DOTD - Debate of The Day #52

Post by Squishalot

What possible justification is there for my taxes to be wasted at the rate of tens of thousands of dollars a year to keep this man in jail? Not to mention the continuous medical expenses because he keeps trying to kill himself.

Arguably, if we had euthanasia laws, it'd be much easier and more morally correct...

I don't think it should be a sentence for anything. However, I wonder if it should be a choice. I know I'd rather be killed than spend the rest of my life in jail, so why not give them the option?

... which brings us here...

Because if you chose to die, than you deserve to rot in a cell. If you want rot in a cell, than you deserve to die.

... and here.

It's an interesting conundrum, and linked back to the assisted suicide debate. How you change the suicide laws would, potentially, influence the way said penalty works here.

Post by MyTie

Death penalty is never justified, for any reason. Government is not an appropriate power to decide when people should die. There is too much potential for abuse. In light of that potential for abuse, I always say NO to that power, regardless of any person's actual crime. Some people may genuinely deserve to die... but there is no adequate judge to decide that, at least, short of being God.

Slightly Off-Topic the the scenario posed in the debate, but I see your potential abuse, and raise you Martin Bryant.

This man killed 35 people in cold blood, and has been sentenced to 35 life sentences, plus 1,035 years for his crimes. He will never again see the outside of a jail.

What possible justification is there for my taxes to be wasted at the rate of tens of thousands of dollars a year to keep this man in jail? Not to mention the continuous medical expenses because he keeps trying to kill himself.

Australia no longer has the death penalty. Matrin Bryant is one of the exact reasons we should.
The money isn't spent to keep him in jail. The money is spent to have a responsible government that can't kill people. There is a line somewhere between Matrin Bryant and me. Somewhere, killing is no longer justified. I don't trust government to define that line, as it hasn't proved its ability to deliver mail consistently to me.

Post by Xedosz

Someone once said: An eye for an eye, will make the whole world blind.
I'm mostly against the Death Penalty. So no, if there was no loss of life, there should be no Death Penalty.

However...in extreme cases, i think there should be. Mass murderers and the likes should be put to death. In my opinion, the world is better off without people like Anders Breivik.

Post by gamerunknown

I too am against the death penalty in any circumstance. It usually generates a tonne of appeals, which turn out to be more costly than keeping someone in prison. If the state curtails the appeals process, people innocent of the charges will be executed. I think the aphorism "I swear by the cross on my neck that there's never been a wrongful execution" sums it up...

I mean people like Albert Einstein or other such intellectuals

There are no geneticists that'd tell you cloning Albert Einstein will produce another genius. Lewontin for instance propounded the notion that an organism's traits are a mixture of genes, environment and developmental noise. In Einstein's case, some pertinent environmental factors would have consisted of his parents, the prevailing culture, his teachers and students and the books he read. Alter those variables and he may not even have an inclination towards physics or science.

The revival of extinct species

Remember, there are two components to cloning. The first, preserving adequate segments of DNA, can be done with some fidelity. The second, finding a suitable host for nuclear implantation is difficult enough with endangered species, let alone fully extinct ones. Where would a T Rex gestate?

Post by 168916

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Skreeran

I would disagree with the death penalty in almost all cases.

There have been several cases in which innocent people have been executed under the death penalty (see here). It may not happen often, but I think letting an innocent man die is a much greater wrong than letting a guilty man live.

Likewise, I tend to feel that only death can earn death, so I can think of very few crimes that would merit the death penalty but did not kill the victim (I mean, yes, there are Fates Worse Than Death, but in most cases those are so specific (and the victims usually die anyway), and are such a matter of personal judgment that I would not base my laws off of them.

The only cases in which I would support the death penalty would be cases of serial murder with a torture element (i.e. the perpetrator intends to draw out the victims suffering in some manner, as opposed to murder with, for example, a gun or poison), in which the convict has been convicted via strong evidence (le.g. DNA, video, or finding a torture room in their basement with human remains inside), and who shows no hope of rehabilitation.

Post by FatalHeaven

#20: Do you think that hybrid vehicles are beneficial to the environment?

Post by SquireKel

Aha, finally a debate I can speak to with some amount of expertise.

I think it entirely depends on where you consider the starting point of the hybrid vehicle.
If it's already made, & just comparing on-road effects, yes. Perhaps not "beneficial" in the sense that they help the environment, but certainly better than strictly gasoline-powered vehicles.
Even looking at manufacturing costs all the way through on-road effects will put hybrids above fossil fuel vehicles. Generally, the manufacturing costs are about the same, so the on-road is where hybrid vehicles again take the lead in having less detrimental effects on the environment.
Going back even further is where the issues arise. Hybrid electric vehicles run into some difficulties that lower their lead on gasoline vehicles, such as implementation of powering stations (like gas stations). But then, in all fairness, diesel and biodiesel engines run into similar difficulties that make it problematic to determine a fair starting point for judging cost & effects on the environment for each type of engine & fuel.

TL;DR - Overall, hybrids are better for the environment than fossil fuel engines, but science debates the starting point of where to determine effects, so it's difficult to say how much better they are exactly.

For anyone who wishes, I can provide actual references to document these statements. If I wasn't about to go to sleep, I'd put them in now.

Post by MyTie

They may possibly be somewhat marginally beneficial to the environment at this point. I know they are more fuel efficent, and that's the point I'd like to pursue. I'd have liked to have seen how a capitalistic approach to developing a more fuel efficient car would have worked. Unfortunately, the hybrid/environmental social agenda pushed government to subsidize and regulate an industry it had no business in, creating monopolies for companies that were not equipped to make genuine inroads in the industry. Besides that, the amount of money governments spend on creating these innovation stifling monopolies in the name of environmentalism has taken its toll on a time already tense with economic uncertainty for the world, when governments had no business dumping money into unproven tech development.

Post by 207044

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Orranis

#20: Do you think that hybrid vehicles are beneficial to the environment?

No. They're less bad than 'non-hybridized' gas-consuming cars, but they are not beneficial. I suppose you could argue that they're beneficial because they're a less bad alternative, but that rests on the concept of having a car (and I do believe there are non-hybridized fully electric cars available, though perhaps not in the United States) being a given statement.

Post by Adamsm

#20: Do you think that hybrid vehicles are beneficial to the environment?

Not as much as people pretend they are; sure they may not put out as much pollution as an SUV gas guzzler, but that doesn't mean they are completely clean either.

And on the topic of the tiny little smart cars: While they are better, if you don't live in a fairly large city, there isn't much point to them either, since trying to go down a large highway would have those little clown cars blown off the road.

And the fact that I, as a 6 foot plus person, can barely fit in one may colour my view on these devices lol.

Post by gamerunknown

creating monopolies for companies that were not equipped to make genuine inroads in the industry.

Uh... No industry has developed in isolation.

in which the convict has been convicted via strong evidence

That's a standard that's meant to be in place now. If there's reasonable doubt someone didn't commit murder, the jury is meant to acquit. Though I suppose your version encompasses torture as well.

Hybrid vehicles? According to the wiki, they're more fuel efficient, so lower air pollution. They also are less noisy, which may actually be a problem for pedestrians.

Post by yukonjack

#20: Do you think that hybrid vehicles are beneficial to the environment?

Yes but only by a small amount. They use less fuel so they don't pollute the air as much but the impact on the environment is likely equal to or more so then a car that burns only fuel due to additional manufacturing and recycling considerations of a hybrid.

Post by SquireKel

Hybrid vehicles? According to the wiki, they're more fuel efficient, so lower air pollution. They also are less noisy, which may actually be a problem for pedestrians.

This is actually the issue I was referring to in my post. Yes, lower air pollution while in use, but the wiki doesn't account for the impact during production, which actually lowers their efficacy.

Post by 168916

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Squishalot

Generally, the manufacturing costs are about the same, so the on-road is where hybrid vehicles again take the lead in having less detrimental effects on the environment.

My understanding was that there was a significant environmental cost associated with battery production. Any of the currently-used materials for batteries are found fairly low in volume in the environment, and can't easily be recycled in a cost/environmentally friendly manner.

In a general sense, I think it's a positive in the long run, but perhaps not directly.

Post by MyTie

creating monopolies for companies that were not equipped to make genuine inroads in the industry.

Uh... No industry has developed in isolation.

I don't understand what your article has to do with green subsidies. It appears to be about Obama fighting big oil, and is slanted heavily in O's favor. Check it out:And, predictably, Republicans and the oil industry were spoiling for a fight. So, how does this help the argument for subsidies? How does it even help your assertion that no one invents something "in isolation"... which apparently means that stuff cannot be invented without government help. That's not true, by the way. I used to work in a small R&D for an aeronautical engineering firm. We didn't run on government subsidies.

Anyway, here is an article that actually has to do with government subsidies, and their effect on the market. It explains my point for you:There is a fundamental illogic in corporate welfare. If subsidies prop up companies that are failing, it makes no sense because such companies probably have products that consumers don’t want. Those companies are a drag on the economy and should be allowed to fail. Alternately, if subsidies go to support companies that are profitable, it makes no sense because such companies do not need help from the taxpayers.Try not to come to the table with nothing but Obama fluff pieces.

Post by Skreeran

That's a standard that's meant to be in place now. If there's reasonable doubt someone didn't commit murder, the jury is meant to acquit. Though I suppose your version encompasses torture as well.I would agree with you, but in a society that places so much weight on eyewitness testimony and other sorts of circumstantial evidence, I merely wanted to elaborate that I would only agree with a person's execution if it were based on a conviction with particularly strong evidence. To put it simply, I oppose the death penalty not because I think it is morally wrong to execute the worst sort of murderers, but because too many cases surrounding the death penalty are based on convictions that I do not feel are strong enough to merit killing a person on.

DOTD - Debate of The Day #52

Post Reply