The Official September 2017 Study Group Forum

[oopsu812]

Interesting that no ones mentioned the effect capital punishment has on the ones doing and setting up the means of killing.

[chewinggum]

Interesting that no ones mentioned the effect capital punishment has on the ones doing and setting up the means of killing.

I think it depends on how the person feels about it but from what I understand, there are several people doing different things and the idea is that one person doesn't feel solely responsible for the death.

Not sure how effective it is though

[Alexandros]

.

[Alexandros]

.

[oopsu812]

Interesting that no ones mentioned the effect capital punishment has on the ones doing and setting up the means of killing.

I think it depends on how the person feels about it but from what I understand, there are several people doing different things and the idea is that one person doesn't feel solely responsible for the death.

Not sure how effective it is though

I don't know. I can't imagine playing any part in someone's death is pleasant, especially if it's botched as it too often is. Also, the effect on the family of the person being killed.

[chewinggum]

Interesting that no ones mentioned the effect capital punishment has on the ones doing and setting up the means of killing.

I think it depends on how the person feels about it but from what I understand, there are several people doing different things and the idea is that one person doesn't feel solely responsible for the death.

Not sure how effective it is though

I don't know. I can't imagine playing any part in someone's death is pleasant, especially if it's botched as it too often is. Also, the effect on the family of the person being killed.

I was with you until the last part. I feel like when you commit that type of murder knowing the death penalty is a possibility (depending on the state) you're responsible for everything that follows - including the effect on yours and the victim's families

[presidentspivey]

Avid hunter and fisherman. Eat every type of meat. I see no ethical issues with meat consumption.

My issue with capital punishment is not the ethics, but whether or not there is no doubt to the crime having been committed. Life sentences at least give the criminal justice system the chance to admit fault at a later date.

In cases of absolute certainty, I'm for capital punishment

Agree with this. There are definitely some crimes for which a just punishment is death imo. But we've all heard the horror stories about DNA evidence exonerating people 20 years later. I've never felt that it really works as a deterrent as some proponents argue. The McVeighs and Dylann Roofs of the world aren't going to be deterred by such a penalty, and to me those are really the only crimes for which we should be executing people.

[proteinshake]

Avid hunter and fisherman. Eat every type of meat. I see no ethical issues with meat consumption.

My issue with capital punishment is not the ethics, but whether or not there is no doubt to the crime having been committed. Life sentences at least give the criminal justice system the chance to admit fault at a later date.

In cases of absolute certainty, I'm for capital punishment

Just in: It's fine for the state to kills its citizens, but not to collect taxes.

yeah I'm not against capital punishment in principle, but am against it because the state will always end up killing innocent people. I'm sure that's Charger's thinking as well.

[Anon-e-miss]

Avid hunter and fisherman. Eat every type of meat. I see no ethical issues with meat consumption.

My issue with capital punishment is not the ethics, but whether or not there is no doubt to the crime having been committed. Life sentences at least give the criminal justice system the chance to admit fault at a later date.

In cases of absolute certainty, I'm for capital punishment

Agree with this. There are definitely some crimes for which a just punishment is death imo. But we've all heard the horror stories about DNA evidence exonerating people 20 years later. I've never felt that it really works as a deterrent as some proponents argue. The McVeighs and Dylann Roofs of the world aren't going to be deterred by such a penalty, and to me those are really the only crimes for which we should be executing people.

I also think that positing a particularly nuanced view of capital punishment, while perhaps a worthwhile exercise in ethics and morality, is irrelevant in a policy discussions. We will either have it or not have it, and if we have it, it will be inevitably be utilized in situations in which those who take such a nuanced/qualified stance will inevitably disagree.

For example, I'm opposed to capital punishment outright. I think there are interesting moral arguments to be made regarding using it towards terrorists or those who commit serial murder while incarcerated. However, we would never have capital punishment in the US or any state with THAT narrow of a scope (and we will still end up killing innocent people or compounding injustices), so I oppose it.

[Alexandros]

.

[Alexandros]

.

[oopsu812]

Avid hunter and fisherman. Eat every type of meat. I see no ethical issues with meat consumption.

My issue with capital punishment is not the ethics, but whether or not there is no doubt to the crime having been committed. Life sentences at least give the criminal justice system the chance to admit fault at a later date.

In cases of absolute certainty, I'm for capital punishment

Agree with this. There are definitely some crimes for which a just punishment is death imo. But we've all heard the horror stories about DNA evidence exonerating people 20 years later. I've never felt that it really works as a deterrent as some proponents argue. The McVeighs and Dylann Roofs of the world aren't going to be deterred by such a penalty, and to me those are really the only crimes for which we should be executing people.

I also think that positing a particularly nuanced view of capital punishment, while perhaps a worthwhile exercise in ethics and morality, is irrelevant in a policy discussions. We will either have it or not have it, and if we have it, it will be inevitably be utilized in situations in which those who take such a nuanced/qualified stance will inevitably disagree.

For example, I'm opposed to capital punishment outright. I think there are interesting moral arguments to be made regarding using it towards terrorists or those who commit serial murder while incarcerated. However, we would never have capital punishment in the US or any state with THAT narrow of a scope (and we will still end up killing innocent people or compounding injustices), so I oppose it.

Yup. Does come down to this at the end of the day.

[proteinshake]

Avid hunter and fisherman. Eat every type of meat. I see no ethical issues with meat consumption.

My issue with capital punishment is not the ethics, but whether or not there is no doubt to the crime having been committed. Life sentences at least give the criminal justice system the chance to admit fault at a later date.

In cases of absolute certainty, I'm for capital punishment

Just in: It's fine for the state to kills its citizens, but not to collect taxes.

yeah I'm not against capital punishment in principle, but am against it because the state will always end up killing innocent people. I'm sure that's Charger's thinking as well.

I don't understand how someone can be philosophically libertarian / against state power can be for capital punishment. In b4 someone starts quoting shitty interpretations of John Locke at me.

The problem with being for it in cases of "absolute certainty" or in "extreme cases" is that that's an extremely fuzzy and subjective line.

I don't think it should be legal though. I'm just saying there isn't anything ethically impermissible imo about the state killing a mass murderer. I'm against capital punishment due to the fact that the state will end up killing innocents. there are plenty of libertarians with this view (and even Cass Sunstein I believe has this view or something similar). The only way I'd be for CP is if we knew those convicted are 100% guilty and it wouldn't be applied to crimes that people generally don't think are deserving of the death penalty.

[presidentspivey]

Avid hunter and fisherman. Eat every type of meat. I see no ethical issues with meat consumption.

My issue with capital punishment is not the ethics, but whether or not there is no doubt to the crime having been committed. Life sentences at least give the criminal justice system the chance to admit fault at a later date.

In cases of absolute certainty, I'm for capital punishment

Agree with this. There are definitely some crimes for which a just punishment is death imo. But we've all heard the horror stories about DNA evidence exonerating people 20 years later. I've never felt that it really works as a deterrent as some proponents argue. The McVeighs and Dylann Roofs of the world aren't going to be deterred by such a penalty, and to me those are really the only crimes for which we should be executing people.

I also think that positing a particularly nuanced view of capital punishment, while perhaps a worthwhile exercise in ethics and morality, is irrelevant in a policy discussions. We will either have it or not have it, and if we have it, it will be inevitably be utilized in situations in which those who take such a nuanced/qualified stance will inevitably disagree.

For example, I'm opposed to capital punishment outright. I think there are interesting moral arguments to be made regarding using it towards terrorists or those who commit serial murder while incarcerated. However, we would never have capital punishment in the US or any state with THAT narrow of a scope (and we will still end up killing innocent people or compounding injustices), so I oppose it.

This is one of the better arguments for outright opposition I've heard. I'll have to mull that over, but instinctively I think you're correct.

[Anon-e-miss]

Avid hunter and fisherman. Eat every type of meat. I see no ethical issues with meat consumption.

My issue with capital punishment is not the ethics, but whether or not there is no doubt to the crime having been committed. Life sentences at least give the criminal justice system the chance to admit fault at a later date.

In cases of absolute certainty, I'm for capital punishment

Just in: It's fine for the state to kills its citizens, but not to collect taxes.

yeah I'm not against capital punishment in principle, but am against it because the state will always end up killing innocent people. I'm sure that's Charger's thinking as well.

I don't understand how someone can be philosophically libertarian / against state power can be for capital punishment. In b4 someone starts quoting shitty interpretations of John Locke at me.

The problem with being for it in cases of "absolute certainty" or in "extreme cases" is that that's an extremely fuzzy and subjective line.

I don't think it should be legal though. I'm just saying there isn't anything ethically impermissible imo about the state killing a mass murderer. I'm against capital punishment due to the fact that the state will end up killing innocents. there are plenty of libertarians with this view (and even Cass Sunstein I believe has this view or something similar). The only way I'd be for CP is if we knew those convicted are 100% guilty and it wouldn't be applied to crimes that people generally don't think are deserving of the death penalty.

Perhaps you'll find my view overly relativistic, but I'm not convinced there are any situations where someone is "100% guilty" since that isn't the burden of proof in our criminal justice system. Sure, we have DNA/confessions/video evidence, but I don't truly believe we are capable of making the jump from proving guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to proving it ' with 100% certainty'

[proteinshake]

Avid hunter and fisherman. Eat every type of meat. I see no ethical issues with meat consumption.

My issue with capital punishment is not the ethics, but whether or not there is no doubt to the crime having been committed. Life sentences at least give the criminal justice system the chance to admit fault at a later date.

In cases of absolute certainty, I'm for capital punishment

Just in: It's fine for the state to kills its citizens, but not to collect taxes.

yeah I'm not against capital punishment in principle, but am against it because the state will always end up killing innocent people. I'm sure that's Charger's thinking as well.

I don't understand how someone can be philosophically libertarian / against state power can be for capital punishment. In b4 someone starts quoting shitty interpretations of John Locke at me.

The problem with being for it in cases of "absolute certainty" or in "extreme cases" is that that's an extremely fuzzy and subjective line.

I don't think it should be legal though. I'm just saying there isn't anything ethically impermissible imo about the state killing a mass murderer. I'm against capital punishment due to the fact that the state will end up killing innocents. there are plenty of libertarians with this view (and even Cass Sunstein I believe has this view or something similar). The only way I'd be for CP is if we knew those convicted are 100% guilty and it wouldn't be applied to crimes that people generally don't think are deserving of the death penalty.

Perhaps you'll find my view overly relativistic, but I'm not convinced there are any situations where someone is "100% guilty" since that isn't the burden of proof in our criminal justice system. Sure, we have DNA/confessions/video evidence, but I don't truly believe we are capable of making the jump from proving guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to proving it ' with 100% certainty'

I didn't say we do (unless I made a typo), I said me being in favor of CP would require the state having the ability to be 100% certain someone is guilty.

[Anon-e-miss]

Avid hunter and fisherman. Eat every type of meat. I see no ethical issues with meat consumption.

My issue with capital punishment is not the ethics, but whether or not there is no doubt to the crime having been committed. Life sentences at least give the criminal justice system the chance to admit fault at a later date.

In cases of absolute certainty, I'm for capital punishment

Just in: It's fine for the state to kills its citizens, but not to collect taxes.

yeah I'm not against capital punishment in principle, but am against it because the state will always end up killing innocent people. I'm sure that's Charger's thinking as well.

I don't understand how someone can be philosophically libertarian / against state power can be for capital punishment. In b4 someone starts quoting shitty interpretations of John Locke at me.

The problem with being for it in cases of "absolute certainty" or in "extreme cases" is that that's an extremely fuzzy and subjective line.

I don't think it should be legal though. I'm just saying there isn't anything ethically impermissible imo about the state killing a mass murderer. I'm against capital punishment due to the fact that the state will end up killing innocents. there are plenty of libertarians with this view (and even Cass Sunstein I believe has this view or something similar). The only way I'd be for CP is if we knew those convicted are 100% guilty and it wouldn't be applied to crimes that people generally don't think are deserving of the death penalty.

Perhaps you'll find my view overly relativistic, but I'm not convinced there are any situations where someone is "100% guilty" since that isn't the burden of proof in our criminal justice system. Sure, we have DNA/confessions/video evidence, but I don't truly believe we are capable of making the jump from proving guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to proving it ' with 100% certainty'

I didn't say we do (unless I made a typo), I said me being in favor of CP would require the state having the ability to be 100% certain someone is guilty.

Ah fair enough. I suppose my point was simply that doing so would require significant change in our criminal justice system, given that it isn't designed to stand up to that level of scrutiny/interrogation re: 100% certainty

[Alexandros]

.

[dj9i27]

screaming children are a great distraction for LSAT focus. Moving in august to a swanky 2/2 because living alone is kinda lame, should be away from the pool too.

[proteinshake]

Avid hunter and fisherman. Eat every type of meat. I see no ethical issues with meat consumption.

My issue with capital punishment is not the ethics, but whether or not there is no doubt to the crime having been committed. Life sentences at least give the criminal justice system the chance to admit fault at a later date.

In cases of absolute certainty, I'm for capital punishment

Just in: It's fine for the state to kills its citizens, but not to collect taxes.

yeah I'm not against capital punishment in principle, but am against it because the state will always end up killing innocent people. I'm sure that's Charger's thinking as well.

I don't understand how someone can be philosophically libertarian / against state power can be for capital punishment. In b4 someone starts quoting shitty interpretations of John Locke at me.

The problem with being for it in cases of "absolute certainty" or in "extreme cases" is that that's an extremely fuzzy and subjective line.

I don't think it should be legal though. I'm just saying there isn't anything ethically impermissible imo about the state killing a mass murderer. I'm against capital punishment due to the fact that the state will end up killing innocents. there are plenty of libertarians with this view (and even Cass Sunstein I believe has this view or something similar). The only way I'd be for CP is if we knew those convicted are 100% guilty and it wouldn't be applied to crimes that people generally don't think are deserving of the death penalty.

Perhaps you'll find my view overly relativistic, but I'm not convinced there are any situations where someone is "100% guilty" since that isn't the burden of proof in our criminal justice system. Sure, we have DNA/confessions/video evidence, but I don't truly believe we are capable of making the jump from proving guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to proving it ' with 100% certainty'

+1
You can take that view philosophically or whatever, but it's less than useless when it comes to real life.
The issue with it from a libertarian standpoint is that you're giving the state the power to decide what constitutes "mass murder" / a crime worthy of death. From an anti-state authority standpoint, that seems like an issue. I get that the views of libertarians at times lack logical consistency tho.

lol. that's why I literally said I would only be for CP if those two conditions were met. this response is also dumb because i showed how libertarians can be for CP in principle but against it in practice, what else are you looking for? even your point about how "it would give the state the power to decide who is a mass murderer and what constitutes worthy crimes" is a reason people can be for it in principle and not in practice, they're not opposed to it simply because the state is killing someone, but because of unintended consequences that may arise. not sure why you're replying with these stupid snarky remarks. If you still don't understand how a libertarian can say "it's morally permissible for the state to execute a mass murderer, but we shouldn't legalize it," I'm not sure what else I can say.

[Alexandros]

.

[Alexandros]

.

[dj9i27]

screaming children are a great distraction for LSAT focus. Moving in august to a swanky 2/2 because living alone is kinda lame, should be away from the pool too.

Keep thinking I should move but stupid me renewed my lease back in Feb.
I hope your roommate is not a creature from hell.

Nah, he's MCAT bro who literally studies from 8am-1am and then he will be applying same time as me which is apparently way harder than LS.

[proteinshake]

.

all good, it's hard to know when someone is being rude sometimes . lemme know if you want me to delete all that.

[presidentspivey]

screaming children are a great distraction for LSAT focus. Moving in august to a swanky 2/2 because living alone is kinda lame, should be away from the pool too.

Keep thinking I should move but stupid me renewed my lease back in Feb.
I hope your roommate is not a creature from hell.

Nah, he's MCAT bro who literally studies from 8am-1am and then he will be applying same time as me which is apparently way harder than LS.

From what I've seen of friends who have studied/ are studying for the MCAT, those hours are not uncommon. That test is a true nightmare. And it has a legitimately important purpose. Even if the GRE explosion comes to fruition, the MCAT will always be there.