This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Does the threat of being put to the death for extremely heinous crimes in fact lower crime rates?
This is not a "yes" nor is it a "no". If the police had public executions daily for anyone/everyone, and sent people to gulags to work their fingers to the bone before finally collapsing to death of exhaustion, then, yes, I think it would have an effect on everyone, and the way they approached the law. On the other end of the spectrum, the way the US leans away from the death penalty until a last resort puts it out of the everyday mind of people, so they are unlikely to factor it into their actions.
Post by
Adamsm
#47: Does the death penalty work as intended?
To further my point so people understand: I do NOT mean does it work as intended in that those who are put on death row die. What I mean is, does it lower crime? Does the threat of being put to the death for extremely heinous crimes in fact lower crime rates?
No.
Post by
Orranis
Does the threat of being put to the death for extremely heinous crimes in fact lower crime rates?
This is not a "yes" nor is it a "no". If the police had public executions daily for anyone/everyone, and sent people to gulags to work their fingers to the bone before finally collapsing to death of exhaustion, then, yes, I think it would have an effect on everyone, and the way they approached the law. On the other end of the spectrum, the way the US leans away from the death penalty until a last resort puts it out of the everyday mind of people, so they are unlikely to factor it into their actions.
The essential problem being that that's impossible to prove due to the lack of any statistics that the Soviet government gave out on crime.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
One only has to look at the states where appeals are not possible to note that the notion that it'll eliminate crime is ludicrous. Far more effective would be screening for psychopathy at 18 and putting all psychopaths into institutions for life.
Anyway, wrongful executions by the state are a
possibility
(and that's one of the greatest powers a state can exert over its citizens).
Christ alighted on one argument against the death penalty (along with being one of the prime examples of wrongful execution): that ultimately we are all sinners and that our judging of other sinners is a sort of hypocrisy. Another is that of Bertrand Russell: humans are influenced by numerous variables. When the scenarios align and someone commits a heinous crime, we should discover the root causes of crime and compare populations where crime is less preponderant in an attempt to reduce future crime. Daniel Dennett comes to essentially the same conclusion: humans are a product of their biological and environmental effects, we should rectify these in others rather than just eliminating the human behind one such crime.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Everyone's favorite, knee-jerk reaction is "what if they are innocent"?
Lets take 2 high-profile cases in the USA news right now.
Jared Loughner, the man that killed 6 people, including a 9 yr old child and a member of Congress, and was caught in the act, has been offered a plea deal to avoid the death penalty. Why? This trial should have been over 24 hours after the shooting. (yes, I realize that is exaggerated, but I think you get my point). He has been deemed mentally capable of entering the plea, and accepting the life sentence, so he should be mentally capable of being put to death.
And the case of the "Batman" shooter James Holmes. Again, there is ZERO question of innocence here. There is a very good chance he will get the death penalty, but look at Colorado history on executions. Since re-instating the death penalty in 1975, only 1 person has been executed...in 1997. So while Holmes may be sentenced to death, he will likely die of natural causes before the sentence is carried out.
I am all for exhausting all avenues if their is doubt of innocence. But that doubt should be reasonable. We have very sophisticated technology to aid in proving both innocence and guilt. But when there is NO DOUBT, there should be NO APPEAL. Give them a fair trial, and then impose the sentence. Both of these men should die for their crimes, as should many, many others.
Post by
yukonjack
By FatalHeaven yesterday at 1:46 AM (Patch 4.3.4)
#47: Does the death penalty work as intended?
To further my point so people understand: I do NOT mean does it work as intended in that those who are put on death row die. What I mean is, does it lower crime? Does the threat of being put to the death for extremely heinous crimes in fact lower crime rates?
Capital punishment was abolished in Canada in 1976 and the homicide rate has steadily declined from then until present day. Link to Statistics Canada here if you care to check
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2006006-eng.pdf
So I would have to say no the death penalty does not work as intended at least not in my country. Different cultures may have different results.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#48: Is the Zero Tolerance Policy actually needed in the educational system?
Definition.
Post by
Adamsm
#48: Is the Zero Tolerance Policy actually needed in the educational system?
Definition.
For actual hitting and the like yes. For idiotic things like hand holding, kissing, hugging and the rest: No.
Mind you, that is physical contact among the students, hopefully within the same age bracket as opposed to adults acting that way in regards to the kids.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
783006
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#49: Will Paul Ryans Medicare Reform help or hurt the next generation of Seniors?
Article discussing the reform can be found
here
.
Post by
Magician22773
I really don't have it in me to make a proper debate out of this topic, but here are my basic thoughts.
The current system of Social Welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare / Medicaid were designed at a time when life expectancy and medical costs were much less than they are now.
There is little debate that the current system is not sustainable forever. They will go bankrupt, or will bankrupt the economy if we continue to try to prop them up as they stand. Our government simply cannot continue to print money that we don't have, and cannot continue to borrow trillions of dollars to support all the bloated programs we have. This includes a lot of other programs besides Medicare and SSI, but they are two of the largest, most expensive items in the budget.
Something has to change. Now, do I think the Ryan plan is "it". I don't know. I haven't had a chance to delve into every detail. But it's something other than the current failing program, so its a start. There are plenty of people in Congress that can pick the plan apart, and show its strengths and weaknesses.
All I do know is there is one side of the isle that has used social programs as a politcal tool since they were started. Any time someone even mentions "reform", it is spun into "gutting" or "slashing" these programs to scare older voters. If something isn't done, these programs will be "slashed"...out of existance because they will be bankrupt. At that point, no one gets anything.
Post by
FatalHeaven
It doesn't just scare older voters; it scares me too and I'm only 23. I've said in the News Article Thread that I'd be more for a slight increase in taxes which would guarantee me coverage; than to keep paying what I do now and not be guaranteed coverage. First of all, with his plan he doesn't say an amount you will get, it just says it will be a premium amount everyone gets, nor does he state what percent of medicare is left to you to pay yourself. Not every senior is going to be able to pay the other portion which then leaves them insurance-less. And as someone who lives paycheck to paycheck as it is and doesn't always make it every two weeks, that scares the hell out of me.
Does reform of the system scare me? No. I don't get scared until I read details of a
bad
reform. I'll keep waiting for one that won't screw over my generation of seniors.
Lastly, I have heard for probably all my life, that when I get to the required age medicare AND social security won't be there. And if it won't be there, or theres a good possibility it won't and they
know
that... then they need to stop taking mine and everyone's money to pay for something we will never receive. And give me my money back.
Will they do that? No.
So, they need to find a way to guarantee me coverage. Reform all they want... in such a way I still get
full
access to the benefit of my hard earned money.
Post by
Magician22773
Just a couple things that stand out in the article.
Ryan would also gradually lift the Medicare eligibility age to 67, from 65 now, by
2034
.
By
2050
, the difference between the approaches could be more stark. Medicare spending under Ryan would cap at $11,100,
What stands out is not
what
he wants to do, but
when
he wants to do it. You are asking for specifics of a plan that has not been fully written, and is looking at changes that will occur 20-30-40 years in the future.
I realize that is important, because that is when you will need the benefit, but it is nearly impossible to predict what the exact amount you would be getting is 38 years from now. And just promising "you will be covered", no matter what the future may hold, is what got us where we are today.
You only have to look at life insurance and car insurance to see the benefit of competition and deregulation. Both of those types of insurance used to be much more expensive before the government stepped aside and let competition do its thing. Now, instead of being forced to buy car insurance from a local agent, you can shop for insurance online and let doezens of companies battle for your plan. This has lowered costs a ton in the last 10 years.
This is the beauty, and the unknown of Ryans plan. Give seniors money to shop for insurance, and allow the companies to battle for the business. This, by design, should lower costs for everyone.
And as for a guarantee you will be covered. With the health of our economy as it stands right now, there is no guarantee of anything 30-50 years from now.
Post by
gamerunknown
Let's be honest. The ideological concern for Social Security has practically nothing to do with its "
unsustainability
" (it could continue at about 75% of effectiveness in twenty years time) nor its effect on the debt held by government (Social Security has a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus and relatively low
administrative costs
). The real problem with it is that it is an interference with the free market, which is repugnant to fiscal conservatives. Paul Ryan has been trying to dismantle Social Security for pretty much
his entire time
as a Congressman. Ron Paul, a fellow Austrian school politician, claims to be a protector of
Social Security
despite calling it
unconstitutional
. I actually have to commend him for audacity. Paul Ryan is certainly an
Objectivist
and his budget was criticised by the
US Conference of Bishops
.
Under Ryan's ideology as espoused
here
by Mises, Social Security is one of the means of destructions employed by the government against private property.
Christianity
is acceptable only if the teachings of Christ are rejected. Other countries such as Sweden and Norway have lower debt to GDP ratios and functioning
welfare systems
. Why is the US unique in this regard?
Post by
Magician22773
At the end of 2011, the Trust Fund was valued at $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010. The Trust Fund consists of the accumulated surplus of program revenues less expenditures.
The fund contains non-marketable Treasury securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government". The funds borrowed from the program are part of the total national debt of $15.7 trillion as of April 2012.
From
here
, the same article that gamer quotes to show that issues with SSI have "nothing to do with unsustainability".
Please see the bolded part there. THERE IS NO SURPLUS. It has ALL, and I mean every last dime of it, been loaned out, and is part of the debt. 2.7 Trillion dollars worth of unsecured paper is nothing but a huge stack of IOU's, that if (when) the country goes bankrupt will be good for nothing other than a warm, cozy fire.
Under Ryan's ideology as espoused here by Mises, Social Security is one of the means of destructions employed by the government against private property. Christianity is acceptable only if the teachings of Christ are rejected. Other countries such as Sweden and Norway have lower debt to GDP ratios and functioning welfare systems. Why is the US unique in this regard?
umm...did you lick a toad and decide to post? What the hell does any of this have to do with the topic of Paul Ryan and Social Welfare?
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.