Thread for conceding you’ve been wrong about something.

[fishonjazz]

Let me ask again: How many innocent people should be executed before we stop?

Like I said, I think we should just execute the guilty ones.

 

[gandalfe]

Like I said, I think we should just execute the guilty ones.

But we don't. So how many innocent people should be executed before we stop? Is 1,000,000 too many?

 

[fishonjazz]

But we don't. So how many innocent people should be executed before we stop? Is 1,000,000 too many?

I'm ready stop executing innocent people right now. I think we should only execute guilty ones.

 

[TheGoldStandard]

I'm ready stop executing innocent people right now. I think we should only execute guilty ones.

Right, and only imprison innocent ones too. Ideals and reality don't often mesh.

 

[Gameface]

Lots of innocent people in prison too. Should we stop all incarceration?

We should incarcerate a lot less than we do, and we should incarcerate people for less time than we do.

 

[Eminence]

So, again, there are 4 main reasons to imprison someone who has been convicted of a crime - deterrence, protection, rehabilitation, and punishment. In this case, it's obviously not a deterrent - I don't think people are not becoming mass-murdering cultists because they look at the Manson Family and say, "Wow, I don't want to go to prison." I don't feel like she, at 73 years old, is a danger herself, although there is a slim possibility that she could inspire a cult of her own. She has met any reasonable definition of being rehabilitated - she's earned a bachelor's and master's degrees while incarcerated, and has generally made the right noises about guilt and such. So, punishment... Is that in and of itself enough reason to keep her in?

Sam Colt (with some help from a friend or two) made sure everyone in America can be a danger from the day they're born (not quite) til the day they die, unfortunately.

As a younger teen I was a bit of a meritocrat. Still some of those thoughts, but I'd like to think in general I've become a kinder individual who has a much broader idea of 'merit' than I did when young.

 

[LogGrad98]

So, again, there are 4 main reasons to imprison someone who has been convicted of a crime - deterrence, protection, rehabilitation, and punishment. In this case, it's obviously not a deterrent - I don't think people are not becoming mass-murdering cultists because they look at the Manson Family and say, "Wow, I don't want to go to prison." I don't feel like she, at 73 years old, is a danger herself, although there is a slim possibility that she could inspire a cult of her own. She has met any reasonable definition of being rehabilitated - she's earned a bachelor's and master's degrees while incarcerated, and has generally made the right noises about guilt and such. So, punishment... Is that in and of itself enough reason to keep her in?

You missed any reason tied to the victims. Do they deserve a say? Surviving family, friends, etc. What about a sense of justice for the victims. She gets to go free but Sharon is still dead.

 

[LogGrad98]

Also, the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. The cost for appeals and all that is more than to just imprison the person for life.

Yeah but to me we just need to streamline the process, reduce the money spent.

 

[gandalfe]

You missed any reason tied to the victims. Do they deserve a say? Surviving family, friends, etc. What about a sense of justice for the victims. She gets to go free but Sharon is still dead.

Actually, Van Houten had nothing to do with the Sharon Tate murder, she went the next night and murdered Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. They were born in 1925 and 1930 respectively, so there is a more than reasonable chance they would be dead now anyway.

 

[LogGrad98]

Actually, Van Houten had nothing to do with the Sharon Tate murder, she went the next night and murdered Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. They were born in 1925 and 1930 respectively, so there is a more than reasonable chance they would be dead now anyway.

I'm sorry, I guess that means their surviving family don't deserve justice. I mean as long as the iron I kill will die one day, well that makes it ok. We should just put them in jail as long as we think that person might have been alive anyway. That's a weird hair to split. You know what I mean.

 

[gandalfe]

I'm sorry, I guess that means their surviving family don't deserve justice. I mean as long as the iron I kill will die one day, well that makes it ok. We should just put them in jail as long as we think that person might have been alive anyway. That's a weird hair to split. You know what I mean.

But the fact is she didn't even kill who you thought she did. Doesn't it matter that we get it right?

 

[LogGrad98]

But the fact is she didn't even kill who you thought she did. Doesn't it matter that we get it right?

Any other straw men you care to throw out? Obviously Tate is the big name. If I were writing a dissertation I'd proof read. This is an Internet Forum where I'm posting (or was) from church during a boring meeting. I don't think this is the huge symbolic morality play you think it is. And you still sidestepped the question. You haven't addressed the issue of justice for the surviving family and friends. Does that matter at all?