JCC [Hippies] Anti-death penalty thread

I'm not sure what your point was, but this example flies counter to a negative take on public opinion overturning law. It was BY LAW that southern blacks, in particular, were most egregiously discriminated against. And it was the use, misuse, and abuse of said law that enabled a corrupt power structure to (re)emerge after the civil war. The reason we called it institutional racism was because it had the blessing and codification of the institutions. What beat that back was public opinion. People protested, got on TV, showed the travesty of the whole thing and that eventually led to it being unpopular to be a racist and/or support racist policies. Ultimate, those bad laws had to be struck down, but it was public opinion that made that happen.

We may not like to admit it, but the majority always rules. It shouldn't be that way and the Constitution was designed to minimize the effect of mob rule. But in the end, politicians advocate policies based almost entirely on what they believe will get them (re)elected.

 

Jesus H #@$*ing christ on a flaming cross!!! How many times does someone have to point out to you that it is the PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL litigation that makes the death penalty so expensive. NOT the appeals. I've seen the link posted several times already in this thread.
WAKE UP!!! EDUCATE YOURSELF.

And "Proven" offenders--how many times have "Proven" offenders been found not-guilty? Trial by public opinion and the press have proven oh so reliable--oh wait...

 

EDIT: Oops.

Mort:

 

It addresses every stupid argument against abolishment. It's not my fault if people don't read the thread.

 

Or are too pig-headed and stupid to allow anything to change their POV. Ain't blind faith just a hideous concept?

 

ah yes, traditional left wing values of "cleansing the gene pool" and hate

 

Everyone else pointed out that other parts of your posts were nonsensical but no one pointed out how nonsensical this one is so i'm just doing that now

 

Not sure I agree with your argument, except by some sort of weird time distortion effect. Even where slavery did not exist, those who thought African-Americans truly equal were in a clear minority until well after the end of the Civil War. Subsequently, while segregation did have the force of law behind, these codes were only ever instituted because they were in fact popular. For instance, prefiguring Jim Crow, and key to forcing blacks into de facto indentured servitude, there was selective (and falsified) use of of general laws against things like profanity that were used to essentially entrap them into exploitative long term working "contracts." It's not a coincidence that no one saw a problem with such widespread behavior, nor that it was never turned on other ethnic groups. Likewise, the first major strike to reverse this tide was a Supreme Court decision, which triggered Massive Resistance. All this agrees with Koohi's essential characterization. Even afterwards, you can only cite "public opinion" by referring to the national mood, rather than to the areas where Jim Crow had actually been operative in the first place. After all, Governor Wallace was able to win elections into the early 70s on blatantly racist platforms.

Summarily, I would of course agree that the Civil Rights movement recognized the importance of public opinion, and made it an effective part of their overall strategy. Before them, people like Douglass and Beecher Stowe also made effective appeals to the conscience. But it's not as if people were dragged kicking and screaming into their bigotry. It was, as he said, the genuine sentiment of the times. A good number of the advancements towards equal rights were made by disregarding said sentiment, not because it had necessarily changed of yet.

 

Umm...where do we disagree? I said that the law is the law because of public opinion. I further point out that the law changes because of public opinion. Even my final statement supports the notion that majority rules in the end and that it is only when public opinion shifts that we can reasonably expect the law to change. Do you seriously think the South would have attempted secession if it weren't for the fact that they were rapidly going to end up on the wrong side of the majority on the slavery question?

In any case, I think if you read what I said again, you'll see that we agree more than not.

---

On the subject of the death penalty, I agree that it absolutely has no place in our society as its cost severely outweigh any possible benefits, not to mention the moral offensiveness of the state having the power to execute its citizens.

That said, I reviewed Evan's link and I would hardly call that a fact sheet. It's a piece of propaganda. Certainly it's propaganda I support, but it intentionally distorts opinions as facts and presents statistics to support false premises or even contradictory ones. Now that's hardly surprising as this is a fairly common tactic but because someone chooses to ignore an obvious piece of propaganda doesn't make them pigheaded and dumb.

It's unfortunate, too, because there are genuinely persuasive facts and arguments in that document that get lost in the sea of bias. I'd suggest looking at [link=http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf]this fact sheet[/link]. It's from just as biased an organization, but the document is designed to help you draw the right conclusion, vice trying to tell you what conclusion you should draw.

 

BTW: imo, the correct argument against death penalty as a method for reducing overcrowding in jails for "theoretical capital cases" (e.g. 1st/felony murder) is: if we had sentencing that included proper treatment facilities instead of jail for the vast majority of drug-related cases, the jails would not be overcrowded.

 

You said in your opening sentence that you disagreed with Koohii's central premise many of the important landmarks in civil rights law came in advance of public opinion. That was a key piece of his broader argument that sometimes, it makes since for governmental policy to move in advance of popular sentiment on an issue. I don't see where his chosen example really "flew counter" to what he was trying to say at all.

 

Thank you!

 

Also, when I got home last night (I posted while drinking copious amounts of Pabst at band practice) I thought..."Hmm, I wonder if my buzzed up post about the death penalty will result in my having my ass handed to me in the morning?"

Seriously, I stand here humbled somewhat, but I'm still all for it. I wish I could have articulated that while I know there are problems with it, just like humanity itself, it doesn't strike me as an outrageous or immoral thing. What's outrageous and immoral are the times when the system fails and the arguments for or against become necessary in the first place. Does that make any sense?

I dunno. Somebody convince me that the sociopolitical left in this country is correct in its anti-capital punishment stance and I'll thank you for the moment of serious reflection.

 

I didn't read his argument that way. In fact, I specifically said that I didn't know what his point was. But taking your interpretation of his statements at face value, my point stands that it was governmental policy that supported segregationist public opinion in the South and those policies were able to continue unabated until public opinion grew in opposition to them. Those policies created the need for a civil rights movement of the size and scale that pushed public opinion in a new direction, ultimately resulting in change.

Edit: I will reiterate my first sentence:

This was the point I supported in the rest of my post. I'm not sure what you disagree with in that statement, but it seems like you think I said something I didn't because you didn't bother to read what I said carefully.

 

Um? Just as Biased... Help you draw the right conclusion... vice trying to tell you what conclusion you should draw...
And this is different, how?

Sorry, was just a phrasing question.
The other link is a parsed and digested version of the information, whereas the link you posted was a straight fact sheet.
In other words, if you can't see the evidence for yourself, read the first link. If you want to see just the charts with no interpretation, read Sounderwan's link.

Mort: if you are truly convinced that the world population needs to be reduced, I suggest the following:
1: vasectomy. Don't produce any children of your own.
2: invest all your resources in all the weaponry and ammo you can.
3: buy a ticket to your starting location
4: start killing every human you see. No exceptions for race, class, age, sex, or hair color. Just kill everyone.
5: if you finish in one town/city, move on to the next.
6: continue until you run out of weapons or are dead.
Good luck.

 

Please tell Amnesty, a somewhat reputable organization, where they went wrong.

 

1: I don't need a vasectomy, my lady and I already have five children between us, and she's on the greatest birth control ever invented. If it comes down to it though, I'll get one.
2: I have a really cool battle axe and a few swords.
3: I'm gonna need to know where my starting location is first.
4: My urge to kill isn't as strong as it used to be. I'll be 40 in 17 days...I guess this is how middle age begins.
5: Again...I need to know my starting point.
6: This raises the point of "Is it ok to die for the sake of population control?" I mean obviously I'd prefer not to and have the luxury of deciding who gets to go for the betterment of humanity. Some may argue that I'm a prime candidate, being the cynical ass that I can be. Seriously, I wish I had the wisdom to decide such things outside of how my personal opinions tend to dictate.

Thank you for your good luck message.

 

I don't really think your point stands, though. As I referenced earlier, de facto segregationist policies existed in the South in advance of any governmental policies in that regards. More than that, though, your reasoning misrepresents how law actually works by making enforcement a non-issue. In fact, there are a plethora of laws that are technically still operative but never actually enforced. Besides the various websites you can visit for lists of them, there are also more recent examples. For instance, Eric Holder announced that marijuana possession would have the lowest enforcement priority for the Department of Justice. In another instance, gay activists have commented that part of the reason it took so long to bring a case like Lawrence to overturn anti-sodomy laws is that one was actually being charged, and the courts refused to hear cases where the harm was only theoretical. Sanctuary cities are an arguably similar concept. In short, the fact that Jim Crow was "the law" was not the controlling fact in the treatment of African-Americans.

As you'll note, I addressed that point. I will now do so again. In the opening of this thread, Even lamented that public opinion was in favor of the death penalty, which he sees as unjust. Koohii responded by giving several examples where policy was changed without a preceding shift in public opinion, in an attempt to create a more just society. One of the examples he cited was the treatment of African-Americans. You said this was a poor example, even though, among other things, Brown v Board is a clear validation of his point. The fact that there were some moments in a several hundred years long process where changes in public opinion helped facilitate policy change doesn't diminish his point that the history of civil rights has many moments were the reverse was true. Your point was true and unrelated to his own.

In the most succinct possible terms, he never claimed that legislation that is in line with public opinion is always bad, he said it was sometimes--and specifically, in the one particular case--bad. You made an argument to disprove something no one ever claimed, and dismissed his examples on grounds that I think were faulty.

 

After reading both of the links by Guy and Souder, I'm pretty sure all of the information is the same.

My position remains unchanged though. I support the death penalty being kept legal yet limited to only the most extreme of circumstances.

Maybe I'm wrong (lol at least according to Guy I am, but what else is new? ), but given that there exist some profoundly evil people in the world, I don't feel it.

So nyah.

 

Your phrasing is better than mine in a way. What I was trying to say was that I feel like Evan's link is telling the reader what s/he is supposed to think vice presenting the data without (what I believe to be) unnecessary commentary.

---

Evan, I'm not about to go through that link and point out all the bias in it. Most bullets in it state a conclusion that is not necessarily supported by the data it presents. And Amnesty International's reputability is a matter of opinion.

[hr]

Ok, Jabba. It appears to me that you're arguing something just to argue. Nothing you said really addresses what I was saying. You even seem to realize this.

Case in point:

[quote=Jabba-wocky] You made an argument to disprove something no one ever claimed, and dismissed his examples on grounds that I think were faulty.[/quote]

[quote=Me]I'm not sure what [b]your[/b] point was, but this example flies [b]counter to a negative take on public opinion overturning law[/b][/quote]

*[b]emphasis added[/b]

Congratulations. It took 2 or 3 posts, but you finally concluded what I [i]said in the first sentence of my first post[/i].

 

It wasn't really "this" (read: his) example though. It was an entirely different example drawn from some four centuries worth of history.

 

And Amnesty International's reputability is a matter of opinion.

That's one of the most ridiculous things said in this thread, and we've had a few beezel posts a while back.

 

No, it's not. Opinions are buttholes, Vivec.