My argument for the death penalty...

[billyshelby]

You just posted a link to a website that basically obliterates any argument that the death penalty saves money. Nice work, ace.

 

[Hopper]

You just posted a link to a website that basically obliterates any argument that the death penalty saves money. Nice work, ace.

The death penalty itself don't cost nuthin--mebbe a coupla bucks for the drug. Among other things that there abolishionist site claims, for example, that: " Capital cases are far more complicated than non-capital cases. Experts will probably be needed on forensic evidence, mental health and the social history of the defendant."

Would none of that be needed if you were "merely" gunna give a guy life without parole, that it? Does a case suddenly become "more complicated" to investigate and prove depending solely on whether a prosecutor decides to seek the death penalty? If so, why should it? Is it because we will willingly give a guy life without any undue attention bein given to his guilt or innocence, that it? For someone who is concerned about not punishin the innocent, the demand should be that more care and time be spent on *every* trial, I figure.

Of course, in a lot of "life-without-parole" cases there are no costs of trial. That's because the perp cops a plea to avoid the death penalty. Indirectly, the death penalty probably saves 10 times as much as it costs to prosecute those who won't plead guilty, due to that factor.

 

[sirkickyass]

The post you quoted, and are responding to, there had nuthin to do with "pain." It was addressed to the issue of what a "guess" and "speculation" is.

If ya ax me, it is just more of your sophistry; an attempt, by virtue of dubious definition, to change form into substance. Callin sumthin a "guess" don't make it a guess, and I spoze I give MD's credit for knowin a little more than you do. I didn't know that every medical diagnosis was merely a "guess," ya know?

Aint: If you really think that even an MD can do better than a very educated guess without having some means of empirically testing individuals who have had their heads cut off I don't know what to tell you. Even your own link (which is an about.com article referencing an urbanlegends.com article which no longer exsists, hardly a medical treatise) acknowledges that medical scientists can estimate the outer boundary as "roughly thirteen seconds" and states that number is subject to fudging based upon a number of factors. As to conciousness, it really doesn't say much of anything. It might happen immediately, it might last all 13 seconds. Not exactly much more than a guess given that it leaves the whole range open.

All of this goes back to Loki's point: nobody really knows. It's probably unknowable because no one will ever be able to tell us about their sensory perception of having their head cut off.

That you would claim I'm the one engaging in "sophistry" is prepostrous. You apparently want to interrogate the definition of a "guess." I can only assume your next posts will be an attempt to debate the definition of "inherently." This is practically the definition of sophistry over what's really a pretty minor point: we don't know how painful the guillotine is or how long individuals remain concious.

 

[Scorpjazz]

Screw the humane crap anyway. That is so stupid. Make it hurt like hell and make them suffer. Mistakes happen, sad but true. Still, Im for the Death penalty. While weighing the number of innocent people put to death wrongly (very minute), also weigh the number of people murdered in places where there is no Death penalty deterent. PLEASE dont not tell me it isnt a deterent. I realize most killers will kill regardless and dont give a **** about the outcome, but there are some that think about it and I would have to believe that the number that DONT commit murder because of it outnumber the number of innocent people put to death. Of course Im sure someone will pull a stat from research done by a "totally unbiased" place like UC Berkeley to prove this false.

 

[Hopper]

we don't know how painful the guillotine is or how long individuals remain concious.

To the exact second in every case, ya mean, quibbler? Anyone who loses consciousness within two seconds of an event cannot be said to have "suffered" from it. Like my homey who cut off his own fingers, a guy who gets guillotined probably doesn't even have enough time for any sensations of "pain" to register in his consciousness.

To call an informed expert opinion a mere "guess" is indeed the epitome of "sophistry," Kicky, sorry.

If I took a tape measure and measured sumthin to the 1/16th of an inch, but could not be more precise than sayin sumthin like: It's closer to 29 feet, 6 and 5/16 inches than it is to either 1/4 or 3/8 inches, you would presumably call that a "guess."

 

[Hopper]

Scorp, you just don't seem to git it, eh? If a law, whether it's against speedin, jaywalkin, stealin, or whatever, don't 100% deter EVERYBUDDY from EVER commitin that crime, well, then, they just aint no deterrent effect whatsover, caincha see?

 

[billyshelby]

The death penalty itself don't cost nuthin--mebbe a coupla bucks for the drug. Among other things that there abolishionist site claims, for example, that: " Capital cases are far more complicated than non-capital cases. Experts will probably be needed on forensic evidence, mental health and the social history of the defendant."

Would none of that be needed if you were "merely" gunna give a guy life without parole, that it? Does a case suddenly become "more complicated" to investigate and prove depending solely on whether a prosecutor decides to seek the death penalty? If so, why should it? Is it because we will willingly give a guy life without any undue attention bein given to his guilt or innocence, that it? For someone who is concerned about not punishin the innocent, the demand should be that more care and time be spent on *every* trial, I figure.

Of course, in a lot of "life-without-parole" cases there are no costs of trial. That's because the perp cops a plea to avoid the death penalty. Indirectly, the death penalty probably saves 10 times as much as it costs to prosecute those who won't plead guilty, due to that factor.

Rather than trying to make up a world where your argument works, why don't you click on the link YOU provided to find how it really works.

 

[Hopper]

Even your own link (which is an about.com article referencing an urbanlegends.com article which no longer exsists, hardly a medical treatise) acknowledges that medical scientists can estimate the outer boundary as "roughly thirteen seconds"

Heh, just stop, eh, Kicky? The guy quotes an MD who explains: "The 13 seconds is the amount of high energy phosphates that the cytochromes in the brain have to keep going without new oxygen and glucose."

Mebbe ya just just go notify the medical community, by means of an e-mail entitled "RED ALERT TO QUACKS," that all their witch doctor talk about the amount of "high energy phosphates" which "cytochromes" have to to keep functionin without "new oxygen and glucose,"and such, is mere speculation, eh?

 

[sirkickyass]

Like my homey who cut off his own fingers, a guy who gets guillotined probably doesn't even have enough time for any sensations of "pain" to register in his consciousness.

Probably? So you're not sure?

To call an informed expert opinion a mere "guess" is indeed the epitome of "sophistry," Kicky, sorry.

I think i've acknowledged the guess is educated. Educated guesses, by nature, have more probability of being correct than a pure guess. But they are still uncertain or indefinite by nature.

If I took a tape measure and measured sumthin to the 1/16th of an inch, but could not be more precise than sayin sumthin like: It's closer to 29 feet, 6 and 5/16 inches than it is to either 1/4 or 3/8 inches, you would presumably call that a "guess."

Now this is sophistry. The only purpose of this example is to obfuscate, rather than rebut, the counter-argument.

Key difference: You'd have MEASURED something.

We have no indications that anyone has EVER measured chemical, electrical, or perceptive conciousness of someone who has been decapitated via guillotine.

Your link (which again, cites to an article which does not exist, a detail you curiously omit to discuss) starts with some things we know and reasons forward to make a prediction about what happens in the brain when someone's head is removed. In the nomenclature of the scientific method, this is what's known as the "hypothesis" phase. You're attempting to cast a hypothesis as something that's actually been tested.

By comparison in this very thread someone discussed, without citation, an instance where physicians measured the heart rate of someone who was killed by firing squad. That's an attempt to discover how long it took someone to die. We have no equivalent study, at all, for decapitation. What we have are educated guesses based upon some other things we know.

Aint, I'm really trying not to get into it with you but you make it difficult when you resort to name calling and labeling such as labeling a very simple and consistent argument sophistry. These are things that made you one of the most despised posters on the old board, eventually getting banned, and is presently contributing to your racing out to having the lowest rep on the current board. Maybe it's time to take the hint.

 

[billyshelby]

So for anyone scoring at home, we can break the death penalty argument down like this:

We can keep the death penalty, knowing full well we will kill some innocent people along with the bad apples, or we can abolish the death penalty, never have to worry about killing an innocent person again, and save tons of money. In both cases, the risk to society is the same since the guys are either in jail, or dead. This is really complicated. I can't wait for aint to explain how I might die on my skateboard and that logic is the same as death penalty logic.

 

[Hopper]

As to conciousness, it really doesn't say much of anything. It might happen immediately, it might last all 13 seconds. Not exactly much more than a guess given that it leaves the whole range open.

Heh, the "whole range," eh? Nowhere has it been claimed that a guy could possibly maintain consciousness, without passin out due to lack of blood pressure, for the entire time it takes for the brain to utterly die, chemically-speakin. In fact, the medical authorities I have cited explicitly say otherwise. They said "two seconds at most," if I remember rightly. The second cite merely says:

"If that [loss of consciousness] weren't to happen immediately, an individual could in theory remain self-aware for part of the thirteen-second period."

Hint: "Part of" aint the whole, get it?

 

[Hopper]

Now this is sophistry. The only purpose of this example is to obfuscate, rather than rebut, the counter-argument.

[No, it simply illustrates the nature of your attempt to equate a lack of absolute precision with "guesswork]

Key difference: You'd have MEASURED something.

[Difference? Like high energy phosphates can't be measured, that the idea?]

... you resort to name calling and labeling such as labeling a very simple and consistent argument sophistry. These are things that made you one of the most despised posters on the old board, eventually getting banned, and is presently contributing to your racing out to having the lowest rep on the current board. Maybe it's time to take the hint.

What name did I call you, Kicky? Sophistry is sophistry, whether you like to have that pointed out or not. I got banned for what, exactly? I would actually like you to tell me, Mr. moderator. For callin people names? I never got any kinda warnin for that. For not agreeing with you, that it?