Ron Paul

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

There is absolutely no argument to be made that the death penalty as administered by the state has any moral virtue.

I'm all for vigilante justice or for throwing the real (and confessed) sickos in GP and letting things work themselves out, but the state has NO FUCKING BUSINESS administering a death sentence to its citizens.

Especially when it can't even be bothered to make sure they're not innocent first. Better a million guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged and all of that.

I disagree that vigilante justice is preferable to state executions.  Both kill innocent people, but vigilante justice has no appeals process.  Innocent death row inmates occasionally get lucky and have their convictions overturned.

[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.

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.

Substitute "Black Gangster Disciples" or "Texas Syndicate" for "Aryan Brotherhood" and suddenly your argument sounds a little different, no?

[East Coast Hustle]

There is absolutely no argument to be made that the death penalty as administered by the state has any moral virtue.

I'm all for vigilante justice or for throwing the real (and confessed) sickos in GP and letting things work themselves out, but the state has NO FUCKING BUSINESS administering a death sentence to its citizens.

Especially when it can't even be bothered to make sure they're not innocent first. Better a million guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged and all of that.

I disagree that vigilante justice is preferable to state executions.  Both kill innocent people, but vigilante justice has no appeals process.  Innocent death row inmates occasionally get lucky and have their convictions overturned.

Beside the point. Other random citizens are not a nation-state tasked, in theory, with protecting their citizens' rights and well-being (including even the most depraved and incorrigible amongst them).

[Cain]

And its between him, Huntsman and Romney as to which Republican has most regular contact with reality.

I'm gonna say Romney.

Who is also LEAST likely to get the nomination.  Because our Overton Window is now centered on "Barking Fucking Mad".

Hard to call.  I mean, Romney does wear the magic underpants, which is even more ridiculous than libertarianism.   Huntsman was the Ambassador to China, and State tend not to send people with loose screws to nuclear-armed countries (barring John Bolton), but has some fairly wacky social views.  Ron Paul impressed me when he correctly pointed out how a silver dime would pay for a gallon of gas (mainly as I'm so used to Republicans getting their maths utterly wrong), but that is partly the soft bigotry of low expectations coming into play.  And of course there are all the other things wrong with Paul which negate his show of basic mathematical skills...

[Cain]

There is absolutely no argument to be made that the death penalty as administered by the state has any moral virtue.

I'm all for vigilante justice or for throwing the real (and confessed) sickos in GP and letting things work themselves out, but the state has NO FUCKING BUSINESS administering a death sentence to its citizens.

Especially when it can't even be bothered to make sure they're not innocent first. Better a million guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged and all of that.

I disagree that vigilante justice is preferable to state executions.  Both kill innocent people, but vigilante justice has no appeals process.  Innocent death row inmates occasionally get lucky and have their convictions overturned.

Beside the point. Other random citizens are not a nation-state tasked, in theory, with protecting their citizens' rights and well-being (including even the most depraved and incorrigible amongst them).

Except in Switzerland.   But the Swiss are odd like that.

[Verbal Mike]

I don't get this, Net. Obviously the U.S. prison system is a colossal mess, but is executing the demographic most likely to kill other inmates, who may not deserve it, truly the first thing you think of when you want to make that mess less awful? How about imprisoning less near-innocent people (like the masses in for possession) so if some racist asshat kills someone it's less of a loss for society? How about improving living conditions, facilities, and staffing to make it less likely that any prisoner kills anyone?
Sure, these are difficult and expensive things to do, but they also happen to save you some human lives, including innocent ones, which are surely pretty valuable in themselves. Not to mention the mountains of money you could save by imprisoning less people, allowing them to lead relatively productive lives and pay taxes to cover the costs of making prisons less awful places.
Killing people should be the last resort, no matter what – even when it comes to preventing murder.

[Cramulus]

Hey it turns out we're can't stop you from killing people while you're in here, so we're just going to lethally inject you. That should save some lives.
                         \

[BabylonHoruv]

ECH is absolutely correct here.

While it is a sadly necessary measure to preemptively kill some people who are an imminent and serious threat to the lives of innocent hostages, a tried and convicted criminal has been captured and is presumably, not currently a threat to anyone's well-being. The problem is the penal system in the U.S. is not designed to reform criminals and reintegrate them into society, but rather to punish them for daring to transgress. Visit the nearest federal prison and tell me that their goal is rehabilitation; I live a scant 20 some odd miles from the former supermax prison that they built to replace Alcatraz. It's since been downgraded to medium security, I believe. Regardless, it's not what one would associate with reforming those within it's walls, as I seem to recall that it is/was on permanent lockdown for nearly three decades (actually in relation to some violence related to the Aryan Brotherhood, I believe).

But that's besides the point. My point of view is that the emphasis should be on making these people (because, hey, they are people), and helping them change their ways, if this is not possible, well, then they should be isolated, but still treated like human beings. And there should never be a point at which "kill this person" is an acceptable form of correction.

If we are going to focus on punishment it would really be better to stop pretending to rehabilitate and go back to beatings.  Those at least don't concentrate criminals and create things like the Aryan Brotherhood.

[BabylonHoruv]

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.

Sure there is.  Put AB members in one prison, put other people in a different one.

[LMNO]

And for some reason, no non-AB gangs will fill the vacuum?


That sounds.... naiive.  At best.

[Cramulus]

Good interview with Ron Paul here:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews/397964/playlist_tds_extended_ron_paul/397934

Jon Stewart's agenda is interesting.

Stewart disagrees with Ron Paul that market forces are trustworthy. And he thinks that some of Paul's ideas are downright dangerous (like legalizing heroin).

But he also wants Ron Paul to look like a legitimate candidate. Stewart occasionally seems frustrated that Ron Paul doesn't get media attention proportional to his popularity. Is it because Ron Paul could always be the republican's version of Ralph Nader?

Stewart gives him a fair shake. It's a very respectful and articulate interview, even where they disagree.

[East Coast Hustle]

ECH is absolutely correct here.

While it is a sadly necessary measure to preemptively kill some people who are an imminent and serious threat to the lives of innocent hostages, a tried and convicted criminal has been captured and is presumably, not currently a threat to anyone's well-being. The problem is the penal system in the U.S. is not designed to reform criminals and reintegrate them into society, but rather to punish them for daring to transgress. Visit the nearest federal prison and tell me that their goal is rehabilitation; I live a scant 20 some odd miles from the former supermax prison that they built to replace Alcatraz. It's since been downgraded to medium security, I believe. Regardless, it's not what one would associate with reforming those within it's walls, as I seem to recall that it is/was on permanent lockdown for nearly three decades (actually in relation to some violence related to the Aryan Brotherhood, I believe).

But that's besides the point. My point of view is that the emphasis should be on making these people (because, hey, they are people), and helping them change their ways, if this is not possible, well, then they should be isolated, but still treated like human beings. And there should never be a point at which "kill this person" is an acceptable form of correction.

If we are going to focus on punishment it would really be better to stop pretending to rehabilitate and go back to beatings.  Those at least don't concentrate criminals and create things like the Aryan Brotherhood.

Right. I think we should start with you.