I don't see him wrapping it around vertical objects.
I don't see him wrapping it around vertical objects.
that would be around 2M bitcoins
I think it's safe to assume that they meant 10% of all currently existing bitcoins, which, if true, would currently amount to around 1.2 million bitcoins.
The court is set up already for that thinking so what or how does this court do something different.
What they mean is that the court stayed their decision (postponed the time at which it would come into force) to give the DHS time to appeal.
When I read that I get the feeling that the "Court" felt ugly for their ruling and really really hopes that aggrieved party will appeal.
No, it's pretty standard in cases where a) the court thinks the party who lost might appeal, b) there is at least an outside chance such an appeal might succeed and c) if they didn't stay their decision the appeal would become moot since in the mean time the losing party would have to (in this case) hand over the information and there would be no point in appealing. It's to protect the integrity of the judiciary system. Otherwise, what would be the point of having appeals?
1) The justice system is imperfect, so we shouldn't take the slightest risk of executing an innocent person. This is the argument that I'm most sympathetic towards. I agree that extraordinary punishment should require extraordinary proof. Of course, that doesn't address the issues around biased judges, juries or prosecutors.
I'd say it's the definitive argument. You can't get around it. It is fundamentally impossible to make the justice system 100% fool proof, and unacceptable to run even the slightest risk of killing an innocent person, when there are alternatives with no downsides relative to capital punishment (such as life without parole, which is cheaper, and not less of a deterrent).
Because I do believe that there are heinous crimes that death is an appropriate punishment for, I tend to look to fix issues with the justice system in other ways. In particular, you throw the book at corrupt prosecutors, judges, etc.
So how many innocent lives are you prepared to sacrifice while you tweak and fine tune the system, ignoring for the moment the fact that it is impossible to make it perfect?
And yes, I believe that prison is for punishment, not as a time-out from society. Does that mean I think prisoners should be abused? Nope, not at all. But it also doesn't mean that I think we need to be providing cable TV or other luxuries while they are serving their time.
What does that have to do with anything?
2) The method of execution is cruel. I don't buy this argument vs. lethal injection
The very article from this post states that some alternative sedatives that states have been using their death row inmates as lab rats for have caused them to still be moving and blinking minutes after getting the injection. I'd say there's a very good chance that that was cruel.
3) Even if the method isn't painful, it is cruel/barbaric to execute someone "regardless" (no matter what they did). I can respect this argument even if I don't agree with it. I don't share that view, but I can understand it. Unfortunately, most folks I've talked to that make this argument don't seem to apply it as a fundamental value or principle.
The fact that you don't share it makes you a very creepy person in my book. I don't get this bloodlust, this insistence on killing people even in the face of all the doubts which even you admit to above, and given the valid (and superior) alternatives.
4) Execution as a form of punishment is no different than murder Sorry, but this argument is fundamentally flawed and childish.
I agree. Luckily I didn't make it. Another straw man...
5) Life w/o parole is cheaper than execution. I don't doubt that it is given the processes and appeals involved with the death penalty. I'm ok with that. It's a practical financial argument, but doesn't really address whether the death penalty is morally right or wrong.
Nevertheless it is a valid argument, which you only seem too happy to blithely ignore.
How do I tie this back to stances on abortion? If you really believe that "no matter what, the death penalty is wrong" or "can't take the slightest risk that an innocent person might be executed", then by those same principles, you should be vehemently against abortion.
All those argument, and none of them relevant in the least to your central point... You just assume that abortion is exactly the same as capital punishment and that every argument I make against capital punishment should also be valid against abortion, otherwise I'm full of it. Which is ludicrous even on the face of it, let alone if you spend a few minutes to think about it.
The only way to try to get around it is to play the "not really a human until it is born" game. That's about as intellectually dishonest as it gets, IMO.
Really? So your position is that an ovum becomes a human being at the split second it is fertilised? I hope not, as that would plainly be absurd.
A foetus is not a human being. It becomes one at some point during pregnancy (some point before the actual birth). Wars will be fought over exactly which point that is, but it is some significant time after the moment of conception. Until then there is no moral argument to be made against abortion whatsoever. It's a clump of cells, without feelings, emotions, awareness, conciousness, senses, pain, etc. It is not even alive, so you cannot "kill" it. The difference between it and a death row inmate could not be greater. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about observing this fact.
And even after the nebulous point where the foetus becomes a human being there are still morally valid reasons for performing an abortion, namely when it is a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the baby. Just like I agree that it is moral to kill someone to protect your own, or somebody else's, life (in case of immediate danger). If somebody is going to die and the only choice is which one, that choice is morally null. Note how this does not apply in the least to taking the life of a prisoner.
Are you really trying to protect the innocent in all cases? Or are your principles "flexible" and convenient?
They are neither, and still my argument holds up.
On most news sites where this argument pops up, one of the more common arguments is sadly enough "Why should my tax dollars be used to keep this guy alive in prison for decades with a life without parole sentence when we can just kill him now for far cheaper?"
Of course those people don't realise that prosecuting and executing a death penalty costs way more than locking someone up for life. So if minimising the amount of tax dollars spent is the goal that actually argues against the death penalty...
some human beings are monsters; you must have lived sheltered life.
No, no human beings are monsters. Monsters are fairytale creatures which don't really exist. I know it's a very popular metaphor to use, but that doesn't make it true, and that kind of thinking is irresponsible and extremely dangerous when lives are at stake.
your invoking the "found to be innocent" no longer applies, those were cases of DNA and advanced forensics being used on past cases. now we have those tools to use to verify guilt
Wow. If you truly believe that you are spectacularly, staggeringly naive... There is no way to make a justice system 100% fool proof. Simple maths and physics will tell you that.
Do those of you arguing so ardently against the death penalty apply the same logic to abortion?
Why don't you explain how you think they are the same, so I can demolish your argument.
We don't kill people for the same reasons as those countries.
That's hardly relevant. The point is that you kill people, not what your rationalisations are for killing people.
The death penalty is up to the states.
No, the death penalty is up to the American people. Apparently most of them are fine with it. In addition, it doesn't have to be up to the states. The federal government could outlaw it (even if it takes changing the constitution). Apparently they are fine with it too.
The reason capital punishment is outlawed in Europe is because all of the countries together (through various European institutions such as the European Union) decided that it was against basic human rights and should not be allowed. If Europe could do it, then so can the US.
you are confused on what is barbaric.
Not at all. Human beings have no moral authority to kill other human beings. To do it anyway, premeditated and intentionally, when there is no immediate danger to anyone else, is barbaric. It's what barbarians do. You are lowering yourself to the level of the very people you are punishing.
for example, child molesters and rapists and murderers get out of prison and commit their crimes again.
So lock them up for the rest of their lives. It's cheaper too.
putting down a monster is not barbaric,
They are not monsters, they are human beings. You may be able to lull yourself into acceptance by demonising human beings and pretending that you're in a fairy story, but I don't think that is fair or productive.
it is the merciful thing to do
You are confused on what is merciful.
In addition, you are ignoring the fact that many of these "monsters" of yours turn out to have been perfectly innocent. Fuck you for being perfectly OK with calling them monsters and taking away their lives after years of psychological torture, destroying the lives of their friends and family in the process. And fuck the US for doing it.
Maybe it's time for the US to take the hint and stop this barbaric and medieval practice?
Seriously, why does it not bother more Americans that by having the death penalty they find themselves in the illustrious company of countries such as Libya, Sudan, China, Iran, Iraq and North Korea (the "Axis of Evil") and Syria?
How is this a twist? First of all, I'm pretty sure this was already common knowledge. I remember reports of tests and studies like this for years. But also, is anyone surprised? If it's already known that schoolchildren perform sub par in tests then obviously once they grow into adults they are going to perform sub par on similar tests. Why would they suddenly have magically learned those missing skills?
This once again confirms what a terrible educational system the US has. I have no personal experience with it, but my brother has, and he tells me that he had three different history classes, but anything resembling actually useful skills was a distant joke...
I can't see everyday driving being automated because there will always be a scenario that isn't covered, an odd bug that no-one expected, or mechanical failure that the computer can't compensate for in a sensible way.
Yes, but you see it doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to be safer than human beings driving. That's a far less ambitious goal, one I easily see being accomplished for 95% of all car journeys inside 20 years...
nohup rm -fr /&