Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
And an important difference between hospitals and prisons is that hospitals at least take care of people.
edited 1st Dec '11 6:06:42 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
Pink♥Chainsaw
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Not if you don't have health insurance
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
^^^ Please, at least read Whirligig. Like I said, it makes the argument better than I can.
edited 1st Dec '11 7:16:58 PM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
I changed accounts.
I've got so much shit to read right now. Speaking of which, I should be continuing The Fountainhead... but ugh, it's so goddamned dry. Which is sad, because I am rather interested in the characters and story, but her style is horrendous.
/derail
Point is, even if I wanted to, I wouldn't get to it for quite awhile yet.
I am now known as Flyboy.
The Mod with the Migraine
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
I just seriously realized . . . I'm trying to argue with someone who's promoting the death penalty for negligent homicide. I just haven't wrapped my head around the fact that I'm trying to argue with someone who's promoting the death penalty for negligent homicide. How long do you have to spend in this forum before you start trying to debate against a position like that, rather than just fleeing the premises (so to speak)? I'll merely state that in some states, negligent homicide can be
a misdemeanor, and then I'll get the hell out of this thread.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
I changed accounts.
I would only advocate the death penalty for 4 and 5 on a general basis, and maybe 3 on a case-by-case basis.
I am now known as Flyboy.
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
Surely for 4 a rehabilitation order would be far more effective and productive, and given that you have stated that you aren't interested in considering the circumstances, you'd not be interested in knowing if the person actually had good cause to flee the officer in case 5? Fear does stupid things to people - doesn't mean you deserve death because of the consequences.
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
I changed accounts.
Alcoholism is a disease, but drunk driving is a choice, and I don't give a fuck what you think of the police; the lights come on, you stop.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
Right, so what you are saying is, if someone who expected to be treated like Rodney King flees the police, they deserve to die.
I changed accounts.
Rodney King didn't commit vehicular manslaughter in his attempt to flee, although I certainly concede that at some point these things must be decided on a case-by-case basis. I simply don't have as many areas where I'm willing to deem someone worthy of a chance at redemption as other people do, when it comes to killing.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
But you said 4 and 5 were things you supported the death penalty for. 5 was "attempting to flee from a police officer."
I changed accounts.
Yes.
I suppose I'll note that I separate this into an ideal, moral debate and a practical, structural debate. Ideally and morally, every perpetrator of every crime on the list of "horrible bastardly actions" would be executed swiftly and reasonably, and society wouldn't have to worry about it. Practically and structurally there's a fuckton of things, from mitigating factors to the possibility of executing the innocent, to figure out.
Though I don't support the death penalty just for running from the police, I support the death penalty for running from the police and killing an innocent in the process of your stupidity.
Thus, if you initiate a high speed chase, I wouldn't say that you should be executed. Likewise, if you drive drunk, I would also simply say that you should be jailed and put through rehab. However, if you do either one and kill somebody else, then I will likely have little sympathy for you, barring something extraordinary like your Rodney King idea.
I am now known as Flyboy.
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
What if the police initiated the chase by saying 'That guy looks Muslim, looks a bit dodgy, better check him out just to be sure' and he had done nothing wrong, so legitimately fled, and an accident happened?
We don't live in a society where nothing to hide means nothing to fear. Especially persecuted minorities.
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
I changed accounts.
...the police always initiate chases, though. If they don't chase you, there is no chase...
Anyway, he would still be responsible for the death of another person. Is it wrong, what the police are doing? Absolutely. But he would still be at fault for dragging others into it, as well.
I may very well give that hypothetical leeway, however.
I am now known as Flyboy.
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
If he's done nothing wrong, (he's fleeing for his life from police who have no cause to chase), then he should not be held culpable for the consequences - the police should.
edited 3rd Dec '11 12:59:14 PM by CaissasDeathAngel
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
I changed accounts.
He does in fact have the right to preserve himself, but not when it results in the death or harm of others. Ergo, no, he cannot expect to get off for starting a high-speed chase, because no matter what they were going to do to him, he still has exactly zero right to kill others who did nothing wrong to escape.
And damn straight I'd hold the police just as—if not more—accountable, in that context.
I am now known as Flyboy.
I have balls.
Um... if the police are conspiring to kill someone, then they aren't police anymore—they're violent criminals disguised as police and running from violent criminals is something entirely different than running from real police.
They never travel alone.
I changed accounts.
Yes indeed, but if by running you kill someone else—which mind you is still partially your fault because you were not required to run, that is in fact your choice of reaction—then you should be held accountable for that.
In this particular instance, however, I have come to the conclusion that execution would be wildly inappropriate. A wrongful death lawsuit on the part of the victim's family, on the other hand, would be entirely acceptable...
I am now known as Flyboy.
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
See, now you're admitting that circumstances can influence the decision, and you can't just say that certain crimes = certain punishment without further discussion.
First step to recovery is admitting the problem!
In my moral code, the circumstances are at the heart of everything. I simply will not abide deontological ethics, because there is ALWAYS the possibility for there to be mitigating circumstances.
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
I changed accounts.
I already said that circumstance and context matter. Otherwise, I would have to say that killing in the name of self-defense/the defense of others is wrong.
Intent, on the other hand, is, by-and-large, irrelevant.
I am now known as Flyboy.
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
So there's no distinction between manslaughter and murder?
That's...any word I could reasonably use to end that sentence would get me in trouble with the mods, so I'll not.
My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
I changed accounts.
It depends entirely on what "manslaughter" is supposed to be, exactly.
I am now known as Flyboy.
To an extent, yes.
I am now known as Flyboy.