If You Hate Big Government, You Should Oppose the Death Penalty

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I'm confused.

First, "effective" to what ends?  We are discussing execution not interrogation (for which, btw, it's not effective.) 

Are you suggesting torture is an appropriate legal sanction to add to incarceration and execution?

 

I'm against sanctioned torture like waterboarding terrorist, etc.... if that's what you're asking.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

6 hours ago, AU64 said:

We have granted the government the power to draft you into the military and send you off to get killed in some foreign war.   The fact that it costs a lot to carry out the death penalty in the US is not  the fault of the death penalty.  In China it is reported they carry out the death penalty and send the family an invoice for the cost of the bullet they use in the execution.     It's not big government that makes it expensive.....it is our willingness to go to great lengths to get it right. or to avoid getting it right   JMO.

But nonetheless, from a purely practical standpoint (and don't conservatives see themselves as practical people, as opposed to the 'blind idealism' of liberals), we are choosing to spend three times as much taxpayer money when a viable alternative exists that protects the public and administers justice while also allowing for that other thing conservatives pride themselves on:  an understanding that human beings are fallen and fallible.  Thus if we do make a mistake, we can correct it.

This just seems tailor made for conservatives to support:  saving money, not giving government any power that isn't absolutely and unavoidably necessary, and pragmatism.  Yet for some reason, conservatives tend to toss their conservatism aside on this issue.  I'm trying as hard as I can to come up with another situation where conservatives would be championing a government action that costs 3x more, grants any power to government that isn't absolutely necessary, and that prevents any correction of mistakes and I can't seem to do it.

[AU64 10,122]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

 This just seems tailor made for conservatives to support:  saving money, not giving government any power that isn't absolutely and unavoidably necessary, and pragmatism.  Yet for some reason, conservatives tend to toss their conservatism aside on this issue.

Not sure there is a complete definition of conservativism that everyone would agree with as to how you look at things like that.  

For example from a practical standpoint,  if the government wants to save a lot of money,  give free abortions on demand     Such a policy would likely reduce the number of unwanted babies who end up being wards of the state....or we might consider easing laws about euthanasia for the old or terminal to reduce huge "end of life" medical care costs in hopeless cases.    There are probably lots of instances where the government does things the hard and expensive way.  

 I was involved in a little nothing lawsuit over a minor zoning change that took nearly two years and a trip the State court of Appeals because a deep pocketed individual decided to fight the town over the change.  He had more money than the town and eventually backed everyone down by repeated appeals and continuances.   The law is what it is....and how it's interpreted and getting someone executed today is far different from the days of the old west where the hanging sometimes took place within a few days  or weeks after the trial verdict. 

As we have discussed above and as NoAl has elaborated on, the death penalty is not the cause of big government nor vice versa..  The moral objection is probably stronger....JMO. 

[TitanTiger 20,479]

22 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Not sure there is a complete definition of conservativism that everyone would agree with as to how you look at things like that.  

For example from a practical standpoint,  if the government wants to save a lot of money,  give free abortions on demand     Such a policy would likely reduce the number of unwanted babies who end up being wards of the state....or we might consider easing laws about euthanasia for the old or terminal to reduce huge "end of life" medical care costs in hopeless cases.    There are probably lots of instances where the government does things the hard and expensive way.

So you think the killing of innocent people to save money is on the same level as this?

I wasn't making a purely utilitarian argument.  You could only rebut in that manner if you isolate the money saving aspect of what I said and ignore all the rest.  

 

22 minutes ago, AU64 said:

 I was involved in a little nothing lawsuit over a minor zoning change that took nearly two years and a trip the State court of Appeals because a deep pocketed individual decided to fight the town over the change.  He had more money than the town and eventually backed everyone down by repeated appeals and continuances.   The law is what it is....and how it's interpreted and getting someone executed today is far different from the days of the old west where the hanging sometimes took place within a few days  or weeks after the trial verdict. 

As we have discussed above and as NoAl has elaborated on, the death penalty is not the cause of big government nor vice versa..  The moral objection is probably stronger....JMO. 

I wouldn't say the death penalty is a "cause" of big government either.  But it is an example of it.  Because almost all big government comes from what someone thinks is a good or righteous aim that gets elevated or pursued in such a single-minded manner that we lose sight of the bigger picture.  The small picture says "We must have blood for blood.  We must avenge," then pursues that end - damn the costs.  The bigger picture that remembers smaller government when possible is the goal says, "If there's a way to punish wrong, protect the public, recompense the wronged, and save money, let's pursue that."  

Obviously with a murder, you can't recompense the loved ones of the victim.  But then, killing the murderer doesn't do that either.  So you still look at the most cost effective means that will do the job.

All that said though, I think the arguments all go together.  I wouldn't isolate the money saving (utilitarian) argument, from the "limited government" argument, from the moral.  I think the author only pointed the former two out because it's a couple of glaring examples of conservatives contradicting many of the arguments they normally make on fiscal and government power matters.

[AU64 10,122]

44 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 I think the author only pointed the former two out because it's a couple of glaring examples of conservatives contradicting many of the arguments they normally make on fiscal and government power matters.

Again.....all "conservatives" don't define themselves the same way....so stating that this or that viewpoint is "conservative"....or not conservative?     Just don't think you can classify people that clearly.     Lots of noted conservative "thinkers" who write and publish...don't agree on many of what might be called conservative principles.

And conservatives are not necessarily practical if being practical interferes with other things they value.....like getting re-elected... ?

[TitanTiger 20,479]

12 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Again.....all "conservatives" don't define themselves the same way....so stating that this or that viewpoint is "conservative"....or not conservative?     Just don't think you can classify people that clearly.     Lots of noted conservative "thinkers" who write and publish...don't agree on many of what might be called conservative principles.

If they don't define themselves that way, it's because they simply aren't conservative on such matters but haven't yet admitted it to themselves.

But among the tenets of conservatism are being fiscally conservative - having a starting place of not wasting taxpayer money when less costly options that can accomplish the same goal are available, and limited government - that we only want to grant government those powers which are absolutely necessary or that cannot be wielded effectively by any other entity.  That's Conservatism 101.

 

12 minutes ago, AU64 said:

And conservatives are not necessarily practical if being practical interferes with other things they value.....like getting re-elected... ?

True.

[AU64 10,122]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

If they don't define themselves that way, it's because they simply aren't conservative on such matters but haven't yet admitted it to themselves.

But among the tenets of conservatism are being fiscally conservative - having a starting place of not wasting taxpayer money when less costly options that can accomplish the same goal are available, and limited government

You seem to have a clear vision of what is conservative believes...or should believe.   I'm curious as to who you see in public life who meets all of the various requirements that you see as necessary to qualify.   Just my observation but there are not many, if any, absolutists who practice...:"my way or the highway" who are actually able to get much done in life. 

[TitanTiger 20,479]

Just now, AU64 said:

You seem to have a clear vision of what is conservative believes...or should believe.  

It's not really that hard to understand.  It's not like I'm just pulling this stuff out of thin air.

 

Just now, AU64 said:

I'm curious as to who you see in public life who meets all of the various requirements that you see as necessary to qualify.   Just my observation but there are not many, if any, absolutists who practice...:"my way or the highway" who are actually able to get much done in life. 

Many don't.  That doesn't mean the definition isn't valid though.  It just means that people who use the label "conservative" often contradict themselves.  They make exceptions on certain things and are actually rather liberal in that regard.  They just haven't admitted it to themselves yet.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

So you still look at the most cost effective means that will do the job.

 

The most cost effective means that will do “what” job?

[AU64 10,122]

9 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not really that hard to understand.  It's not like I'm just pulling this stuff out of thin air.

 

Many don't.  That doesn't mean the definition isn't valid though.  It just means that people who use the label "conservative" often contradict themselves.  They make exceptions on certain things and are actually rather liberal in that regard.  They just haven't admitted it to themselves yet.

Definition of what?    there must be a hundred social, economic issues that have to be decided in the public  arena…...and so who is going to make the determination that someone's position is "conservative" and what makes that person the oracle?  and what does it even matter. And in fact it does sound like you are pulling it out of thin air and making your own determination of what is "conservative" but with no criteria as to what makes it conservative......and apparently ignoring the possibility that many social or political opinions are neither conservative or liberal.    For example, you express the view that conservatives are interested in practical solutions....but some of the most apparently conservative people I hear from are not practical at all.....and hold views that are totally impractical in the real world and not likely to have any serious backing from the public at large...so what good is that conservative viewpoint or principle if it is only a theory?   

This discussion on who is conservative enough sounds like the foolish discussions we have heard about some Republicans who are not black enough because they don't espouse the views of those who consider themselves to be truly black.....or something to that effect.  

JMO but that's a stupid discussion and trying to decide whether a person is conservative makes no more sense to me. …..Sorry but I just can't see the point of you or anyone trying to decide whether I or anyone else chatting here is a "conservative".....    

It's been interesting but this is going nowhere...since how someone is labeled by another person does not really mean anything. 

[TitanTiger 20,479]

So words don't mean anything and as long as someone *feels* conservative, regardless of their views, they are.  Got it.

Who knew the trans thing had made its way into politics?

[TitanTiger 20,479]

42 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The most cost effective means that will do “what” job?

Administering punishment, protecting the public, and avoiding unfixable mistakes.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Administering punishment, protecting the public, and avoiding unfixable mistakes.

Hmmm

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

23 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Administering punishment, protecting the public, and avoiding unfixable mistakes.

So here's my thing about cost and why it's an ill-founded assertion as a means (or even a primary mean, among others) to oppose the death penalty or to oppose the position of a "small government advocate who doesn't oppose capital punishment", notwithstanding it's irrefutable Constitutionality in some instances and long-standing place in society.

Cost appears important because individual legislators have referenced it in addressing whether or not to support the death penalty. Undoubtedly, there is intuitive appeal in maintaining that capital punishment consumes a substantial amount of taxpayers' money and therefore it is somewhat understandable for Americans to advocate abolishment on this central basis (or as alluded to - even a mere primary basis, among others). In my view, that the death penalty is more costly than life with or without parole should not be advanced as an argument to counter utilization of capital punishment. No matter how financially favorable an alternative option may be, one would reasonably hope that other, substantive factors would be of more value to the decisionmakers and their constituents of this nation, especially if one considers that death is potentially involved. For life to hang in the balance and be weighed against dollars seems quite inappropriate for a civilized, modern society such as the one we live in. The burden capital punishment imposes on the pockets of taxpayers is logically trivial in comparison to the burden the punishment should place on the lives of those affected and on the collective conscience of Americans that disfavor the practice. And, even if capital punishment were a relatively inexpensive practice, one would also hope that the costs to the dignity of man and the institution of justice would far outweigh these fiscal benefits, if any. Additionally, in a pragmatic sense, if one day litigation costs in capital cases are reduced such that execution becomes more fiscally beneficial than imprisonment for life, an argument based on cost evaporates. Accordingly, at most, consideration of cost would call for a moratorium until executions are more cost-effective. But, as previously implied, money should not determine whether a man lives or dies. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

On 7/24/2018 at 9:44 PM, TitanTiger said:

Administering punishment, protecting the public, and avoiding unfixable mistakes.

So are you against the death penalty completely or do you draw a line for it?

[triangletiger 1,599]

7 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So here's my thing about cost and why it's an ill-founded assertion as a means (or even a primary mean, among others) to oppose the death penalty or to oppose the position of a "small government advocate who doesn't oppose capital punishment", notwithstanding it's irrefutable Constitutionality in some instances and long-standing place in society.

Cost appears important because individual legislators have referenced it in addressing whether or not to support the death penalty. Undoubtedly, there is intuitive appeal in maintaining that capital punishment consumes a substantial amount of taxpayers' money and therefore it is somewhat understandable for Americans to advocate abolishment on this central basis (or as alluded to - even a mere primary basis, among others). In my view, that the death penalty is more costly than life with or without parole should not be advanced as an argument to counter utilization of capital punishment. No matter how financially favorable an alternative option may be, one would reasonably hope that other, substantive factors would be of more value to the decisionmakers and their constituents of this nation, especially if one considers that death is potentially involved. For life to hang in the balance and be weighed against dollars seems quite inappropriate for a civilized, modern society such as the one we live in. The burden capital punishment imposes on the pockets of taxpayers is logically trivial in comparison to the burden the punishment should place on the lives of those affected and on the collective conscience of Americans that disfavor the practice. And, even if capital punishment were a relatively inexpensive practice, one would also hope that the costs to the dignity of man and the institution of justice would far outweigh these fiscal benefits, if any. Additionally, in a pragmatic sense, if one day litigation costs in capital cases are reduced such that execution becomes more fiscally beneficial than imprisonment for life, an argument based on cost evaporates. Accordingly, at most, consideration of cost would call for a moratorium until executions are more cost-effective. But, as previously implied, money should not determine whether a man lives or dies. 

 

I agree that cost shouldn’t be the primary factor in deciding this issue, but I think the reason costs gets brought into the discussion is because some capital punishment advocates have claimed that the taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill to take care of those convicted of capital crimes for the rest of their lives.  This is merely the counterpoint to that claim.

And I’m not necessarily against capital punishment.

 

[TitanTiger 20,479]

8 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

So are you against the death penalty completely or do you draw a line for it?

I've pretty much come to a place of being against it completely.  And it's mostly because of our human fallibility.  I cannot support any penalty of such a final nature where we can't ensure that we're getting it 100% correct.  No person who is innocent of the crime should ever be put to death, but we know it has happened and we know that only through the tireless work of non-profit legal defense groups pressing for DNA testing and reopening cases have other innocent people been exonerated who were waiting on death row.  That's just far too high a price to pay just to satisfy our need for vengeance.

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I've pretty much come to a place of being against it completely.  And it's mostly because of our human fallibility.  I cannot support any penalty of such a final nature where we can't ensure that we're getting it 100% correct.  No person who is innocent of the crime should ever be put to death, but we know it has happened and we know that only through the tireless work of non-profit legal defense groups pressing for DNA testing and reopening cases have other innocent people been exonerated who were waiting on death row.  That's just far too high a price to pay just to satisfy our need for vengeance.

Your post brings an interesting (albeit unanswerable) question to my mind:  If the death penalty didn't exist and, consequently,. there weren't anti-death penalty advocates pressing so hard for the DNA evidence to be considered, would the people who have been exonerated by their efforts still be rotting in prison for the rest of their lives?

This is not an argument one way or another on capital punishment; just a thought I had.  

[TitanTiger 20,479]

59 minutes ago, triangletiger said:

Your post brings an interesting (albeit unanswerable) question to my mind:  If the death penalty didn't exist and, consequently,. there weren't anti-death penalty advocates pressing so hard for the DNA evidence to be considered, would the people who have been exonerated by their efforts still be rotting in prison for the rest of their lives?

This is not an argument one way or another on capital punishment; just a thought I had.  

I think the effort to make sure people who are incarcerated for life are guilty of the crime would still exist, but obviously the life and death nature of capital punishment creates a much greater sense of urgency.

Incidentally, this is also why I oppose effort to limits appeals and "streamline" the execution process.  Being in a rush to kill someone would only make the existing problem of wrongful executions worse, not better.

[homersapien 11,370]

13 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So here's my thing about cost and why it's an ill-founded assertion as a means (or even a primary mean, among others) to oppose the death penalty or to oppose the position of a "small government advocate who doesn't oppose capital punishment", notwithstanding it's irrefutable Constitutionality in some instances and long-standing place in society.

Cost appears important because individual legislators have referenced it in addressing whether or not to support the death penalty. Undoubtedly, there is intuitive appeal in maintaining that capital punishment consumes a substantial amount of taxpayers' money and therefore it is somewhat understandable for Americans to advocate abolishment on this central basis (or as alluded to - even a mere primary basis, among others). In my view, that the death penalty is more costly than life with or without parole should not be advanced as an argument to counter utilization of capital punishment. No matter how financially favorable an alternative option may be, one would reasonably hope that other, substantive factors would be of more value to the decisionmakers and their constituents of this nation, especially if one considers that death is potentially involved. For life to hang in the balance and be weighed against dollars seems quite inappropriate for a civilized, modern society such as the one we live in. The burden capital punishment imposes on the pockets of taxpayers is logically trivial in comparison to the burden the punishment should place on the lives of those affected and on the collective conscience of Americans that disfavor the practice. And, even if capital punishment were a relatively inexpensive practice, one would also hope that the costs to the dignity of man and the institution of justice would far outweigh these fiscal benefits, if any. Additionally, in a pragmatic sense, if one day litigation costs in capital cases are reduced such that execution becomes more fiscally beneficial than imprisonment for life, an argument based on cost evaporates. Accordingly, at most, consideration of cost would call for a moratorium until executions are more cost-effective. But, as previously implied, money should not determine whether a man lives or dies. 

Thanks for reminding me of another major reason to oppose capital punishment that I forgot.

It's capricious.  A rich person is far less likely to be executed than a poor one.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Thanks for reminding me of another major reason to oppose capital punishment that I forgot.

It's capricious.  A rich person is far less likely to be executed than a poor one.

You totally misunderstood the entirety of my post.

But to your last comment:

1. Trying a capital case is the legal equivalent of brain surgery. Of course better counsel gives you a better chance. Why do private attorneys bill at such higher rates? You can’t force high-quality attorneys to represent clients at will.

2. Statistically speaking, “rich people” commit violent crime worthy of capital punishment at a far lower rate than “non-rich people.” 

 

Now, if you are an advocate for equal counsel no mater the client, then that’s great. But you can’t expect quality attorneys to start flocking to capital punishment cases in public defense when the salary’s offered aren’t even $50K before taxes and they’re six figures under leaving law school.

[homersapien 11,370]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You totally misunderstood the entirety of my post.

I wasn't commenting on your "entire post", only the part I highlighted. Which is all that caught my eye. Clean up your sentences (especially the first one), add some paragraphs,  and I might consider the whole thing carefully.  (I don't do poorly written "walls of text.)

But to your last comment:

1. Trying a capital case is the legal equivalent of brain surgery. Of course better counsel gives you a better chance. Why do private attorneys bill at such higher rates? You can’t force high-quality attorneys to represent clients at will.

That's my point.  

2. Statistically speaking, “rich people” commit violent crime worthy of capital punishment at a far lower rate than “non-rich people.” 

Who commits the most murders is irrelevant. The point is about who gets executed after conviction.   Trust me, enough rich people commit murder to make such a comparison.  (Is that too 'intellectual' for you or should I dial it back? )

Now, if you are an advocate for equal counsel no mater the client, then that’s great. But you can’t expect quality attorneys to start flocking to capital punishment cases in public defense when the salary’s offered aren’t even $50K before taxes and they’re six figures under leaving law school.

Making my point again.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

32 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

Again, you’re not offering a rebuttal or contributing anything. Don’t sit here and bitch about the way I choose to organize my thoughts on a topic, then isolate one sentence and parachute off of it with one-liners. It’s irrelevant and does nothing when you simply whine about me not splitting my thoughts into paragraphs. Grow up.

Your point about rich people, in essence, having the ability to afford quality counsel is getting lost in the fog. Regardless, all people can face the prospect of capital punishment. If you’re against it, then you should oppose the prospect of poor and rich defendants facing it. Don’t waste time hanging ornaments on irrelevant branches. It is a waste of time.

Contribute mature and calculated thoughts to the discussion or shut up. I wish I didn’t have to call you out like this, but I will continue to do it.

Have I made myself clear?

[homersapien 11,370]

On 7/23/2018 at 9:32 PM, Auburnfan91 said:

I'm against sanctioned torture like waterboarding terrorist, etc.... if that's what you're asking.

 

Please explain what you mean by this:

"Isolation and torture are effective. Which is why I've said that not every murderer should get the death penalty."

Again, isolation and torture are effective for what - retribution? 

And how does the first sentence explain the second?  I don't see any connection unless you are suggesting some murderers should receive a penalty of torture instead of death.

 

You then said:

A majority of murders shouldn't result in the death penalty. Only the extreme cases. I see no justifiable reason that someone who has killed dozens of people(e.g. Timothy McVeigh) should be allowed a bed to sleep in or food to eat while in prison no matter how much torture they may be given while in prison. They'd still be getting more care than they deserve.

That sounds to me like you would sanction torturing criminals like Timothy McVeigh instead of executing or incarcerating them.   Is that wrong?

 

 

[homersapien 11,370]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Again, you’re not offering a rebuttal or contributing anything. Don’t sit here and bitch about the way I choose to organize my thoughts on a topic, then isolate one sentence and parachute off of it with one-liners. It’s irrelevant and does nothing when you simply whine about me not splitting my thoughts into paragraphs. Grow up.

Your point about rich people, in essence, having the ability to afford quality counsel is getting lost in the fog. Regardless, all people can face the prospect of capital punishment. If you’re against it, then you should oppose the prospect of poor and rich defendants facing it. Don’t waste time hanging ornaments on irrelevant branches. It is a waste of time.

Contribute mature and calculated thoughts to the discussion or shut up. I wish I didn’t have to call you out like this, but I will continue to do it.

Have I made myself clear?

Well, the use of paragraphs were certainly an improvement.  Good job on that!

On the downside, only your second paragraph attempted to address substance, to which I can only respond, I think we are of same opinion, so I am not offering a "rebuttal".  If you go back and look at my response to your post less defensively, you might agree. 

All I did was single out your last sentence and agree with it.  Like I said, it simply reminded me of one of my major objections to execution which I failed to include in my earlier list.  That's all.  There was no intent of "belittling" your thoughts or organization thereof. Everything else has been your overreaction to that as some sort of perceived insult which was not the intent. I only mentioned the "wall of text" after you came back at me with guns blazing.

There's something basically unfair about executing people when the outcome is so dependent on the wealth of the accused.  And that's another reason why I oppose capital punishment, period.  I don't think that's "getting lost in the fog" .

Unfortunately, the other three paragraphs reveal just how immature and defensive you are.  They clearly speak for themselves:  "Contribute mature and calculated thoughts to the discussion or shut up." 
 

Obviously, it's not me who needs to address the "maturity" of their responses.  You seem to have issues.