Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > TV Talk
Reload this Page >

Penn & Teller Bull****: Death Penalty - 04/17/06

TV Talk Talk about Shows on TV

Penn & Teller Bull****: Death Penalty - 04/17/06

Old 04-17-06, 01:21 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Penn & Teller Bull****: Death Penalty - 04/17/06

Showtime 9:00pm CDT. Repeated one hour later.

We understand the feelings of rage felt by crime victims and their families. But - studies show there is no deterrent effect to State executions. And, DNA evidence has exonerated 122 men formerly on death row! If we're killing inmates to satisfy a primitive emotion, if we can't be sure the criminal is guilty as charged, and we have ways to keep someone locked up and out of circulation for life and for less cost, why does our government still support the archaic, primitive, cruel and costly BULLSHIT known as the Death Penalty?
This is probably going to be the biggest disagreement I've ever had with P&T. I don't exactly like the system as it is but I am not against it in principle.
Old 04-17-06, 01:31 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am not against the death penalty in principle, either, but knowing how frequently juries are wrong, I certainly wouldn't be against a moritorium.

I'm looking forward to what P&T have on the subject.
Old 04-17-06, 03:10 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Norm de Plume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 20,047
Received 798 Likes on 566 Posts
Good for them. I haven't followed them in a long while (never have seen this "Bullshit" show), but Jillette always struck me as much more an affable, no-nonsense liberal than a solipsistic, self-involved libertarian.

Last edited by Norm de Plume; 04-17-06 at 03:13 PM.
Old 04-17-06, 03:19 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,258
Received 612 Likes on 492 Posts
There is no libertarian consensus on the death penalty. None that I'm aware of anyway. Therefore, just because Penn is anti-death penalty doesn't mean that he is diverging from libertarianism. I see little indication that Penn is a liberal. Bashing Chomsky pretty much proved that.

I'm pretty lukewarm on capital punishment. I support it presently as the ultimate punishment but that's only because LWOP isn't strong enough - hard labor, no amenities, and extremely limited family visitation should be added for me to support outlawing capital punishment.
Old 04-17-06, 03:30 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Norm de Plume
Good for them. I haven't followed them in a long while (never have seen this "Bullshit" show), but Jillette always struck me as much more an affable, no-nonsense liberal than a solipsistic, self-involved libertarian.
So do the adjectives solipsistic and self-involved automatically go with libertarian?

And actually, Penn is far more a libertarian than a liberal. See episodes on gun control, second hand smoke, environmental hysteria, recycling, P.E.T.A. and endangered species for example. Not at all in line with liberalism.

The death penalty is one of the few issues upon which reasonable libertarians may vehemently disagree (like abortion).

Last edited by movielib; 04-17-06 at 05:10 PM.
Old 04-17-06, 03:39 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Jadzia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,799
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I have a libertarian view of the death penalty. People don't have the right to kill people, and I don't like the idea of the government having that right. The government should not be so powerful that it does not follow its own laws.

It reminds me of parents who hit their kids to teach them that hitting is wrong.
Old 04-17-06, 04:10 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
clckworang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The toe nail of Texas
Posts: 9,551
Received 753 Likes on 490 Posts
Originally Posted by Jadzia
I have a libertarian view of the death penalty. People don't have the right to kill people, and I don't like the idea of the government having that right. The government should not be so powerful that it does not follow its own laws.

It reminds me of parents who hit their kids to teach them that hitting is wrong.
Yep, I agree whole heartedly with that. I can understand the rage that victims' families must feel and their wish for vengeance, but we stoop to the killer's level by choosing to execute him/her. We teach that killing is wrong but do the same thing when someone else does so. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
Old 04-17-06, 04:59 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
dolphinboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,056
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's a tough thing for me to get a handle on. I don't support it, but then people like this guy who killed that helpless 10 year old girl and planned to eat her does something like that and I can't say that I would blame the parents for wanting him dead and, having a young daughter myself, I wouldn't mind killing him if given the opportunity.
Old 04-17-06, 05:31 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,191
Received 15 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by movielib
The death penalty is one of the few issues upon which reasonable libertarians may vehemently disagree (like abortion).
That will probably have to remain theory as I do not know that two reasonable libertarians even exist.

Well, it's a subject that I have absolutely no passion for, so I can certainly be persuaded to let my apathy back a different camp.
Old 04-17-06, 05:41 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Norm de Plume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 20,047
Received 798 Likes on 566 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Dog
There is no libertarian consensus on the death penalty. None that I'm aware of anyway. Therefore, just because Penn is anti-death penalty doesn't mean that he is diverging from libertarianism. I see little indication that Penn is a liberal. Bashing Chomsky pretty much proved that.
Fair enough. As I said, I don't watch the show; I'm just basing my admittedly imprecise impression of the man on things he has said in the past. Chomsky is a lightning rod who is hated by any free-marketeer (ie. liberal, traditionally), but I'm rather surprised to hear that Penn denounced him. I happen to think he (Chomsky) makes a lot of sense.
I'm pretty lukewarm on capital punishment. I support it presently as the ultimate punishment but that's only because LWOP isn't strong enough - hard labor, no amenities, and extremely limited family visitation should be added for me to support outlawing capital punishment.
Sounds like a reasoned, non-rabid position. I was once strongly in favour of the death penalty, beginning in moral sentience and ending a few years ago in my twenties. Most every "normal" person has a strong reaction of repugnance to crime, especially certain vile crimes, and particularly when the perpetrator appears conscienceless, remorseless, and/or defiant.
I can only speak for myself when I say I one day had an atheistic epiphany - like a sudden, irrefutable personal realization - that officially sanctioned and performed murder (definition: killing somebody against his/her will) is wrong if one is to consider oneself part of a truly civilized community. While I can understand the primal urge to exact revenge, intellectually, soberly, I must reject it.
Originally Posted by movielib
So do the adjectives slipsistic and self-involved automatically go with libertarian?
Not necessarily or automatically, as there are, by definition, always exceptions to every generalization, but, fairly or unfairly, libertarianism is often associated with Rand, who infamously said selfishness and greed are virtues. Ergo, "solipsistic" and "self-involved", or, euphamistically, wanting the government off your back.
Originally Posted by movielib
And actually, Penn is far more a libertarian than a liberal. See episodes on gun control, second hand smoke, environmental hysteria, recycling, P.E.T.A. and endangered species for example. Not at all in line with liberalism.
Okay, I didn't know his positions on those issues. Gun control: I would be completely indifferent to guns if they were not instruments invented with the specific intent to kill things; unlike knives or baseball bats, which are also used in violent crime, but have primary practical purposes.
Second-hand smoke: I assume his position is that non-smokers should stop whining about it. There is truth to the contention that a few other human activities impact upon the health of others much more than errant cigarette smoke (such as driving), but banning the use of internal combustion vehicles is not yet realistic. Restricting smokers to areas away from those who don't want to be affected by their activities is attainable and reasonable. My view is, smokers can smoke as much as they want in places where others are not engulfed in their fumes, not including in their private houses, where they can do what they want (although the presence of children should be a proviso to that liberty, since minors can't leave their parents' houses). Of course, under a publicly-funded healthcare system like up here in Canada, it might be wise to exclude smokers, because they are an immense cost to everyone else. However, that is an almost inconceivably complex slippery slope, since one wouldn't know where to stop legislating (eating bacon, bicycling, walking out one's door). A very commendable initiative the health system here is taking is to provide smokers with free stop-smoking patches or whatever, on a voluntary basis of course.
Environmental "hysteria": Whoever is still not convinced there is a problem cannot be helped, I'm afraid.
As for recycling, it is the perfect issue to identify libertarians, or apolitical people who just don't care. Recycling does not demonstrably or visibly make a difference, unless one happens to hang out at landfills. It is simply something civilized people do - like picking up after your dog - who view themselves, to one extent or another, as part of a society, and not just an island unto themselves.
As for abortion, I am agnostic; pro-choice in the absence of omniscience, but I am neither militantly for nor against abortion, because I feel no one can define exactly when a life is a life (aside from perhaps when it can survive on its own), not to mention opposing sides agreeing to the parameters of the debate.

Apologies for the digression. Back to Penn & Teller's bullshit
Old 04-17-06, 06:38 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,879
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The only way I can wrap my head around the death penalty issue is to establish an obnoxious double-talk position: I do not believe the State should kill a murderer, but if the State decides it wants to, I do not believe the murderer has any right to object. Once you take another life, you give up the rights to your own and put it in the hands of the majority. While I may disagree with what that majority decides to do with that life and would never directly support killing an individual, I do not necessarily oppose them exercising their ability to it.

(Un)Fortunately, I don't have to defend that backwards logic, because the State is so fucking inept when it comes to convicting people. When innocent people are being killed, the line isn't so blurry.

das
Old 04-17-06, 06:54 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Norm de Plume
Not necessarily or automatically, as there are, by definition, always exceptions to every generalization, but, fairly or unfairly, libertarianism is often associated with Rand, who infamously said selfishness and greed are virtues. Ergo, "solipsistic" and "self-involved", or, euphamistically, wanting the government off your back.
I may not agree with everything Rand said about selfishness but to her it was a very different concept than it is in popular usage.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth...lfishness.aspx

Virtue of Selfishness
What does Ayn Rand mean when she describes selfishness as a virtue?

Answered by J. Raibley

Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue.

In the introduction to her collection of essays on ethical philosophy, The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS), Rand writes that the "exact meaning" of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests" (VOS, vii). In that work, Rand argues that a virtue is an action by which one secures and protects one's rational values—ultimately, one's life and happiness. Since a concern with one's own interests is a character trait that, when translated into action, enables one to achieve and guard one's own well-being, it follows that selfishness is a virtue. One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life.

Rand understands, though, that the popular usage of the word, "selfish," is different from the meaning she ascribes to it. Many people use the adjective "selfish" to describe regard for one's own welfare to the disregard of the well-being of others. Moreover, many people would be willing to characterize any instance of desire-satisfaction in these circumstances as "selfish," no matter what its content. Thus, many people arrive at the following composite image: selfish people are brutish people who are oblivious to the negative consequences of their actions for their friends and loved ones and who abuse the patience, trust, and good will of all comers to satisfy their petty whims.

Rand certainly recognizes that there are people who fit this description, and she certainly does not believe that their behavior is in any sense virtuous. But she opposes labeling them "selfish." Rand believes that this application of the word blurs important philosophical distinctions and foreordains false philosophical doctrines. First, this understanding of selfishness construes both whim-fulfillment and the disregard of others' interests as genuinely self-interested behaviors, which they are not. Second, this understanding of selfishness suggests an altruist framework for thinking about ethics.

To elaborate on the first point: Rand believes that the elements of human self-interest are objective. All human beings have objective biological and psychological needs, and one's actual interests are identified by reference to these needs. Mere whim-fulfillment is therefore not constitutive of human well-being because one's whims might be at odds with one's actual needs. Moreover, the character traits of the "selfish" brute are not compatible with any human being's actual, rational interests. Humans live in a social world; in order to maximize the value of their interactions with others, they should cultivate a firm commitment to the virtues of rationality, justice, productiveness, and benevolence. A commitment to these virtues naturally precludes such brutish behavior. (For the Objectivist view of benevolence and its component virtues—civility, sensitivity, and generosity—see David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence).

To elaborate on the second point: Rand argues that the conventional understanding of selfishness implies an altruistic framework for thinking about ethics. Within this framework, the question, "Who is the beneficiary of this act?" is the most important moral question: right acts are acts undertaken for the "benefit" of others and wrong acts are acts undertaken for one's own "benefit." Rand believes that this approach passes over the crucial ethical questions: "What are values?" and "What is the nature of the right and the good?" In addition, the altruist framework suggests a dichotomy between actions that promote the interests of others to one's own detriment and actions that promote ones own interests to the detriment of others. Rand rejects this dichotomy and affirms the harmony of human interests (cf. "The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests," VOS 57-65).

Rand writes, "[A]ltruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others … it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men … it permits no concept of justice" (VOS, ix).

For her, the truly selfish person is a self-respecting, self-supporting human being who neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others. This value-orientation is brilliantly dramatized in the character of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. The further elements of selfishness - the character traits that, when translated into action, implement a concern for one's own real interests - are discussed and illustrated in that work, in Atlas Shrugged, and throughout Rand's non-fiction.

Finally, one might ask why Rand chose to use the term, "selfish," to designate the virtuous trait of character described above rather than to coin some new term for this purpose. This is an interesting question. Probably, Rand wished to challenge us to think through the substantial moral assumptions that have infected our ethical vocabulary. Her language also suggests that she believes that any other understanding of selfishness would amount to an invalid concept, i.e., one that is not appropriate to the facts and/or to man's mode of cognition (see VOS vii-xii, and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, esp. Ch. 7). In addition, one might interpret Rand as asserting that her definition captures the historical and etymological meaning of the word. But certainly, her praise of selfishness communicates instantaneously and provocatively the practical, this-worldly, egoistic, and profoundly Greek orientation of her ethical thought.
Pretty much the same for greed, I think a terribly abused word. If greed means wanting things for yourself and/or your loved ones, I see nothing wrong with it as long as one doesn't violate the rights of others to gain it. If one initiates force or fraud against others for personal gain, that is a meaning of greed I can denounce myself.

I'm kind of surprised that you associate Rand so closely with libertarianism. Al;though many (but by no means all) libertarians admire Rand (myself included) she did not return the favor. She thought is was a gross distortion of her Objectivist philosophy. The little she said about libertarianism was negative. Some of her followers have written monumental denouncements of libertarianism.

And if solipsism and self-involvement are equated with wanting government off one's back (which I deny) then a lot more people than just libertarians are solipsists and self-involved.

Oh, and I disagree with virtually everything you said about those other subjects. But I'm sure you know that.

Last edited by movielib; 04-17-06 at 06:58 PM.
Old 04-17-06, 09:40 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk God
 
Deftones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 81,011
Received 1,365 Likes on 927 Posts
Woah. Too much philisophical speak here. My head is spinning.

Seriously though, I don't buy into the whole "we are all murderers" argument they present. Just because the government is a representative of me, doesn't mean it represents my views. (For the record, I'm pro-death penalty). As for the death penalty being a deterrent, that is such a hard thing to prove.
Old 04-17-06, 11:09 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
Posts: 10,909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ive been mulling over support for a moritorium on executions, so I WAS THE TARGET AUDIENCE for this episode...


they did a shitty job...should have kept away from the race card issue, Sean Penn, or how much it might hurt the person being executed...it will turn alot of people off...should have focused exclusivly on innocent people...
Old 04-17-06, 11:30 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yeah, generally speaking, if a person is supportive of the death penalty, they probably don't care that it hurts the person being put to death. Many people I know would prefer that there be some pain inflicted on the condemned as part of the process.
Old 04-18-06, 12:52 AM
  #16  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 71,383
Received 122 Likes on 84 Posts
Originally Posted by BigDan
Yeah, generally speaking, if a person is supportive of the death penalty, they probably don't care that it hurts the person being put to death. Many people I know would prefer that there be some pain inflicted on the condemned as part of the process.
Depends on what that person thinks about the constitution and "cruel and unusual punishment."
Old 04-18-06, 01:21 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,191
Received 15 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Groucho
Depends on what that person thinks about the constitution and "cruel and unusual punishment."
Most of us would judge it by how it was meant when it was written, I think.
Old 04-18-06, 03:31 AM
  #18  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,830
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
they should amend it to read "cool and unusual punishment", and then put the clips up on ebaum's world.
Old 04-18-06, 04:16 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
The only reason I'm against the death penalty is the cost.
Old 04-18-06, 12:24 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 7,534
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
If we put the animals to sleep immediately upon the guilty verdict, the cost would be minimal. In fact I'm sure the victim's family would do it for free.

I have no problem debating the death penalty with anyone. But for me to debate this with anyone, you have to have one requirement: one of YOUR best friends has to have been stabbed 82 times in the head by 3 crack smoking maniacs. When that happens, I'll be more than happy to debate the merits of the death penalty with you. Until then, any anti-death penalty arguments don't mean shit to me.
Old 04-18-06, 12:26 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 7,534
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Deftones
As for the death penalty being a deterrent, that is such a hard thing to prove.
Of course it's a deterrent! You can't kill anyone if you're dead!
Old 04-18-06, 12:30 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 7,534
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Jadzia
I have a libertarian view of the death penalty. People don't have the right to kill people,
Tell that to the murderers.

When you murder, you are an animal. (actually less than an animal, since animals don't kill for "fun"). Now what do you do when you have an animal that bites people at random (like a wild dog)? You put it to sleep. When you murder, you become nothing more than a bad animal that should be put to sleep. Yes, we humans are supposed to be above animals. That's exactly my point. And when you become an animal that is detrimental to society, you should be put to sleep like one.
Old 04-18-06, 12:41 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's a pretty specific requirement for a debate. I guess I don't qualify since I only had a family friend murdered (by someone who was executed but would not be executed under current law since the killer was 17 at the time of the crime).

It's interesting to me that, even knowing that 123 (vs. just over 1,000 who have been executed) people on death row have been proven to have been innocent years after the crime that some people would still like to shorten or eliminate the window between conviction and execution. It's as if the problem isn't that there were innocent people wrongly convicted (and at least one, and probably more, wrongly executed), but that such a thing was discovered.
Old 04-18-06, 12:48 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by nodeerforamonth
Of course it's a deterrent! You can't kill anyone if you're dead!
But that won't effectively stop others from killing.

As it is, I think that the death penalty has been neutered enough. Vile murderers get to appeal and appeal and appeal. No. When you've been found guilty, when you've murdered someone, and the fact is beyond dispute?

Take them out of the courthouse and behead them.

It's not cruel to kill a murderer, nor is it unusual to behead them. Look at history.
Old 04-18-06, 12:55 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,292
Received 371 Likes on 265 Posts
Originally Posted by nodeerforamonth
Of course it's a deterrent! You can't kill anyone if you're dead!
You can deter someone from doing something after the fact? I'd discuss it further, but since my ex-girlfriend's father was only stabbed three times, I don't seem to qualify.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.