Thursday, September 22, 2011

Water. Everywhere.

Now I hate the death penalty and think its existence in the face of human fallibility is the mark of the very sort of hubris that will one day blessedly give the world back to the birds and beasts and fishes. It seems very likely that Troy Davis, just executed in Georgia, was indeed innocent, although I put it to you that hanging opposition to murder on the moral status of the person being killed is a bit of a you'llpardontheexpression cop-out; it is not the persistent execution of the innocent that should trouble your conscience but the mere fact of executions; it is not that people are put to death in error, but that people are put to death.  But I think it is also worth noting that we are doing this every day, every hour, that while your friends whine about, say, Rick Perry's record of executions and carve it as a mark of special barbarism on his image, Barack Obama and his robot army are raining death across the world, and insofar as any randomly selected Republican governor compares poorly to this or any sitting president, it is because of the grossly inferior scale of their monstrousness, crimes standing in rickety place for enormities.

Well, I am sure that President Perry will avail himself of all the tools and Terminators at his disposal and do his damnedest to catch up to his predecessor, and when he does, we'll hear endless amateur psychoanalysis, i.e. psychoanalysis, about how his swift resort to the gibbet predisposed him to invade French Guyana and Tuvalu, but I say that our violent society isn't the well from which we draw our militarism; rather, the opposite--conquest is the well from which we draw our drinking blood, and our whole society is built around it.

114 comments:

Blinky the very nice dog said...

nature red in tooth and claw - as the poet said

Philboyd Studge said...

the well from which we draw our drinking blood

Wouldn't it congeal?

Dr Wilhelm said...

@Philboyd Studge

Not if it keeps on gushing. It never congeals until the bleeding is contained.

Anonymous said...

"Wouldn't it congeal?"

No if pretreated with the high quality citrate the finest chemcorp in the world, IGFarben ... I mean DuPont, can provide.

Capt'n Obvious

Leonard said...

it is not the persistent execution of the innocent that should trouble your conscience but the mere fact of executions

Nope. Doesn't trouble me. Plenty of people deserve death.

The persistent execution of the innocent is an artifact of the quality of the justice system. Monopolies typically give crap service. We can do better, and should. I note that even Davis, with his seemingly strong claims (of recanting witnesses) was availing himself of all sorts of legal flim-flam like the jury composition, which nonetheless is apparently par for the course.

100 years ago, a murderer would be tried and executed in a month or two. What is it you leftists are always saying? Justice delayed is justice denied? Well, well. Yet another knife that has a razor edge when cutting left, but is dull as a butterknife cutting right.

But the issue of execution itself is about justice. Should we allow murderers and rapists to walk this earth? Traditionally our answer is: no. There was a good reason for that, and not just because the insane sky-god said so. It is about what sort of society you want to live in. Criminals, although more animalistic than the norm, are nonetheless human, and respond to incentive. Do you prefer a society with rampant criminality, but no death penalty, or do you prefer a society with less criminality where criminals (and the rare innocent) are killed by the state?

Another issue is here for the libertarian, though not the normal person. Do you feel the innocent should be taxed to imprison the criminal masses for life? Me, I feel the guilty should pay the price for their crimes. Not the taxpayer. Your opinion may vary. I am sure, in some future libertopia, there will be a charity that you can give all your money to that will imprison condemned men to forestall their execution, for as long as it can afford. And I am equally sure that said charity will get almost no contributions at all. People are hypocrites.

IOZ said...

Lol executions lower the crime rate? Where? When? Also what is a crime? Also "animalistic"? What are you a fucking park ranger? You see a lot of cows murdering other cows?

Anonymous said...

If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating!

Dunc said...

"Plenty of people deserve death. "

And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?

"Do you prefer a society with rampant criminality, but no death penalty, or do you prefer a society with less criminality where criminals (and the rare innocent) are killed by the state?"

And here we go with the counter-factuals... States with the death penalty generally have higher rates of violent crime than those without. The idea that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime is every bit as soundly-based as the notion that burning the still-beating hearts of your enemies on the altar of Huitzilopochtli causes the sun to rise in the morning.

Anonymous said...

Leonard, I'm trying to figure out what a free-market justice system would look like.

I'm failing.

Can you help me out?

Ethan said...

You see a lot of cows murdering other cows?

Obviously his point was that no animal other than humans responds to incentives, duh. Read him again.

IOZ said...

I will say that the justice I get down at the free market tastes way better than the tomatoes from the supermarket.

TGGP said...

Some links on the deterrent effect of the death penalty from here.

I personally have no problem with the guilty being executed. I'd rather a thousand guilty men be executed than one innocent be imprisoned (for comparable punishments my ratio is 1:1). Someone explain to me what is wrong with executing a murderer? By the principle of estoppel he has forfeited his own life.

I don't favor the death penalty for rapists, because then they lose the incentive not to murder their victim and get rid of a witness. Unless of course we introduce torture+death or something like that to additionally threaten.

la Rana said...

Loenard can't even decide why they should die. They deserve it, its justice, it betters society (in a way that is demonstrably false), it costs less (also demonstrably false), they deserve it. I've heard more coherent justifications in middle school philosophy club.

What is justice? If society is better without them, does it matter if they deserve it? Isn't using them to better ourselves immoral? Why do they deserve it? Isn't "paying the price" just vengeance? Is vengenace justice? Who said the government could kill people? Doesn't that undermine all of your arguments? (and first answer IOZ's question - what is a crime?).

And denigrating Davis for trying to avoid being put to death, especially since black people accused of murdering white people are sentenced to death something like twice as much as any other demographic, is fucking disgraceful.

We are discussing murder of all things and you've thought about this as carefully as a bull in a china shop.

Jack Crow said...

"..by the principle of estoppel..."

Not sure you're using that word correctly, TGGP. First, it's not really a "principle." It's a legal finding and/or doctrine, and very generally, a description of a legal condition. Second (and I'm summarizing broadly), it addresses the presentation of new facts or judgments between the same parties in conflict.

I don't see how a person "forfeits his own life" on the grounds of being prevented from re-arguing or presenting facts for a new judgment in a case where the old judgment is still considered valid.

Christopher M. said...

Nature isn't "red in tooth and claw"; I don't see any pigeons lynching other pigeons, or mice launching drone attacks on other mice in order to secure full spectrum dominance over the global cheese supply. Nature, in fact, is remarkably cooperative: animals have to eat other animals, yes, but they also form bonds and work with each other more often than not, within and across species. If the natural world was the paranoid bloody scramble of every miserable creature against everything else that crackpot Hobbesians make it out to be, multicellular life wouldn't have lasted long enough for humans to have evolved in the first place.

It's fucking capitalism - your precious goddamn free market - that's the source of savagery in the world: the rich endlessly murdering the poor, whether they're locked up on death row or being bombed to bits in the middle east or homeless and dying of exposure on the street.

Jack Crow said...

And how does the act of killing another, removing any references to estoppel function as a magic such that it causes one to permanently lose the possession of one's own life, please and thank you?

Leonard said...

IOZ wonders how execution might lower the crime rate. Well: crime is disproportionately performed by recidivists. USG has collected data on this, although they don't seem very keen to stay up to date. (The last big study started in 1994.)

Anyway, among the highlights mentioned in the study above, one can read these:
• Within 3 years from their release
in 1994 -- 67.5% of the prisoners were rearrested for a new offense
(almost exclusively a felony or a
serious misdemeanor)
• Within 3 years, 2.5% of released
rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
• The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.


So, let us consult Table 3. We find that those 272,111 offenders from 15 states, once released, were arrested for some 100,531 violent offenses, including 2,871 homicides, 2,444 rapes, 54,604 assaults, and 13,854 "other violent", whatever those may be.

Tens of thousands of victims. Now, what fraction of those were committed by the worst of the released criminals? I can't tell. However, the study does contain this fascinating section:

The released prisoners accounted for 8.4% of all the homicides in the 13 States in 1995 (table 6). Similarly, prisoners released in 1994 accounted for 5.4% of all the arrests for rape in
the 13 States in 1994 and 9.0% of all the arrests for robbery in the 13 States from 1994 to 1997.
Although these percentages may seem small, they are actually the product of high rates of criminality. For example, to account for the 8.4% of 1995 homicides, the 234,358 released prisoners were arrested for homicide at a rate 53 times higher than the homicide arrest rate for the adult population. Note also that the 8.4% does not include homicides by
(a) prisoners released in 1995,
(b) prisoners released before 1994, or
(c) released prisoners who had crossed State lines.
The percentage of homicides attributable to released prisoners would be substantially greater if it included persons in categories a, b, and c.

Leonard said...

Rana: you seem to think that having multiple justifications for a particular policy is somehow a bad thing.

Jack Crow said...

Leonard,

Assuming for a moment that you are properly presenting the data, and interpreting it correctly, your argument doesn't begin to address the origin of crime, how it's defined, how it's prosecuted, or the rafter of encoded inequities and biases inherent to the use of that power.

Nor are you close to considering how it is that those with property arrange to define crime in such a way as to prevent those without it from obtaining both legal redress and fair consideration for the desperation which is born from the lack of it.

Leonard said...

Chris M., animals kill others of their same species all the time. Many species don't -- but many do.

Chimps, our closest-relative state of nature ideal savages, even do "warfare". Would you maintain that capitalism is somehow involved?

breeyont said...

Leonard, you maroon, that blockquote you just dropped on us is utterly irrelevant to your, uh, "argument". How many of those 272,111 inmates discharged do you think just beat a death sentence as opposed to, say, getting paroled on a possession rap? The alternative sentence for the vanishingly small fraction of the total US prison population up on a capital charge isn't time served, it's life in prison.

The only way this citation wouldn't be a complete flail in the dark is if you're actually advocating the extension of the death penalty all the way down to felony burglary.

Anonymous said...

"the extension of the death penalty all the way down to felony burglary."

Wasn't that the case in Europe, cca 1700?

Capt'n Obvious

Alaya said...

Jesus fucking christ, if recidivism is the justification, then let's all guillotine the investment bankers. Oh, no, wait, you mean to tell me those white dudes were never charged for their crimes? Oh, never mind then.

So, black folk, those niggas we can kill, right? Hey, it helps keep them from getting back on the street and, like, committing crimes they will actually get arrested for. Because we all know those are the only real crimes in the world!

I don't think the death penalty would be right even in a impossible fucking utopia where every murderer were infallibly tried and justly imprisoned, but since we obviously live in this shithole of a racist universe and not that one I cannot believe that people who regularly read the blog of a humanist anarchist are making this argument.

Someone explain to me what is wrong with executing a murderer?

Do you pay your taxes, TGGP? If so, how would you prefer your execution--lethal injection, or just a good old-fashioned hanging?

Strange fruit has been hanging from the fucking poplar trees for a good two and half centuries now, people.

breeyont said...

And why stop there?

"A 2003 paper by Lawrence Katz, Steven D. Levitt and Ellen Shustorovich published in The American Law and Economics Review found a 'a strong and robust negative relationship' between prison conditions, as measured by the number of deaths in prison from any cause, and the crime rate. The effect is, the authors say, 'quite large: 30-100 violent crimes and a similar number or property crimes' were deterred per prison death."

Until every incoming prison is issued a shiv and a pack of dirty syringes we will all live in fear of the FLASH MOB MENACE

Leonard said...

Dunc, on that Tolkien quote, yah, I was referencing it. Tolkien is of course correct that many deserve life who are dead -- and that Frodo, you, or even I, cannot give it to them. Note that we also cannot give people a longer life -- so we should also not imprison them. The obvious implication (as the left uses it, at least), is that lacking perfect justice, we should give up on justice altogether.

As for your correlation of death penalty with rates of violent crime: really? You can imagine no casual structure other than laws cause crimes? Well, how about this: laws are imposed by the people via democracy. The people are more afraid of crime in states with worse crime problems. And the people tend to impose more draconian penalties for crime the more fearful of crime they are.

I suppose the data may support your view, although I note the total absence of causation in it. How, exactly, does the existence of a death penalty law in a state translate in causing crime? I'd like to look for evidence of the intermediates. The data also support my view, and my view has a causal structure that you can check. For example, you can look at opinion survey and the like to see if there is a correlation between fear of crime among the voters and the actual crime rates.

Mr.Fundamental said...

recidivists! fuck me. say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

I fail to see how capital punishment is going to bring anyone that was murdered back to life.

Alaya said...

Try the null hypothesis, Leonard. Maybe the death penalty and rates of violent crime have fuck all to do with each other.

Leonard said...

breeyont, I can tell that you did not actually read the linked study. Please do so. I am not going to quote it here in its entirety. You want to look at Table 3. Your friends among those released in 1994 had been arrested for 550,004 violent offenses prior to their release. Including 18,001 murders, 21,638 rapes, and 243,654 assaults.

Leonard said...

Alaya, my null hypothesis is that punishment of all kinds deters behavior that is punished. This is common sense. That death deters murder is just a specific instance of the general condition.

I fancy even you have been deterred from performing crimes, and by punishment far less draconian than death. I know that I have. For example, when I am driving and I see a cop I slow down to the speed limit. (And I note that most people slow down even further, leaving me the guy in the "fast lane" going 55 trying to get by them toodling along at 50.) So you see, my behavior is influenced by a penalty that is comparatively trivial.

I put it to you that you do not feel influenced by the death penalty (or whatever it is for murder in your state), because are a normal, nice person who has absolutely no intent to kill people.

Dunc said...

"I suppose the data may support your view"

Oh, well, that's very fucking generous of you...

The death penalty is actually one area of criminal justice policy where we have some pretty good data, as we have lots of places which have abolished it whilst collecting fairly reliable crime stats. If the deterrence theory is true, every state which has abolished the death penalty should see a corresponding increase in the applicable crimes. We do not see that. Therefore, the death penalty does not have any detectable deterrent effect. Q. E. D.

As for causation, how about the notion that when the state explicitly states that it's OK, and in fact required in the name of justice, to kill people whom you have decided deserve it, that people might take that idea and run with it on their own terms? And also that, conversely, when the state asserts that it is not acceptable to kill people via the criminal justice system under any circumstances*, that people might also absorb that notion? I believe it's called "setting an example".

[* Leaving aside the obvious practical issue that this is never actually true and that the criminal justice does still kill people in various ways, albeit without explicit official sanction.]

Oh, and it's also fairly clear that there is not generally a positive correlation between fear of crime and actual rates of crime. Indeed, in many places, the correlation is inverse - the fear of crime goes up as actual crime rates go down.

"The obvious implication (as the left uses it, at least), is that lacking perfect justice, we should give up on justice altogether."

No, dumbass, the implication is that, lacking perfect justice, we should restrict ourselves to measures that allow the possibility of reversal in the event we find we've screwed up. Now, admittedly, imprisonment does not allow for perfect reversal, in that we can't actually give the time back, but it does at least allow the person in question to be released and offered some form of compensation.

Ethan said...

What's wrong with "giving up on justice"? Justice is a crock.

la Rana said...

the "estoppel" and "forfeit" arguments penned by TGGP are approximately Leonard+dictionary. I've said it before - you don't want to be a lawyer, so why pretend?

Leonard, you do realize that people study these things professionally? There are well-known answers to all of your roadside-schitzo babbling, and you are wrong in almost every respect. The only interesting part of this thread is how oblivious you are to your own ignorance.

breeyont said...

Leonard,

Maybe it would help if I typed slowly: there are multiple legal classes of homicide. Generally only the highest, 1st degree or felony murder, is even eligible for the death penalty, and even then most are not sentenced as such.

Rape has not been a capital offense in the US since Kennedy v. Lousiana.

Assault is not a capital offense.

You seem to be arguing that the death penalty somehow prevents recidivism by people who cannot legally receive a death sentence. Is this correct? If so, how would this happen, exactly, short of expanding the range of capital offenses to encompass all violent crimes?

You would be better off going back to the deterrent argument; at least there you have some statistics you can fudge. But you hit a logical bind with the recidivism argument, as death has exactly the same effect as lifelong imprisonment on future crimes, unless you expect a massive wave of daring prison breaks in the near future.

davidly said...

Yeah the murder rate for chimps is through the roof! Especially those that get out of the zoo early.

Dunc said...

"The only interesting part of this thread is how oblivious you are to your own ignorance."

In what way is that interesting? He demonstrates it in every fucking thread, and has done for years.

Paul Alexander said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Alexander said...

If it weren't for the death penalty mother fuckers would be slaughtering people en masse.

Justice is wonderful! There's nothing better is there? Your car got stolen? Well, you're not going to get it back, and there's no money to replace it. In fact, if it's found, you'll have to pay to get it back. BUT! Isn't that all secondary to making sure that someone is properly punished? And punishment is surely the penultimate display of justice.

Mr.Fundamental said...

oh, Leonard, you old libertarian you, your damn laws the good people don't need 'em and the bad people don't obey 'em so what use are they?

the laws are gobblety gook, and you know it. it is the application of force in the general direction of your overall persuasion and benefit that gets you all sweaty, and you know it. that even on your own terms a fudge factor does not enter into your equation of the system of penalization, and what that might mean when a persons life hangs in the balance, well, whatever Leonard.

see, my vacuum sealed example is that you slow down when there's a cop with his radar gun out! and how many times have I not slowed down and not been pulled over? how much weed have I bought? how many times was I drunk before I turned 21? how much coke has IOZ snorted off the stiff cock of a 16 year old?

but I mean, keep flaunting our "justice" stats, Leonard. atta boy! you did good!

I wish Leonard existed in a fucking vacuum.

Doctor Mumbo-Jumbo said...

Also "animalistic"? What are you a fucking park ranger? You see a lot of cows murdering other cows?

Maybe he should have said "ant-istic," vicious bastards that they are.

I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the vast biological range of physical and mental attributes among humans that contributes to the species' predisposition towards ruthless hierarchies. I mean, how great is the possible difference between one adult cow and another? The differences between adult humans are staggering by comparison.

I can't imagine how many centuries of IOZian clones it will take to convince those humans biologically or socially armed with the ability to dominate other humans to willfully abstain from doing so. Meanwhile, carry on.

Anonymous said...

leonard, i was arrested for carrying a micro-gram beyond the misdemeanor v. felony boundary for pot.

i will never ever for rest of my life be able to afford to say "fuck it let's go bowling."

should i apply for a job at the quick-e-mart? or just rob it? which am i more likely to be successful at?

"but punishment deters crime! it's common sense!"

Anonymous said...

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Not sure it is a debate worth having.

Magic Jason said...

Leonard:

"How, exactly, does the existence of a death penalty law in a state translate in causing crime? I'd like to look for evidence of the intermediates."

Sure I can come up with some intermediaries. The majority of Americans believe an innocent person was executed in the last five years, a condition you admitted you would view as acceptable. In other words, people widely believe they could be executed by the state regardless of whether they commit crimes. I can imagine this leading to a view in the mind of a criminal (and that's obviously such a ridiculous exercise, but it's the kind of thinking you propose is enough to justify state killing) that it doesn't matter whether they actually kill or don't kill someone, the state can go ahead and zap them anyway. I can imagine that leading to people killing others with less serious concern for the state-organized consequences. If the whole point of the death penalty to institute deathly seriousness, I doubt embarrassing errors really help. For instance, if Troy Davis is innocent, a real cop killer is free. I hate cops so I'm pretty cool with that, but explain how that helps the death penalty deter crime. If Sylvester Coles admitted to the murder next week, what would you say? I guess you would say some shit like:

"Do you prefer a society with rampant criminality, but no death penalty, or do you prefer a society with less criminality where criminals (and the rare innocent) are killed by the state?"

Okay, so even if the death penalty completely fails as deterrence, I guess we could agree that some imaginable punishment schemes might more effectively deter crime. For instance, we could propose a system in which every person who commits any kind of crime is executed to prevent them from committing future crimes. We could also broaden the category of what a crime is to include more people who are likely to commit future crimes. This would probably be fabulously effective at lowering the crime rate as we know it today. The reason we wouldn't prefer this society is not because it wouldn't be effective, but because it would be fucking barbaric. This is an extreme and not what anyone is proposing, I know. Personally, I think we need to radically scale down what constitutes crime and also how we punish crimes. But why is it so hard to agree on "the point of no return from error" as a good starting point?

I'll tell you why: we've never actually been executing people out of an earnest belief in deterrence. We've been doing it because we like it. Do you think lynching reduced the crime rate Leonard?

Anonymous said...

"We're mean because our military is mean" again? Yeesh.

Happy Jack said...

At least we can labor under the pretense of "justice" in this country with appeals to the lords of death.

The only reprieve some poor sap in Pakistan gets is if sky's are overcast or something.

IOZ said...

Lenny, your story about speeding reminded me of the one time I didn't rob a bank due to my successful getaway after robbing that bank.

Jack Crow said...

What Leonard and the death penalty supporters refuse to accept - and this has little to do with the merit of "criminal justice," on its own - is that there's as much an argument in favor of the death penalty as a motivation to kill witnesses as there isn't one in favor of the "deterrence" argument.

Christopher M. said...

Chimps do not participate in "warfare," Leonard, you hopelessly ignorant ass. Chimps do occasionally kill other chimps, which some humans call "warfare." "Warfare", even among humans, did not exist until large scale agriculture allowed for the accumulation of wealth in a ruling class and the formation of states; before that, we had brief skirmishes which usually ended as soon as actual casualties occurred - much as chimps do. In the meantime, chimps, like pretty much all other social animals, have complex societies in which food and other resources are distributed throughout social groups based not only on social hierarchy, but on need, and in which those higher in that hierarchy can and do lose their favored status if they refuse to contribute to the social group.

Seriously, read a fucking book!

Christopher M. said...

The death penalty, meanwhile, does not exist to deter crime - it exists to deter dissent, like torture or any other form of state terror. Troy Davis was killed to remind us that any of us can be killed, so we could know that the noose is always inches from our own necks.

Joe said...

Do you prefer a society with rampant criminality, but no death penalty, or do you prefer a society with less criminality where criminals (and the rare innocent) are killed by the state?

You missed a couple of options: C) A society with rampant criminality in spite of criminals being killed by the state; and D) None of the above. I choose D.

I can't imagine how many centuries of IOZian clones it will take to convince those humans biologically or socially armed with the ability to dominate other humans to willfully abstain from doing so. Meanwhile, carry on.

Who’s trying to convince people in power to “willfully abstain” from anything? I’d say it’s more about, if it’s about anything, convincing those on the, ah, bottom, that maybe they shouldn’t willfully participate in their own domination.

Leonard said...

Breeyont, type as slow as you need to. I am aware that there are multiple kinds of homicide. I am also aware that the death penalty is hardly imposed for anything these days.

You seem to think that my posting information on recidivism in general was supposed to be an argument that the death penalty did deter by incapacitation. No: the argument is only that it could have. As you say: we would have to actually execute people who cannot (currently) legally receive a death sentence to get the effect.

Meanwhile, the murders perpetrated by those tiny few who are executed remain at zero. This will continue. Discussing recidivism only suggests what these men (and the occasional woman) might have accomplished if left alive. It cannot prove anything, being counterfactual.

As for your suggestion that death has exactly the same effect as lifelong imprisonment on future crimes: that is only true if you discount the actions of lifers inside of prison. In fact, prisoners violate the rights of other prisoners with some regularity, a fact which I should think most progressives are aware of. Certainly prison rape is held to be a problem by many. Prison crowding, too. Life-no-parole prisoners contribute to these problems; my guess is disproportionate to the former. Don't you progressives care about prisoner rights?

BTW, that paper you mentioned at 11:02 AM is evidence for my position, not yours. This country executes almost nobody, and takes nearly forever to do so. Justice delayed, indeed. The deterrent effect of that is according tiny. Whereas, this country treats its hordes of prisoners quite poorly, exposing them to the high death rate used as a proxy (for prison conditions generally) by Levitt et al. And it is that which deters, as they show. It is absurd to believe that death inflicted officially by the state does not deter, but death that happens unofficially in prison does.

James N. said...

Hey, La Rana: do you have some links to studies on sentencing, deterrence, recidivism, etc. if you've got 'em handy? I read a fair amount of stuff from Loic Waquant (sp?) when you mentioned it several months ago.

I am a member of the secret handshake guild, working on a sentencing memorandum right now on behalf of our client. I don't usually end up making statistical arguments, but it would be a handy tool to keep in the ol' box.

Personally I like how Texas executed a guy who killed an innocent black man, just hours before Georgia killed an innocent black man. I think this means Texas gets to execute Georgia.

Leonard said...

Joe, I would prefer a society that has no crime and executes nobody. I am guessing that is what you choose also, as one possibility in D. However, I do not regard that as realistic in any way. Humanity abides.

One hallmark of intellectual honesty is the willingness to confront hard choices, and not wish them away. I posed a hard choice among two alternatives, not an easy choice among four. Which do you choose? It is perfectly OK to say that you do not think those are the only choices before us.

Leonard said...

Chris M., those "brief skirmishes" -- ending in, you know, killing -- that you admit exist are what I was calling "warfare". And you'll notice that I scare-quoted the word, exactly for that reason -- to call attention to the fact that chimp "warfare" is not like all kinds of human warfare -- just some kinds.

BTW, I have read the fucking book. The question is: have you?

NutellaonToast said...

How are more people not harping on Leonard for assigning blame to the "monopoly" held by the justice system for it's poor accuracy.

holy fuck, homeboy actually thinks that if companies were competing for the right to apprehend criminals for profit that the number of criminals would decrease! but then what would happen to revenues?!?!?

Leonard said...

Dunc: lacking perfect justice, we should restrict ourselves to measures that allow the possibility of reversal in the event we find we've screwed up.

Ah, like life in prison without parole. Now: if you believe, as you seem to, that many innocent men are being executed (out of the 30 or so each year that the USA actually does execute)... how many innocent men, do you think, have died in prison? Of old age, if nothing else?

Do you see any problem with that?

Now, admittedly, imprisonment does not allow for perfect reversal, in that we can't actually give the time back, but it does at least allow the person in question to be released and offered some form of compensation.

Yes: an unprincipled exception. At least comrade Ethan has the courage of his convictions: What's wrong with "giving up on justice"? Justice is a crock. So which is, comrades? Does our human inability to implement perfect justice forbid any punishment whatsoever? Or is some punishment -- perhaps a stern lecture? -- still allowed? Note that if you accidentally sternly warn some innocent man, you cannot take it back, either.

Ethan said...

I ain't got nothin'. Don't tell me what I got.

Mr.Fundamental said...

I just made a threatening gesture directed directly at Leonard! he couldn't even see me! and he flinched! this is sweet. I can now refrain from doing all of this criminal stuff from behind this computer screen directed directly at Leonard and bother him all day long!

Anatole David said...

@nutellaontoast

Excellent catch on "Monopolies"!

Privatized Prisons(CXW, et al) have done wonders for incarceration rates! Competition has swelled prisons and soaked state budgets to the point where they spend more on Incarceration than education! Profit based Justice--as "lucrative" as Competitive Health Care! American Style!

Property owners subject "justice" onto to those without property--it is the deadliest weapon in the class war...To think the Death Penalty isn't about keeping the rabble in line and protecting property owning looters(as many have stated clearly above) requires apologists throw up deterrent and recidivism in holy terror against those who'd let loose the dogs of property spoliation!(Ignoring the greatest infringements upon property laws are enacted daily by Gov't backed TBTF Banks, and Security forces of the Gov't itself-foreign and domestic--with impunity)

And we get to the Death Penalty. Troy Davis was executed BECAUSE(not despite) of the outcry--the State could look weak and appear to seriously consider Justice--it had to establish its power of life and death over a poor individual caught in its machinery.

I am glad Leonard doesn't consider "recidivism" of states executing individuals innocent of crimes they committed--But this slips by the point that Execution itself is barbaric and useless and is practiced to instill fear in people of the state's power. I love how some, besides Leonard, cite the past(Middle Ages, 17th century) as much more barbaric--in particular instances perhaps, and mostly about aesthetics or people hanged for theft, etc--In the sheer factory scale of State Sanctioned Murder presently--not even close..They're comparing a handicract level of Capital Punishment to a Modern Industrialized Machine of state sanctioned murder. Murdering with Lethal Injection is no less horrific than being drawn and quartered. The fact states make absurd efforts to make murder invisible, antiseptic, and gentile is more obscene.

IOZ cannot sing sufficiently the psychotic murder spree of the US Military(the Military's meanness) and its Contractors. Here's another case where "competition"--private War Contractors--has made War and Death a booming market resulting in more torture and death and costs society more(deficits, etc).

Capital punishes debts with the with utmost severity. It doesn't matter if those debts were fraudulenty induced--it has impunity---This process is mirrored by states that execute innocent people--the basic "principle" is formalized and exists outside of puerile, mundane, considerations of fairness, justice, etc.

Leonard has abstracted himself into
mootness--It's fitting, from his lofty perch, that he not only misrepresents the data, but also misses the point buoyed upwards into pointlessness.

I appreciate the responses he has inspired.

Anatole David said...

btw Leonard, kudos for the word "rampant"--nice touch--After I read that I timorously peeked out my window

Christopher M. said...

No you didn't "read the book," Leonard, you dumbass. You googled "chimpanzee war book" and posted the first link you found. And you came up with Nicholas Wade, not a scientist, but a shitty pop-science journalist using shitty, out of date science.

Christopher M. said...

For anyone with a genuine interest in the complexity of how the natural world actually works - and how the basis of this is frequently collaboration and community rather than a crackpot war of all against all - I'd recommend reading Bekoff, Goodall and de Waal.

Professor Coldheart said...

Meanwhile, Texas will be ending the "last meal" for death row inmates at the request of a state Senator:

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/09/whitmire-on-last-meal-for-deat.html

I'm just amazed it took this long for the practice to die off. The tone of popular discourse on prisoners, ever since I've been alive, has been that they forfeit all civil consideration once convicted, that their transgression against a bureaucracy means they surrender their humanity. Why should a death row inmate get nice food? Hell, why are taxpayers footing the bill for his food at all? He's got surviving family; send them the bill!

Professor Coldheart said...

Note that if you accidentally sternly warn some innocent man, you cannot take it back, either.

I find both possibilities here - that you think there's a dead-serious moral equivalency between shaming and lethal injection, or that you think this is a pithy bon mot meant to illustrate the "contradictions" of sub-fatal measures of punishment - equally amusing.

Leonard said...

Magic Jason, I appreciate that you are discuss this in good faith -- unlike, I might add, pretty much everyone else, thus far. Name calling galore, and many assuming the most evil and/or stupid possible motives on my part. Shame on them.

At least you give a link to prove your assertion. But the assertion itself is purely an artifact of the media. Most Americans have no idea whether or not an innocent man has been executed in the last five years. To the extent that they do, it is only via the most mediated of all avenues. They heard a talking head worry about it. They certainly did not look into even one case themselves. Much less all of them.

Take Mr. Davis, the cause du jour: have you read any of the trial transcripts? I have not. All of my information is indirect -- selected by someone else, someone who is almost certainly biased one way or the other. But he looks guilty to me. Of course, I can use the fruit of the poison tree. (Funny how that doesn't come up very much; I expect that before 1960, they could have used it.)

But even granting that we executed an innocent man in the past 5 years, your assertion that "people widely believe they could be executed by the state regardless of whether they commit crimes" does not follow. It only follows if you think that everyone believes that everyone innocent is equally likely to end up on death row. But people do not believe that. For better or worse, most people think that "it can't happen to me". They think it can happen only to people in some "other" category: gang member, male, criminal, black, drug-involved, latino, or what have you.

I have already answered your question, to wit: why is it so hard to agree on "the point of no return from error" as a good starting point? And that is because all punishment, by its very nature, is beyond that point. And most certainly the punishment often mentioned in this context -- life without parole -- is. Cory Maye, to take one example, lost 10 years of his life behind bars. What, will you give him a million dollars? Even if you did -- do you think that somehow makes things even? It is curious how people feel the sacredness of life in some contexts, but not others.

As for your last question: of course lynching reduced the crime rate -- at least, it reduced the black on white crime rate, which is what the lynchers aimed for. You seem to think terrorism doesn't work; this is false. Being as lynching was a crime itself, it is hard to say how it affected the overall crime rate. But I will note that overall crime was far lower back in the bad old days of lynching, and far higher now. Something has changed for the worse; you might think that moderns would want to know what it is. But we are strangely incurious. We are very, very interested in what might have caused the dropoff in crime rates since their peak in 1994. Was it abortion? Lead reduction? Technology? Policing? But the explosion from 1960-1993? Well, just a tragedy.

breeyont said...

I knew that that article supported your position when I posted it; it was posted to illuminate that your position - that barbarism if barbarism can make us safe, let us then be barbaric - was morally vacuous.

Or rather, what I thought I was rather cruelly caricaturing your position as, since I did not in my one deepest heart actually believe that you held that the problem with the State's use of lethal punishment is that it isn't nearly common or casual enough. More fool me. I hadn't realized that libertopia was Ünderland.

NutellaonToast said...

Your stupidity isn't assumed, Leonard. It's documented and proven. This is perhaps your greatest and definitely your most thorough contribution to the field.

Anonymous said...

"For better or worse, most people think that "it can't happen to me". They think it can happen only to people in some "other" category: gang member, male, criminal, black, drug-involved, latino, or what have you. "

Most people are never gang members, men, criminals, black, "drug-involved," latino, or what have you. Good one, Leonard. That is a perfectly sensible statement and speaks volumes about your ability to think even the most asinine supposition through.

Leonard said...

Chris M., when you said "read a fucking book" I was curious to see what Mr. Google thinks is the preeminent book on "chimp warfare"; which seemed fair to me. And I was tickled to see I had read it, so I mentioned it. I am so sad to see that you disliked it. But did you read it? You do not say.

I do not know what you are alluding to with your reference to Bekoff, Goodall and de Waal. Perhaps you could link. Is this the fucking book you were referring to initially? Have you read it?

I certainly do not disagree with the summary you make of it, namely, that "frequently collaboration and community" are important aspects of the natural world, and moreover that "the war of all against all" is a terribly misleading image of the natural world. Indeed: chimp warfare is highly collaborative, engaged in by the whole community of males in a band together, and very much targeted (against a specific neighboring band). And, similarly, the death penalty is one of our big-ape versions of the community acting collaboratively.

la Rana said...

James N - Generally speaking, your best resources are the Bureau of Justice Statistics (DOJ), the Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics(UAlbany) (they publish a hardcopy that can be found in most libraries), and books and articles on criminal justice. Michael Tonry publishes a ton, and there are whole legal journals on criminology and criminal justice, like, uh, Crime and Justice.

You could spend the rest of your life reading this shit, which is why I find it fascinating that despite his complete ignorance of empirical data and philosophical arguments, Leonard is so deperate to convince others of the inherent rightness of his contrary opinions. If I didn't know better I would guess he was a man of the cloth.

Saurs said...

No, anonymous, Leonard is correct. Although statistically most people must fall into one of his undesirables categories (you know, black, criminal, whatnots), for the purposes of answering the inquiries of curious pollsters, said black criminal whatnots, for unspoken but obviously sinister reasons, adopt the guise of a default human -- the non-criminal white person -- and answer accordingly. It's Science!

Inkberrow said...

Deterrence can be specific or general. The execution victim is by definition deterred. As to general deterrence, absent "Minority Report"-style technology there is no way to gauge when and how often the homicidal actor changes his or her mind because of the threat of punishment. The studies cited beg the question. Similarly, the "capital P. states have higher crime rates" objection does not address the possibility that said rates might be that much higher if the law was changed.

On Davis himself, all too few protesters are shamefully omitting the biggest factor animating their outrage, as well as the media blitz---that Davis is black and his alleged victim white. Davis is hence and has always been the the real victim here, and this should be shouted from the mountaintops, not tapdanced around. All African-Americans on Death Rows should receive immediate commutations on grounds of identity-politics compassionate relief. It goes without saying that Obama's election had Nothing To Do With Race, either.

antonello said...

I'd rather a thousand guilty men be executed than one innocent be imprisoned.

What is the reasoning here? How would executing a thousand guilty men make it any less likely that an innocent man will be imprisoned? Conversely, are the innocent more likely to be imprisoned because the guilty are not executed?

One hears the saying "Better ten guilty men escape than an innocent man be punished." This at least has a point to it: less draconian laws are more unlikely to punish the innocent.

the murders perpetrated by those tiny few who are executed remain at zero. This will continue.

Likewise, those who never murdered but are executed will remain executed.

As for deterrence, the whole notion of dissuading killers is rather mystifying. How many who would commit a crime expect to be caught? None but those are referred to as "hardened" or "career" criminals. They do what they do because this is what they know. The existence or absence of a death penalty will not affect them. Nor will it deter those who commit a "crime of passion"; they aren't thinking about the consequences.

So what about others who are willing to kill? What will deter them? Not the law, certainly. Isn't the essence of a crime the conviction that you will get away with it? That's the incentive that makes crime possible.

What we're left with, then, is the idea of laws deterring the would-be criminal: the one who thinks about a crime but doesn't attempt it. But is the death penalty the deal-breaker or is it punishment per se? The man who merely ponders killing his spouse or his business rival is sufficiently deterred by the thought that he will end up in prison. That's enough to stop him. He's not going to get what he wants. Killing his spouse won't get him the neighbor he fancies. Killing his competitor won't get him a bigger fortune. He won't get these things because he believes he won't escape detection. The death penalty is not the pivotal factor here.

To imagine the death penalty as a necessary deterrent, you would have to picture someone who could deal with the miseries of imprisonment but could not abide the disgrace of being executed. A very hypothetical someone, I would argue.

Anonymous said...

hanging opposition to murder on the moral status of the person being killed is a bit of a you'llpardontheexpression cop-out; it is not the persistent execution of the innocent that should trouble your conscience but the mere fact of executions; it is not that people are put to death in error, but that people are put to death.

This is empty self-righteousness. Executing actual murderers is probably not a good policy. Executing an innocent person is the most horrific violation imaginable. Opposing the death penalty because of the latter is not a "cop-out." It just acknowledges a basic and important distinction between inappropriately punishing monstrous criminals (wrong, but they should get some harsh punishment, even if not this one) and punishing the innocent (unacceptable).

What's a cop-out is retreating to the prissy high ground of "taking life is the problem, because, like, all lives are precious or something." Nonsense. And surprisingly twee nonsense for a blog that affects a weary, sophisticated nihilism. Some lives aren't precious at all. The issue is, what should be done with those lives?

The answer is that yes, even if people are guilty, they should not be executed. But that's not because their executions should shock anyone's conscience. It's because having the death penalty inevitably involves killing the innocent. It's also because executing them would serve no social purpose that life imprisonment would not. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Enron said...

At least during Jim Crow the executioner showed his face

TGGP said...

I can see Leonard's argument for having the perpetrator compensate the victim (or designated heirs or somesuch). That's an argument for penal slavery, but not the death penalty. Hard to work off a debt when you're dead, unless it's through selling organs.

The argument against a pure reparation's based system of punishment (which certainly does have many attractive features, like the lack of victimless crimes) is that there are public goods that would be underserved. Preventing crime through incapacitation (whether death or imprisonment) is one. There is also the argument, presaged by Richard Herrnstein and most recently elaborated by Mark Kleiman, that the folks who tend to commit crimes are the most prone to hyperbolic discounting. Punishment should be certain and swift. Kleiman advocated reducing severity so that certainty is more achievable (as has been noted, it takes a lot longer to execute someone than before), but here we're free to speculate about changes in legal standards. The last few years of a prison sentence are discounted for their distance, but an execution takes place in a short amount of time. And it receives so much attention because it is naturally salient in our minds, enhancing the deterrence effect. I advocate that execution be made public again and widely broadcast, which will make it all the more salient.

To answer a question above, want convicts to be hanged but would personally rather get the needle, just as I would rather other criminals be imprisoned while I go free. But sending me to jail for paying taxes is ridiculous, with automatic witholding it doesn't require action on my part. A legal regime which changes that fact could presumably also cease blowing up weddings with drone missiles, under which circumstances you lost that complaint about tax compliance. You don't have the resources to punish everyone who pays taxes. And without me paying taxes not one fewer people dies.

Yeah, I stole estoppel from Kinsella, who does indeed use the word "principle" to describe it.

TGGP said...

Sorry, Kinella link should be here.

Leonard said...

La Rana -- a man of the cloth! Well, I've certainly accused you progressives of that in the past. Takes one to know one.

Oh, I can guess your faith. Educated progressives. Some of you fancy yourself a bit more enlightened than the Shakespeare's Sisters of the world. I.e., comrade Ethan here expresses nihilism from the safety of his well-policed condo. (Although I will admit that at least he can read plain meaning, as he did in his post of 10:12.) Chris M. thinks the death penalty exists to deter dissent. Jason supports cop-killing. Anatole David sees scare-quoted "justice" as a weapon in the class war. Breeyont finds execution barbarous, thereby condemning practically every society that has ever existed. And IOZ won't even admit he believes in "crime". (A point I feel no need to discuss. It's like porn, IOZ: you'll know it when you see it, if you've truly lived so sheltered a life. Anyone who wants an example could study the career of Ted Bundy or even just Lemaricus Davidson.) Meanwhile, you echo such progressive talking points as "it costs too much". Well, even 50 years ago they somehow managed to execute criminals without costing millions of dollars in attorney fees and 20 years of delays. The cost is not some fact of nature, as if we can only kill malefactors with a barrage of silver bullets or a gold-plated electric chair. It is an artifact of the justice system. People -- believing progressives like you all -- have organized it in such a way as to make execution very, very difficult. The cost is an expression of your power. Justice delayed is justice denied.

You all disbelieve in God. So, where are you getting your morality from, your obvious outrage at killing? You preach received Christian morality anyway, perhaps without knowing it, and without believing in its fundament, which is a living and loving God. (Ethan seems to be at least consistent in preaching the newer ideas -- he'd do away with punishment altogether, and willfully hope that criminals will repent and follow him; his is an echo of Jesus and turn-the-other-cheek, not that mean Old Testament eye-for-an-eye stuff.)

It seems to me that atheists ought to be a bit humble about morality, seeing as we have no basis at all for believing in it. But no: you all express your rather inarticulate horror. Groupthink is reinforced. A new nony chimes in with a state execution -- lethal injection -- as "the most horrific violation imaginable". What paucity of imagination!

Dunc said...

"You all disbelieve in God. So, where are you getting your morality from, your obvious outrage at killing?"

Oh, for fuck's sake... The divine command theory of morality? Seriously? We really are deep into pointing and laughing territory now, aren't we?

[Points]
Ha ha!

What a fucking moron...

"You preach received Christian morality anyway, perhaps without knowing it"

Sure. Because nobody ever thought that killing was wrong before Christianity - not even the Jews you borrowed your commandments from. I say again - what a fucking moron!

OK, I've changed my mind. Can we introduce the death penalty for gross public idiocy, please?

Jack Crow said...

C'mon, Leonard.

It's simple, and it doesn't have to be "received" Jesusianism, either:

I don't want to die, at least until I'm old enough to be tired unto death. It follows that other people feel the same way, since they tend to feel the same way as me in a number of similar circumstances. Few of us hold our bowels until they rupture. Most of us try to eat when we're hungry. Nearly everyone I meet wants to feel sexual pleasure of some sort. When the urge to pee strikes, most everyone relieves it. And everywhen and everywhere, folks try not to die. Therefore, not wanting to experience death any time soon, it's likely that almost everyone I meet doesn't want to go through it either. If they don't kill me and I don't kill them, we all get to stick around longer.

(And, disbelieving all hereafters, I have zero motivation to get dead sooner than later, in the hopes of a heavenly reward...

Leonard said...

Ah Dunc, the horror, eh? I beat you down time after time. Aw. You just can't stand me sooooo much! You've got to let people know!! Why can't we kill the political opposition? Not the tame ones, I mean, but the really evil ones (like me)? Of course I'm kidding! Ha ha! Talking about political murder is all in good fun, right?

Jack, at least you seem to have some courage of your non-conviction, and don't get all vapory at the very mention of killing. And yes, I agree with all those human universal feelings you mention. But how do you get from that to "the death penalty is 100% always and ever wrong"? You can't. The modest utilitarianism you display at the end of your para should mean you are pro death penalty.

IOZ said...

Also, Jesus stole his shit from the Buddha, via the Mauryan missionaries in the Near East. Ashoka ftw.

Cüneyt said...

All I know is that there are no drug dealers in Singapore and no loose women in Iran. Thank you, death penalty!

James N. said...

@La Rana: Much obliged!

gamefaced said...

i is so so scairt.

Leonard said...

Your fuzziness, the point is not where your morality comes from. It's that you believe it. The point of mentioning Jesus and his "turn the other cheek" bit is not an attempt to stake out that he was the first man to say it. It is that progressives believe it, and they got it from him. It is one thing to believe in a morality got from Jesus (or God directly). The deist grounds his morality in God's supernatural authority. But you do not believe in Him. Heck, you want to denigrate J-christ as a plagiarist on Ashoka, like some Roman-era Martin Luther King. OK: we agree Jesus was just a man. Well then: why do you believe you should turn the other cheek?

This should cause some cognitive dissonance for an atheist -- or so I should think. It does in me, at least.

la Rana said...

cognitive dissonance doesn't mean what you think it means. deist doesn't mean what you think it means. the bible was written sporadically by people generations removed from Jesus' lifetime; the likelihood that it contains true quotes is approximately zero.

Why do you expect people to take you seriously when you clearly have not read anything about the subjects that concern you and can't even be bothered to understand the words you use?

you are better served as a joke; poorly programmed software; you make me believe in the department of education.

Fannie Farmer (Mrs.) said...

When the French say..., they mean...

In honor of the discussion on this thread so far, while being aware that it is now Foodie Friday, I was looking for blood sausage recipes. In the process, I came across some French food idioms that our friend Diana had gotten from the Los Angeles Times.

To wit:

You're turning my blood into blood sausage (Tu me fais tourner le sang en boudin): You're worrying me.

I could eat a parish priest rubbed with garlic (Je pourrais manger un curé frotté d'ail): I could eat a horse.

Oh, mashed potatoes! (Oh purée!): Darn it!

I can eat my soup on your head (Je peux manger ma soupe sur ta tête): I'm a head taller than you.

Worry about your own onions (Occupe-toi de tes oignons): Mind your own business.

Onions (oignons): Buttocks.

Make fried marlin eyes (Faire des yeux de merlans frits): Make goo-goo eyes.

Your rear end is surrounded by noodles (Tu as le cul bordé de nouilles): You're extremely lucky.

Go ahead, tall unhooker of sausages! (Va donc, grand dépendeur d'andouilles!): Go ahead, you big lug! (The guy who unhooks the andouilles from the ceiling must be very tall and not very smart.)

To have two eggs on the plate (avoir deux oeufs sur le plat): To be flat-chested.

She has the banana (Elle a la banane): She's got a big smile.

That puts the butter in the spinach (Ça met du beurre dans les épinards): That's icing on the cake.

He's sugaring his strawberries (Il sucre les fraises): He's old and senile, one foot in the grave.

Fall in the apples (tomber dans les pommes): To faint.

Make some salads (faire des salades): Tell tales out of school.

Push on the mushroom (Appuie sur le champignon): Step on the gas.

Make a total cheese (en faire tout un fromage): Make a big deal out of something.

She pedals in the sauerkraut (Elle pédale dans la choucroute): She doesn't understand diddly squat.

A noodle (une nouille): An idiot.

Make the leek (faire le poireau/poireauter): Wait impatiently for someone.

Send the sauce (envoyez la sauce): Make an effort.

She has the heart of an artichoke, she has an artichoke heart (Elle a le coeur d'artichaut): She's sentimental.

The carrots are cooked (Les carottes sont cuites): It's too late to do anything about it.

The end of the string beans (la fin des haricots): The biggest deal possible, in a catastrophic way.

with cross-cultural best wishes,
Fannie Farmer (Mme.)

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Jackie Crowbar's wife issues the death penalty to small humans daily.

What a grand irony.

Inkberrow said...

Antonello---

You too quickly dismiss opportunities for deterrence in both classic heat of passion circumstances and hardened-criminal settings. Little avail in the first case when the gun is in the nightstand next to the offended bed, but what about when the cuckold is across town, or out of town, when he gets the news? Then take a strong-arm robber---does he decide perhaps to take a fake gun, or not to load his real one?

Leonard said...

La Rana -- deism. Cognitive dissonance. And... although I disagree with you about authenticity of the Jesus-sayings in the Bible, it doesn't matter to me whether or not they were said by some dude named Josh or whether they were made up later on. What matters is that they were canonized, and as such they were taught to generations of Christians right down to you and me. The line of intellectual descent is what interests me, especially its surprising continuance in post-Christianity. In removing God from religion, we blew up the foundation of morality. But you don't seem to notice or care.

I expect people to take me seriously because I lay out reasonable arguments, based on information that we can (I hope) agree on. This is why I post links to what I am talking about. I do not expect people to take me seriously because I read something. Any fool can read, and even though reading does cut out the lowest intellects (here's some grimly funny evidence), it's a low bar. It is quite possible to parrot an intellectual position that you've never thought about, especially when it is quite popular and you've never had it challenged.

Jack Crow said...

You're usually not worth addressing on this topic, Karl, because you have all the shit logic of a values crusader and none of the really admirable devotion and passion - but: (and I repeat, yet again) my wife does not work for a practice which performs fetal terminations. Ever.

Even if she did, it would not be "the death penalty," nor would it have any bearing on my opinions.

IOZ said...

Any Fool Can Read sounds like a Fleet Foxes cover band.

la Rana said...

A deist doesn't ground his morality in god's supernatural authority, because a deist by definition does not believe god interferes in the universe. there is no cognitive dissonance in believing there is no god and advocating a system of morality. you just don't realize that because you a priori assume morality must come from god. if jesus, as gods son, did not say the words you attribute to him, then your point that we are deriving a system of morality from god is utterly disproven. If it was made up by some random dude - which it clearly was - then this is no different than me coming to the same conclusion. It is utterly unconnected to the supernatural. You literally have no point, but you don't seem capable of comprehending when your argument loses merit.

You clearly have not read the mountains of data on the deterrent effect of the death penalty, for example. thus your opinion on the deterrent effect, deemed common sense of all laughable things, is less than worthless. There is empirical evidence available. Avail yourself. The same thing applies to all of your other empirical arguments, as well as your theoretical arguments about justice and punishment. Hundreds of people have thought through these questions very carefully and written it down. If you read just an inkling of it you would realize how foolish your flippant analysis sounds. I know I am not first one to break this to you sweetheat (I honestly had no idea you were such an idiot) but nearly everything you've written in this post is just incoherent babbling.

Anonymous said...

Since when was a parasite a small human?

Montag said...

In removing God from religion, we blew up the foundation of morality.

IDGI. Methodist Sunday School taught me that God is everywhere, even in me, but that he would never provide proof of his existence because faith was sooo very important. (this is where they lost me. it's just submission to another authority!) plus it seemed strange cause he used to be all heavy handed with the floods and plagues and sculpting of stone tablets and shit. though admittedly i didn't stick around long enough to grok whether that shit was supposed to be true-true or just True.

at any rate, whether one believes in deist God who's just not that into us, or Methodist God who is anywhere, everywhere and all-knowing at all times but who won't holla, or no god at all, a person's sense of morality is at the core, just a "gut feeling." what's the difference if you call it faith or moral intuition? and why is submission to some ethereal divine authority necessary as a foundation of morality?

http://news.yahoo.com/belief-god-boils-down-gut-feeling-104403461.html

Ethan said...

Wait, wait, I was being sarcastic in my 10:12 post. That's really what you meant? God, you're stupider than I thought.

PS I ain't no nihilist.

Ethan said...

(PPS I ain't got no condo.)

Mr.Fundamental said...

The line of intellectual descent

I didn't realize our brains fucked and produced offspring. that's news to me! apparently there were no atheists back in the day, laughing and crying in the back corner of the temple, rolling their eyes and thinking, "oh fuck, here we go again." apparently the atheists are brain parasites! feeding of the intellectual detritus of the holy roman empire! mmmm....the simulacra is really fresh today!

three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax--YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I'M LIVING IN THE FUCKING PAST! I--Jesus. what the hell happened?

Ethan said...

(PPPS I like how I've made one or two little goofy one-liners that everyone else sensibly ignores, out of which Leonard has constructed some sort of comprehensive philosophy to which he believes I subscribe, and additionally acts as though I'm some sort of major participant in this whole blah-fest.)

Leonard said...

You clearly have not read the mountains of data on the deterrent effect of the death penalty... Hundreds of people have thought through these questions very carefully and written it down. If you read just an inkling of it you would realize how foolish your flippant analysis sounds.

More argument from asserted authority. Well, I am game. Since you don't say who your hundreds of authorities are, I'll just hie off to wikipedia to start working on my inkling. Let's get an overview of what the net.consensus on it is. Here we go.

The existence of a deterrence effect is disputed. Studies differ as to whether executions deter other potential criminals from committing murder or other crimes.

One reason that there is no consensus on whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent is that it is used so rarely - only about one out of every 300 murders actually results in an execution. ...

Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University, authored a study that looked at all 3,054 U.S. counties over two decades, and concluded that each execution saved five lives. Mocan stated, "I personally am opposed to the death penalty... But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect."

Joanna M. Shepherd, a law professor at Emory with a doctorate in economics who was involved in several studies on the death penalty, stated, "I am definitely against the death penalty on lots of different grounds... But I do believe that people respond to incentives." Shepherd found that the death penalty had a deterrent effect only in those states that executed at least nine people between 1977 and 1996. In the Michigan Law Review in 2005, Shepherd wrote, "Deterrence cannot be achieved with a half-hearted execution program."

The question of whether or not the death penalty deters murder usually revolves around the statistical analysis. Studies have produced disputed results with disputed significance. Some studies have shown a positive correlation between the death penalty and murder rates - in other words, they show that where the death penalty applies, murder rates are also high. This correlation can be interpreted in either that the death penalty increases murder rates by brutalizing society, or that higher murder rates cause the state to retain or reintroduce the death penalty. However, supporters and opponents of the various statistical studies, on both sides of the issue, argue that correlation does not imply causation.

In recent years, a number of new studies have been published, mostly by economists, that statistically demonstrate a deterrent effect of the death penalty. However, critics claim severe methodological flaws in these studies and hold that the empirical data offer no basis for sound statistical conclusions about the deterrent effect.


(Click the link to see more and get references.)

So, the little green gnomes writing wikipedia agree with me. Every point I have raised in this debate -- to your indignation and your continual content-free preening pose of scholarly superiority -- is echoed here by one of your credentialed authorities. Hmm. Who here is ignorant of the state of scholarly research on the issue? At least I'm aware of your talking points. Educator, educate thyself.

Mr.Fundamental said...

Just the good ol' boys
Never meaning no harm
Beats all you never saw, geting in trouble with the law
Since the day they was born

Straightenin' the curves
Flattenin' the hills
Someday the mountain might do'em
But the law never will

Making their way, the only way they know how
That's just a little bit more than the law will allow

I'm a good ol' boy
You know my mama loved me
But she don't understand they keep a showin my hands
And not my face on TV

Just good ol' boys,
Wouldn't change if they could,
Fightin' the system like a true modern day Robin Hood.

la Rana said...

Here are several papers explaining how your selective excerpts are simply wrong. The three biggest reasons are the impossibly small sample size, the inability to effectively account for deterrence from incarceration, and the insurmountable logistical problems in attempting to tie potential or actual executions to personal decisions about violence.

The latter part of my post you quoted is a reference to theories of punishment and the philosophy of justice. I reference those things not to argue from authority, as I thought I made clear, but to recommend you read something (say, kant, beccaria, rawls, smith, garland, recent sutff in crime and justice, etc.) so as to save yourself further embarrassment.

Your inane babbling is equivalent to judging anthropogenic global warming on the basis of your local temperature. I don't even know how to respond to that, other than "No. Stupid. Read something." Its not that your conclusions are wrong (most of them are), but that your analytical process ("hey gee wiz it seems right ta me!") is a fucking travesty if you are actually interested in understanding anything about this world.

Mr.Fundamental said...

at least my inane babbling is endearing.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/09/a_new_study_has_found.html

hey Leonard most cops can barely recognizing armed suspects! LOL! sounds like they need more job training and education! which sounds like a liberal project to me! maybe the schools, and specifically the teachers, do need more money! LOL!

“Knowing that black and Latino men are more likely to be shot or shot at … the sheriff’s department should be doing a better job to reduce as far as possible mistaken shootings,”

the cops behavior seems criminal to meeee! hee hee

antonello said...

If a man needs the Bible to tell him that murder is wrong, I would say that his sense of morality is fairly dead. I would have a hard time trusting this man.

If a man refrains from murder because it is against the laws of his country, I would have a hard time trusting this man as well. His sense of wrong, if merely based on obedience, is morally indifferent at best.

If a man instinctively feels that murder is wrong, or if his reasoning helps convince him of the same, he may find strength in the belief that the Bible supports him in his instincts or his reasoning. It is possible to trust such a man. And if he arrives at his belief without any seeking Biblical support, why would he be considered any less trustworthy?

"Theologians have always taught that God's decrees are good, and that this is not a mere tautology; it follows that goodness is logically independent of God's decrees." - Bertrand Russell

solerso said...

Human Sacrifice is alive and well and living in the yoooo-ess-ayyyyy

solerso said...

No seriously, these White, arch-conservative,dominionist wackos would be funny if they werent so dangerous. Whats most dangerous about them is thier belief in millenialism exists SIDE BY SIDE with thier temples to Baal and Mammon upon which the blood of human beings flows down onto a concrete floor, to be sluiced into the sewer. if I were them, and had thier beliefs in judgement day, id pause to be very worried.

solerso said...

@Leonard: leonard you extrahuman ape. take your greasy ape paws off my teenage memories of Tolkien, and just answer this:is it Okey dokey to kill an innocent person? is it ok to kill 100? how does your bullshitcoward mantra of "dont the perfect be the enemy of the good" rag cope with murdering innocent human beings,a uman sacrifice if you will, so that the widow of some dead cop can feel vindicated-for about 10 minutes, until she feels even worse for the rest of her life?...the problem with all of you virtual reich marshals is your UNSPEAKABLY monstrous self obessed narcisism. the WHOLE GODDAM world seems to be here for you to incarcerate, torture and murder because of your small penis-related feelings of inadequacy.

Lee said...

Is this IOZ wearing his NPR hat?

The state kills too many people. Also: subsidizes of corn syrup are bad, and taxes aren't progressive enough. Those are all incremental critiques I expect from establishment bloggers like Yglesias.

Surely it's only relative to other states that ours can be said to kill too many. Whatever the anarchist's baseline is, it's not likely to be a world with the sanitation commissioners, epidemiologists, statisticians, bankers, etc. required to sustain billions of lives. So what's a few thousand people killed by death-robots too someone not on board with this whole enterprise of government?

Anonymous said...

@Lee
how is "allowing the state to kill anyone is morally repugnant" an "incremental critique"?

the rest of your comment is illegible. However after several close examinations you appear to be suggesting that several thousands of people murdered by the state should be Okey Dokey with an "anarchist". What kind of bullshit,highschool-hairdoo anarchist did you learn that from,sonny?

Lee said...

@anonymous,

It's the anarchist's prerogative to call these politicians murderous thugs. But it's another thing to say, as Ioz does, that our "whole society is built around" "conquest [which is] the well from which we draw our drinking blood."

Deaths from war and criminal punishment are tiny compared to the life-creating and sustaining power of the modern state. Sanitation, industrial agriculture, etc. have caused mortality lines to take a nosedive these past 200 years. At least the eco-anarchists have the empirics right: there's a shitload of people everywhere.

Is it Ioz's position that what's wrong with our society is all the death? Please clarify.

TRMII said...

Blessedly given back to the beasts, IOZ?

Have you not seen the horror of the forests, where the grand patriarchs in their broad, green crowns crowd out thousands of their children every spring, choking them to death in their own shade?

Have you not seen the wasp lay its eggs on a spider and see dewy eyed larvae eat their way into life?

Have you ever found that your sticky mousetrap has caught two mice, one who ate the food, and the other who ate the first?

I submit that natural selection is an open market... OF DEATH. No tree ever moved its shade to make way for a seedling. No lioness ever starved to keep her cub alive.

Montag said...

the life-creating and sustaining power of the modern state

sure we're living longer nowadays, (i'll leave the exercise of proving or disproving that this is a result, or even a goal, of states to someone smarter,) but are those really quality years we're gaining? how many good years will i have lived once i subtract from the equation a lifetime's hours of toil?

http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html ;-)

everyone dies eventually, what does an anarchist care if it's a state that kills 'em? lol

Mr.Fundamental said...

They declared me unfit to live
said into that great void my soul'd be hurled
They wanted to know why I did what I did
Well sir I guess there's just a meanness in this world

Anonymous said...

order diazepam valium 20mg pill - valium dosage for social anxiety