HavocInfinity · #22Anyone without common sense would need solid evidence to back this. Its simply a Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. People commit crime because they want money, they want revenge, they want whatever- why should I dig into information to prove that people kill others for this kind of stuff?
Two things: you're still not answering my question on WHY the graph statistically shows the regression trend where murder crimes are up when number of executions are down and vice-versa. Of course those motives you mentioned are reasons why people commit murder, but that still doesn't explain the regression trend. Also, I'm aware of the
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy (referenced for those who don't know what it is), but that still doesn't make you exempt from providing evidence to make your point, not to mention that I find your '
anyone without common sense would need solid evidence to back this' remark quite arrogant. In a
Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy scenario, there is usually a third event or causal relationship that provides
missing information in which one side fails to cover or, in this case, what those graphs fail to tell us, and it was your job in this debate to provide it. Debates are and always have been stating and making your point with reason and evidence to support it
regardless along with, of course, avoiding fallacies.
Now, going back to the graph, I didn't specifically state anywhere in my posts that the amount of murder crimes are directly connected to the amount of execution and/or vice-versa; I was simply asking the question why the graph statistically shows that trend out of my own curiosity as I certainly know that the amount of murders committed are not directly connected to death sentences carried out (as that would be jumping to the wrong conclusion by a
Regression-Mean fallacy as well.) I've looked into this matter and came across the
"brutalization effect" which possibly could be one of the causal relationships to those graphs I found. Perhaps you can look further into this and find something that proves something else is going behind those two graphs provided. You can also look closely and see there are indeed outliers within certain ranges of those graphs that exceed too far from the regression trend.
HavocInfinity · #22That punishment does not equal to the suffering of what their victims went through
You're saying this as a matter of opinion. The death penalty is usually practically painless, in the case of a lethal injection or some kind of quick death. Secondly, just because the majority of the reasons for giving the death penalty are for murder, not all of them are, which means your Oh wait, that's right, their victims are dead.
is not completely accurate.
I can admit that I overlooked the fact that there are some places that issue death sentences for crimes other than murder, and that is my fault. I should perhaps be more specifically clear in the beginning that I support the death penalty under cases of first-degree murder, nothing else. For child-rape cases (mentioned in the site you provided), I wouldn't recommend anything beyond lifetime-imprisonment in a "SuperMax". But that's a bit off-side from this debate.
Getting back on topic:
HavocInfinity · #22The death penalty is usually practically painless, in the case of a lethal injection or some kind of quick death.
That's quite a skeptical claim to make, as no one absolutely knows for sure whether executions by electrocution, firing squad, and even lethal injection is supposedly painless. That is up to the ones who are executed to say and judge, which they can't.
Take a look at
this site and read this paragraph:
Oklahoma thus became the first to legislate for it in 1977. Texas introduced similar legislation later in the same year to replace their electric chair and carried out the first execution by this method on December 7th, 1982 when Charles Brooks was put to death for the murder of second-hand car salesman, David Gregory, in Huntsville, Texas in 1976. Brook's girlfriend, Vanessa Sapp, witnessed the procedure which began at 12.07 a.m. He was certified dead at 12.16 a.m. There was no apparent problem and Brooks seemed to die quite easily. At first he raised his head, clenched his fist and seemed to yawn or gasp before passing into unconsciousness.
Who knows what Charles Brooks experienced at the last moment before he slipped into unconsciousness? What did he feel when he clenched his fists? That is something not even we can answer for sure, but we can conclude one thing is certain: Charles Brooks felt something at that moment while undergoing lethal injection.
HavocInfinity · #22the act of taking another person's life shows that you don't respect that person's right to live, and therefore the same judgment you had enforced on your victim should be enforced back upon you.
Like you said, this isn't the first time you tried to send this point across. But you are basically saying this in your general opinion as well, without anything to support it (I wonder how you could, anyway). If a person kills someone else, that does not necessarily mean they are giving up their right to live. Its a Dicto simpliciter fallacy, even though we are talking about a larger population. If you want to steal candy from a candy store, are you therefore implying that you don't care if someone steals from you?
The quote you mentioned above is NOT a
Dicto Simpliciter, but my claim in this post is:
HyprWhen you deliberately take someone else's life (or lives) for no justified reason, you practically have shown no respect for human life and therefore asked to forfeit your right to live.
The fragment I highlighted in red is definitely erroneous on my part. I respond to these posts late at night when I get home from work, but that's not an acceptable excuse. The quote of mine you mentioned above is actually the point I want to get across, in which, no, the
Dicto Simpliciter does not apply:
...the act of taking another person's life shows that you don't respect that person's right to live, and therefore the same judgment you had enforced on your victim should be enforced back upon you.
HavocInfinity · #22You really can't blame the guards for this problem as they clearly have their work cut out for them.
You still aren't getting MY point and babbling about yours. I said already, it is true that a prison guard cannot work 100% and prevent all their criminals under their duty from escaping, but it still is his duty to make sure that they do not escape. Not all humans are not flawless (should I back this up?) and it is true that we are running the risk that a prisoner can escape and commit crime again. I FULLY ADMIT THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. BUT I was stressing that it is also the judge's responsibility to make sure that the right people are put to the death penalty. Again, not all people are flawless and the judge is bound to make mistakes. I was comparing a jailer's responsibility to a judge's responsibility. Again, in a utopian (is that a word, btw?) world where both could work to 100%, I would not even come up with this comparison. Regardless of whether there are more slaves to prison guards, whether the slaves are mad smart, would you agree that a prison guard has the responsibility of guarding the friggin' convicts?
Let's go back to your original argument:
HavocInfinityIf this is the only risk that comes along with not using the death penalty, then why don't you consider the reason for this? The chances of a convict (in term for life imprisonment) to escape incarceration and wreak more havoc is at the responsibility of the jailers. I am not saying that this is false, but you would also have to consider if the jailers were 100% doing their job as they should be, then there would be a 0% chance that the convicts can wreak their havoc, right? Of course, there is no 100%, but you could then compare that to the non-existent 100% chance that the judge will always make the correct decisions as well. You even gave us the statistics to support this claim. And what's the percentage, statistically, that a killer escapes prison and kills a whole bunch more people?
Of course I don't doubt it is the jailer's responsibilities to make sure that no prisoner escapes from jail. However, since you brought up the 100% concept, good point, but that depends on
how we define what 100% means in terms of jailer's responsibilities. You also brought up a point that humans are never 100% perfect, something I totally agree. But let's suppose that a single jailer works at
100% of his/her human capability while doing the job of guarding 55 inmates (since there is around 55-to-1 prisoner-to-guard ratio.) Can we guarantee that not a single prisoner out of those 55 escapes under a watch of a single jail guard working at 100% of his/her human capacity? The answer to that is obviously no as in order for the jailer to make sure no one escapes, the jailer needs to monitor 55 inmates
constantly and simultaneously and that is humanly impossible. In order for a scenario in which not a single inmate out of 55 escapes under the watch of a single jailer, the jailer would approximately have to operate at
least 1600% (or 16 times) of his/her human capacity (assuming that a single jailer can monitor 2-4 inmates simultaneously at 100% capability.)
HavocInfinity · #22Again, not all people are flawless and the judge is bound to make mistakes. I was comparing a jailer's responsibility to a judge's responsibility.
You're ignoring the concept of
due-process in which the accused suspect can get legal representation in court with an attorney against the prosecution team. The prosecution has the responsibility of
providing evidence that the suspect on trial is guilty beyond the reason of doubt while the defense representing the suspect has to provide evidence that casts doubt that the suspect did the crime. From that point on, it is
up to the the jury to decide whether the suspect is guilty of the crime committed, not the judge. The judge in these cases are responsible for administering the sentence to the defendant in these cases, that's it. And of course, a jury comprised of 12 members can make mistakes when they come to the unanimous decision.
