Ron Paul

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

The purpose of executing them is two-fold:

1. As a punishment for murder.

2. So they can't kill anyone else.

Neither of these reasons stands up to logic. Making someone spend the reset of their natural life in prison is a much harsher punishment than just killing them. And the way to keep them from killing anyone else in prison is to administer prisons properly, not to kill inmates who might inconvenience the prison system by exposing it's inherent flaws. There is no rational argument to be made for state-administered capital punishment.

Well, you deleted half my argument and failed to substantively address the part you deleted.

[Phox]

The Aryan Brotherhood is bad, so they should be tortured and killed without regard for capacity to reform, the reasoning behind why they are able to continue killing in prisons, or anything else that should be taken into account.


Right, got it.

[Disco Pickle]

the guy admitted he was involved in removing another human being from the planet.  It didn't require anyone providing a burden of proof, it was supplied by his own words.

I struggle with this a lot because I'm with ECH, giving "The State" the power to execute is a bad idea, but the alternative is blood feuds and vigilante justice with absolutely no accountability, where wrongful death or execution can be sought when evidence is presented that dismisses the charge post execution.  

At the least, the family can have some measure of absolution.  It isn't much, granted.

As to housing these people we KNOW are guilty but would not put to death (in that ideal world) they pose a threat because they become part of the prison society.  The one that teaches new comers and the barely initiated how to fuck other people over, how to do it in a good and proper manner, and how to avoid being caught doing it.

Unless you're talking about funding to keep these people permanently in solitary (which I am assuming you are on humanitarian grounds..  feel free to correct me) this is not an ideal way to handle, IMO, the people who take life from another person and their family.

On this, more than anything maybe, I really am torn.

[Elder Iptuous]

I hear your, DP.
it's a tough nut, and i don't think there really is a satisfactory answer.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

The Aryan Brotherhood is bad, so they should be tortured and killed without regard for capacity to reform, the reasoning behind why they are able to continue killing in prisons, or anything else that should be taken into account.

Right, got it.

Of all the people susceptible to reform I just think of remorseless Aryan Brotherhood murder convicts first!

And this nebulous "prison reform" that prevents prisoners from disabling and killing each other sounds real promising. Tell me more!

Finally, the Aryan Brotherhood can be held accountable for their actions to a greater degree than the government. They're obviously more transparent with all their careful record keeping and public hearings before their judicious neck shankings.

Right, got it.

[Elder Iptuous]

Just as a note, it was my understanding that the modern prison system began as an experiment in reforming the criminally minded and inducing penitence (hence the name penitentiary), but it never really worked as hoped.  So now we've got this massive prison system that doesn't really correct any problems, costs a fortune, and now is a big business problem to boot...

[Phox]

the guy admitted he was involved in removing another human being from the planet.  It didn't require anyone providing a burden of proof, it was supplied by his own words.

I struggle with this a lot because I'm with ECH, giving "The State" the power to execute is a bad idea, but the alternative is blood feuds and vigilante justice with absolutely no accountability, where wrongful death or execution can be sought when evidence is presented that dismisses the charge post execution.  

At the least, the family can have some measure of absolution.  It isn't much, granted.

As to housing these people we KNOW are guilty but would not put to death (in that ideal world) they pose a threat because they become part of the prison society.  The one that teaches new comers and the barely initiated how to fuck other people over, how to do it in a good and proper manner, and how to avoid being caught doing it.

Unless you're talking about funding to keep these people permanently in solitary (which I am assuming you are not on humanitarian grounds..  feel free to correct me) this is not an ideal way to handle, IMO, the people who take life from another person and their family.

On this, more than anything maybe, I really am torn.

Yeah, it's by no means an easy issue. But ultimately, it's impossible to justify simply killing a person rather than attempting, at least, to give them whatever it is they need to amend their behavior (psychological treatment, workforce education, etc.) Not saying that everyone would reform, but I just don't see any argument that justifies killing someone without even giving them that chance.

And in this ideal system, the "prison society" wouldn't be an issue, because they would never be reintegrated into society (hey, if they had their chance and went and killed more people or whatever, then they can live with the other murders and rapists and what not. If they kill each other off, well, maybe that's a form of execution, but at that point I'm satisfied that they've been given their chance to change. And there's still a chance that they'll be able to live their lives out in relative peace. As for constant solitary, meh, only for those who simply refuse to live even in "prison society" without being violent fucks. Still no active executions, though.)

Of course, the implementation of a system that meets my standards will never happen, but hey, I'd rather err on the side of not killing innocent/repentant people and just not kill people.


In regards to absolution of the families of victims, fuck them. People close to the crime are not to be trusted in matters of what would constitute a just outcome, so whether or not they feel "absolved" is not the concern of the "justice" system.

The Aryan Brotherhood is bad, so they should be tortured and killed without regard for capacity to reform, the reasoning behind why they are able to continue killing in prisons, or anything else that should be taken into account.

Right, got it.

Of all the people susceptible to reform I just think of remorseless Aryan Brotherhood murder convicts first!

And this nebulous "prison reform" that prevents prisoners from disabling and killing each other sounds real promising. Tell me more!

Finally, the Aryan Brotherhood can be held accountable for their actions to a greater degree than the government. They're obviously more transparent with all their careful record keeping and public hearings before their judicious neck shankings.

Right, got it.

One last time: You. Are. The Same. As. Them.

In a hypothetical situation, where a member of the Aryan Brotherhood kills a black man, you are saying that he should be executed. Well, okay, a life for a life. said black man was a multiple murderer and rapist, and had never even been so much as suspected by the police, but this member of the Aryan Brotherhood had actually been victimized by this very man (let's say this man killed his father and raped his sister twice before hitting her with a tire iron and leaving her dying in a ditch). In this situation, this man joined the Aryan Brotherhood solely because of these crimes. Now, he is NOT "innocent" in any sense of the word, and he sure as hell didn't show good judgment, but I'll be honest. Were I in his shoes, I'd very well want to kill the motherfucker who did it, too. Thing is: I'M NOT FIT TO MAKE THAT DECISION AT THAT POINT.

So, this guy is chilling in prison for 5, 10, 20 years. Whatever. While he's in, he finds out. He killed the wrong guy. Oops. He is genuinely repentant, and wants to quit the Brotherhood, and wants to do something positive with his life to make up for it.

For the entire time, his victims' family is calling for his execution.

Here's where it gets sticky: Guy is no longer a threat (completely. He is not just saying he regrets it to get out). You are saying that he should be executed.

No. You are in the wrong.

See, for every person that gets executed, how many are like our ex-Aryan Brother, here? 1 in a million? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10? Or maybe 1 in 3? We simply cannot know. I'd rather run the risk of people dying in prison, honestly.

[Phox]

Just as a note, it was my understanding that the modern prison system began as an experiment in reforming the criminally minded and inducing penitence (hence the name penitentiary), but it never really worked as hoped.  So now we've got this massive prison system that doesn't really correct any problems, costs a fortune, and now is a big business problem to boot...

That is my understanding as well. System's fucked something fierce.

[East Coast Hustle]

The purpose of executing them is two-fold:

1. As a punishment for murder.

2. So they can't kill anyone else.

Neither of these reasons stands up to logic. Making someone spend the reset of their natural life in prison is a much harsher punishment than just killing them. And the way to keep them from killing anyone else in prison is to administer prisons properly, not to kill inmates who might inconvenience the prison system by exposing it's inherent flaws. There is no rational argument to be made for state-administered capital punishment.

Well, you deleted half my argument and failed to substantively address the part you deleted.

That's because I only intended to address the two points that most of your position seems to stem from. Points which are, in fact, not only not supported by logic but completely refuted by it. But if we're playing THAT game, you failed to substantively address ANY of my refutations of your points.

[Telarus]

Just as a note, it was my understanding that the modern prison system began as an experiment in reforming the criminally minded and inducing penitence (hence the name penitentiary), but it never really worked as hoped.  So now we've got this massive prison system that doesn't really correct any problems, costs a fortune, and now is a big business problem to boot...

The Supreme Court has flat out said that Prison serves as punishment/threat of punishment, and not anything approaching "reform".

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/16/opinion/la-ed-rehab-20110416

But Tapia's lawyer cites language in federal law saying that "imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation." The only approved objectives of imprisonment are deterrence, incapacitation and retribution.

The lawyer defending the enhanced sentence acknowledged that Congress has rejected the "rehabilitative ideal, the amorphous hope of reforming every convicted criminal's soul through isolation and prison routine."

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

See, for every person that gets executed, how many are like our ex-Aryan Brother, here? 1 in a million? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10? Or maybe 1 in 3? We simply cannot know. I'd rather run the risk of people dying in prison, honestly.

It's not a "risk". People who do not deserve to die get killed in prison by these people on the regular.

You're just passing the buck.

More people who do not deserve to die get killed by other inmates rather than the state --- the AB is responsible for a disproportionate number of them. And that doesn't even take into account how many people they permanently disable who also did not deserve it.

So you'd prefer to allow an AB murder convict kill and maim more people because they might come around some day and apologize for their boo-boos? How moral of you.

Idealism has no place in this conversation and no matter how many times you say I'm wrong it's not going to change the fact that the AB are prolific in-prison killers. Allowing them to continue killing people by not executing them causes more loss of life and removes the potential for the people they killed to redeem themselves from their often lesser crimes.

But somehow those people don't count. Prison reform magic will fix that, right?

[Phox]

See, for every person that gets executed, how many are like our ex-Aryan Brother, here? 1 in a million? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10? Or maybe 1 in 3? We simply cannot know. I'd rather run the risk of people dying in prison, honestly.

It's not a "risk". People who do not deserve to die get killed in prison by these people on the regular.

You're just passing the buck.

More people who do not deserve to die get killed by other inmates rather than the state --- the AB is responsible for a disproportionate number of them. And that doesn't even take into account how many people they permanently disable who also did not deserve it.

So you'd prefer to allow an AB murder convict kill and maim more people because they might come around some day and apologize for their boo-boos? How moral of you.

Idealism has no place in this conversation and no matter how many times you say I'm wrong it's not going to change the fact that the AB are prolific in-prison killers. Allowing them to continue killing people by not executing them causes more loss of life and removes the potential for the people they killed to redeem themselves from their often lesser crimes.

But somehow those people don't count. Prison reform magic will fix that, right?

Well, I tried. Your reasoning is still flawed. You are still as bad as the AB. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

The purpose of executing them is two-fold:

1. As a punishment for murder.

2. So they can't kill anyone else.

Neither of these reasons stands up to logic. Making someone spend the reset of their natural life in prison is a much harsher punishment than just killing them. And the way to keep them from killing anyone else in prison is to administer prisons properly, not to kill inmates who might inconvenience the prison system by exposing it's inherent flaws. There is no rational argument to be made for state-administered capital punishment.

Well, you deleted half my argument and failed to substantively address the part you deleted.

That's because I only intended to address the two points that most of your position seems to stem from. Points which are, in fact, not only not supported by logic but completely refuted by it. But if we're playing THAT game, you failed to substantively address ANY of my refutations of your points.

Focusing on only part of my argument is fallacious.

If you want to play the take-it-out-of-context game we can do that as well. The pervasive influence of the AB in US prisons is that crucial context.

It's only reasonable to execute someone when they show no signs of changing their murderous behavior and are enabled by the most powerful organized group of inmates in the system. The system hasn't been able to reign them in, even in maximum security prisons.

Allowing them to kill more people in prison is not morally defensible. Currently, there is no feasible way to prevent them from killing and maiming more people besides executing them.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

See, for every person that gets executed, how many are like our ex-Aryan Brother, here? 1 in a million? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 10? Or maybe 1 in 3? We simply cannot know. I'd rather run the risk of people dying in prison, honestly.

It's not a "risk". People who do not deserve to die get killed in prison by these people on the regular.

You're just passing the buck.

More people who do not deserve to die get killed by other inmates rather than the state --- the AB is responsible for a disproportionate number of them. And that doesn't even take into account how many people they permanently disable who also did not deserve it.

So you'd prefer to allow an AB murder convict kill and maim more people because they might come around some day and apologize for their boo-boos? How moral of you.

Idealism has no place in this conversation and no matter how many times you say I'm wrong it's not going to change the fact that the AB are prolific in-prison killers. Allowing them to continue killing people by not executing them causes more loss of life and removes the potential for the people they killed to redeem themselves from their often lesser crimes.

But somehow those people don't count. Prison reform magic will fix that, right?

Well, I tried. Your reasoning is still flawed. You are still as bad as the AB. 

Merely stating "your reasoning is flawed" doesn't prove shit.

And I don't give a fuck about being told I'm as bad as the AB.

Nothing like an ad hominem to really show you won the debate, eh?

[Cain]

And how does killing them do anything that indefinite solitary confinement doesn't also do?

Much more cheaply, I might add, and with the chance of reversal if the state, in fact, was wrong.