is therefore always recommended that you visit the official McMaster website for the most accurate up-to-date information.

Copyright © MacInsiders.com All Rights Reserved. No content can be re-used or re-published without permission. MacInsiders is a service of Fullerton Media Inc. | Created by Chad
Originally Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved. | Privacy | Terms