Ted Haggard: 'Inappropriate' relationship not physical

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/...ew_allegations

Quote:

---

Fallen evangelical pastor Ted Haggard says he had an "inappropriate relationship" with a young male church volunteer, but it did not involve physical contact.

---

Sigh!! This man is in such denial, I'd almost feel sad for him if it weren't for his previous statements on record:

from Wikipedia

Quote:

---

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar . There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life.

---

This man really hates this part of himself. Admitting you're a liar hardly makes him stands out as a person, however it does beg the question why anyone should believe anything he says.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Admitting you're a liar hardly makes him stands out as a person, however it does beg the question why anyone should believe anything he says.

---

While not commenting on Ted Haggard, the label liar is inevitably a hard one to shake. I have had many people in my life accuse me falsely and then call me liar (thus destroying my credibility to defend myself). It was consequently very difficult to form any rebuttal.

Technically the term "I'm a liar" is inherently meaningless anyway since it can neither be true nor false. But I would argue that if someone is willing to admit this in repentence they are at least trying to be genuine/sincere.

At some point, I would believe that one has to grant the benefit of the doubt. Though, I am also of the opinion that redemption/reconciliation/forgiveness are admirable enough qualities to be continually sought after even if they are seemingly impossible.

I'm not sure which bothers me more: his hypocrisy or his inability to accept his sexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pae
Technically the term "I'm a liar" is inherently meaningless anyway since it can neither be true nor false.

---

Actually, any claim of being a liar is always true. If the person really was a liar, then the statement was true. Conversely, if the person was previously truthful and then makes the statement, he immediately becomes a liar and thus the statement is also true. In any case, if someone admits to being a liar, you can believe them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I'm not sure which bothers me more: his hypocrisy or his inability to accept his sexuality.

---

I'm not really sure why it should matter. The man was a public figure and now is not. He was removed from all ministry and is no longer in any sort of leadership position, from what I understand.

As for his sexuality, is it not OK for him to struggle with it, or is he supposed to give up his convictions because you think he shouldn't struggle?

Who the hell is Ted Haggard and why should anybody care?

Like this is the first time some kind of priest, or church-member has molested or sexually fucked with a little kid.


Old news, not surprising.

Quote:

---

Like this is the first time some kind of priest, or church-member has molested or sexually fucked with a little kid.

---

Ted Haggard didn't molest a little kid. He was paying for gay sex with a prostitute, Mike Jones and scoring crystal meth.
Haggard was an Oral Roberts disciple and eventually founded the New Life Church in Colorado. Go rent Jesus Camp and you'll learn more.

Quote:

---

As for his sexuality, is it not OK for him to struggle with it, or is he supposed to give up his convictions because you think he shouldn't struggle?

---

Ted Haggard was an extremely influential person in his church, community, and nationally.Sure it's okay to struggle with one's sexual identity, but he was doing so while at the same time publicly denouncing the lifestyle of other homosexuals. This is where he loses my sympathy. This sort of public denunciation can play a role in the proliferation of hate crimes against homosexuals. The whole God Hates Fags sorta thing. Now Haggard is being discriminated against and publicly humiliated. Ain't life a bitch!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Now Haggard is being discriminated against and publicly humiliated. Ain't life a bitch!!

---

And yet I'll bet you're against the death penalty for murderers, and find neither irony nor inconsistency in your statements.

It'd be hard to figure you out, Kestra, if you weren't so easy to categorize as an across-the-board left-wing hack.

Quote:

---

And yet I'll bet you're against the death penalty for murderers, and find neither irony nor inconsistency in your statements.

---

I'm undecided when it comes to the death penalty.

Quote:

---

It'd be hard to figure you out, Kestra, if you weren't so easy to categorize as an across-the-board left-wing hack.

---

Could be worse....could be a right wing christian evangelical in favor of the death penalty.

I have no problem with the death penalty. In-fact I think they should use it more. It's much cheaper than holding a guy in prison for life. Waste of resources. We shouldn't even have Life in Prison with no parole, should just be death.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Serade
I have no problem with the death penalty. In-fact I think they should use it more. It's much cheaper than holding a guy in prison for life. Waste of resources. We shouldn't even have Life in Prison with no parole, should just be death.

---

While in theory, an increase in the death penalty, and a speedier delivery of punishment. There are many individuals who are currently falsely incarcerated.

Would you want to be one who killed an innocent man or woman?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kailen
While in theory, an increase in the death penalty, and a speedier delivery of punishment. There are many individuals who are currently falsely incarcerated.

Would you want to be one who killed an innocent man or woman?

---

You know... that doesn't really concern me all that much. To my mind, there's no difference between executing someone incorrectly, and imprisoning them for life incorrectly. Yes, the latter case allows for the possibility that they'll be freed twenty years down the track. Firstly, how often does that happen? There has to be new evidence found, or whatever; and it has to have come too late to prevent the execution, or there's no difference. And secondly, what happens when someone's been in jail for twenty years and then gets released? They're going to have a pretty hard time of it. It's an option, yes, but I don't think it's all that strong an option.

Would I want to be the person who killed an innocent wo/man? No. But I also don't like the idea of being the person to punish, in any other way, an innocent person. Incidentally, who is "the person" who kills a criminal?

* The policemen who arrested him?
* The jury who finds a person guilty? (I don't think there are any legislatures in which a capital sentence can be brought down in a non-jury trial, am I right there? Joreth, Aristotle, or other legal mind?) That's twelve people, and they all have to agree.
* The dignified judge who condemns a criminal to die?
* The industrious mechanic who carries out the sentence? (In most modern systems, there are a number of people involved, so there's several people in this category, and nobody knows which of them actually did the deed.)

No single person need ever have it on his conscience that "he killed Fred Nurk". When you include all the other systems that are in place (lawyers, royal/presidential pardons, appeals, etc, etc, etc), there's a huge number of people involved in sending that man to his death.

In a good many cases, the justification is really clear - incontrovertible evidence of murder, maybe even a complete confession or multiple eyewitnesses - so why keep the person alive on the off-chance that MAYBE somehow he's innocent? Instead, what might be better would be to keep both penalties active. Have the judges know that they can bring down a death sentence if they consider it justified, or life imprisonment (or X years) if they'd rather hedge? And come to think of it, isn't that what happens in places where there's a death penalty? Hmm. Seems most things have already been thought of.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Ted Haggard was an extremely influential person in his church, community, and nationally.Sure it's okay to struggle with one's sexual identity, but he was doing so while at the same time publicly denouncing the lifestyle of other homosexuals. This is where he loses my sympathy. This sort of public denunciation can play a role in the proliferation of hate crimes against homosexuals. The whole God Hates Fags sorta thing. Now Haggard is being discriminated against and publicly humiliated. Ain't life a bitch!!

---

Ted Haggard didn't decide, in a rational calculating sense, to become a tool of "Christian" evangelical hatred. His father founded a charismatic movement, and Ted grew up in a conservative, small town middle American environment. He was no doubt surrounded constantly by the worse sort of influences, and it is no wonder he is so full of self-loathing and self destructive behavior now. It is very easy for us to sit back and judge him as hypocritical and guilty of terrible wrongs against other gay people, and no doubt this is true. But, it is isn't the whole story.

Perhaps I feel some compassion for Haggard because I too grew up the son of a conservative evangelical pastor, and I too grew up in a small town that was strangling any ability I may have had to think independently, and certainly to see myself as anything but sick, depraved, a tool of Satan, for the feelings I was having. No matter what I did, or how much I prayed, I couldn't seem to get rid of them. Eventually, I gave up, and decided to kill myself. Now, to clarify, this wasn't some sort of CRY FOR HELP, or any of that nonesense. I honestly believed, at the time, that I was depraved, beyond redemption, and had no future. The only reason I survived was because one of the drugs I had taken to kill myself had triggered seizures and my parents heard my head banging against the wall. Otherwise, I would have been dead by morning. The only reason I wasn't was because by then, I was on life support. I got into REAL therapy (previously, my parents had been sending me to counseling sessions with a local youth minister), and started exploring other interpretations of Christianity, and started a long road to what I have to describe, as judgemental as this sounds, of de-programming from the cultlike mindset that grips so much of small town middle america, or did when I was growing up, in any event.

Many other gay kids growing up in small towns or in religious families aren't so lucky... many are dead, or like Haggard end up becoming tools of the very hatred that has so ruined their own lives. Now, of course it is important to acknowledge the damage that pastors like Haggard cause, but Haggard himself deserves our compassion, and I hope, if he ever can find his way out of the hell conservative evangelicalism has caused him, that he finds people who are far less judgemental, and far more loving and supportive than to say "ain't life a bitch"

I certainly hope that I had had the courage to keep fighting and keep on living with the severe and excruciating pain that was my life as a teen, instead of giving up and ending the pain, and then had the misfortune to get as severely misdirected from a healthy path in life as Haggard has, that I might find someone like the person I hope I am today, who would be willing to reach out a hand, and help. Not someone who was bitter and dismissive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
You know... that doesn't really concern me all that much. To my mind, there's no difference between executing someone incorrectly, and imprisoning them for life incorrectly

---

It's alot easier to let somebody out of prison early than it is to raise them from the dead.

You're most welcome to be a shoulder for him to cry on Graeblyn, but he'll get no such treatment from me. This man is a hypocrite, and IMO, likely bisexual; which for many right wing Xtians is worse that being gay. But that's just a theory.
I'm very curious about his 3 week therapy session back in 2006 after the scandal broke. I'm very skeptical that the ministers involved with the therapy encouraged him to express his homosexuality. Tim Ralph, one of the ministers at the therapy sessions is on record stating he gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side. Are evangelicals in favor of sexual reprogramming? Meaning that men and women can stop being gay?
The problem I have with this is that many Christians see homosexuality equal to immorality. You can't be gay and be moral; or you can be gay, but being straight is better. There have been so many sex scandals in various Christians churches that the idea that this group has the copyright on morality is deeply laughable and at the same time offensive to me. I have several friends who are active in what is often considered immoral activities. (swingers, kink, etc...) They are some of the most honest, ethical and loving people I have ever met. Also in my experience when it comes to money, many Christians leave their morality at the door. In 2006, he received $115,000 for the 10 months he worked and also received an $85,000 anniversary bonus shortly before the scandal broke; after the scandal broke, the board of trustees of New Life Church agreed to give him a $138,000 severance. Additionally, the Haggards have a home in Colorado Springs, Colorado that is valued at more than $700,000 and Haggard still receives royalties from books he has authored. Why was Haggard asking for money after the scandal broke?

If I were to wish any good will to Haggard, it would be stop viewing homosexual behavior as sinful. I think he'd find a lot more inner peace this way, instead of worrying about gay desires being stirred up inside of him and having to suppress them.

I can't decide which is more irrelevant, the views of Haggard or the views of Wright.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leira
It's alot easier to let somebody out of prison early than it is to raise them from the dead.

---

Read the rest of my post. That is an advantage, but it's simply not going to happen often enough to be worth putting that much effort into. In situations where it's uncertain enough to warrant nonexecution, that can still be done.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Read the rest of my post. That is an advantage, but it's simply not going to happen often enough to be worth putting that much effort into.

---

Yeah, it sucks when morality is inconvenient and requirs effort.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Yeah, it sucks when morality is inconvenient and requirs effort.

---

I was just about to say the exact same thing

Quote:

---

Originally posted by khaltek
I was just about to say the exact same thing

---

Ignoring the off-topic nature of the response, two fallacies:

1) The dichotomy of 'reversibility' between execution and imprisonment: it is equally difficult to give a wrongly imprisoned man time back as it is to revive a wrongly executed man. This is not an argument militating in favor of imprisonment. If anything, structure your argument that imprisonment is more incremental, and so it is easier to adjust the punishment mid-way, etc. This, however, is basically the oldest fallacy in the death penalty argument.

2) Morality and the cost of enforcement: your statement - "Yeah, it sucks when morality is inconvenient and requires effort." - implies that if something is "moral," the enforcement costs behind its action inherently no longer matter. Thought about for more than two seconds, this is absurd. We live in a world of scarce resources. Every dollar spent enforcing one moral imperative is a dollar not spent enforcing another. Without discussing the possibility that collecting more dollars from the citizenry to spend may be an immoral thing in and of itself, throwing out the naked implication that once something is moral, one shouldn't be deterred by its potential inconvenience sounds great on paper, but is utterly foolish in practice. If you set aside the concern I did above (about further raiding the citizenry), any such expenditure is a balancing test - how efficient are the dollars being spent to accomplish how important a moral good, and what is the moral good being ignored by choosing to spend more here?

I do not address the argument that the prevention of the punishment of innocents is an important and, indeed, moral goal - but don't act as if all the morality on that issue is on your argument. A prisoner takes a frightening amount of resources. There's no insubstantial amount of morality in preventing that, either.

n.b.: Enjoy it, Rosuav; this may be the only time I end up coming to your defense.

Substantially more on-topic: Graeblyn and Kestra's posts present an interesting and stark dichotomy between the best and most intellectually consistent someone from the gay community could feel about someone like Haggard (explaining the tragedy of someone being so indoctrinated and the paradox of their likelihood to represent the individuals who precisely did so), and the much easier road of traditional interest-group bile (latching onto the opportunity to write an idiotic screed largely about Christians whose relevance to the discussion hangs only by implication).

Guess which one is which.

I am not an interest group.
This man will not find peace until he accepts what he is. His idea of conquering his demons is by fasting. IMO this is dancing around the issue. The idea that you "pray the gay away" is again, IMO a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaviani
1) The dichotomy of 'reversibility' between execution and imprisonment: it is equally difficult to give a wrongly imprisoned man time back as it is to revive a wrongly executed man.

n.b.: Enjoy it, Rosuav; this may be the only time I end up coming to your defense.

---

Thanks, I'm sure you're right on that last point... and thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say.

That's (partly) why I see it as very little difference. If you pardon someone after he's been imprisoned for twenty or thirty years, those years are GONE.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I am not an interest group.

---

I could make a snide comment here, but I'll refrain.

I'm curious to know how far people's forgiveness and compassion extends. Would those who sympathize with Haggard also sympathize with the terrorist who bombed a building or market if it were discovered that this terrorist was mentally and emotionally abused, endured harsh family, and society condition, indoctrinated and such as a child which made him/her into what they are today? I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I'm curious to know how far people's forgiveness and compassion extends. Would those who sympathize with Haggard also sympathize with the terrorist who bombed a building or market if it were discovered that this terrorist was mentally and emotionally abused, endured harsh family, and society condition, indoctrinated and such as a child which made him/her into what they are today? I doubt it.

---

Wow.

I just want to make something extraordinarily clear before I destroy your last post. Are you equating someone who expresses religious or social views you find abhorrent in a non-violent manner (unless you're accusing Haggard of violence himself, in which case, bring cites or shut up) with someone who -actually murders people and destroys property?-

Before you try the "Haggard's views cause people to commit violence" angle, making statements that someone construes in a way that provokes them to violence (and that's charitably ceding your premise that he does - which I do not) IS NOT morally (or logically) equivalent to KILLING, BOMBING, OR OTHERWISE DESTROYING PEOPLE OR THINGS.

Malacasta, if you really wonder why people just rip the shit out of Kestra's posts, it's not (just) because of his ideology. It's because of his hideously defective analogies and syllogisms, of which I would put this near the very fucking top of the list.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
I'm curious to know how far people's forgiveness and compassion extends. Would those who sympathize with Haggard also sympathize with the terrorist who bombed a building or market if it were discovered that this terrorist was mentally and emotionally abused, endured harsh family, and society condition, indoctrinated and such as a child which made him/her into what they are today? I doubt it.

---

I'm going to ignore your specific example in an attempt to address what I think was your broader question: Do we draw a distinction between hate speech and hate crimes when it comes to casting judgement on people?

Speaking only for myself, none of what I said in my post above would by negated if it suddenly came out Haggard was guilty of acts of violence against gay people. I will readily admit I would be far more saddened in this specific scenario, because Haggard himself is gay. It is truly tragic when someone hates what they are so much that they become violent or even homicidal when they see what they hate about themselves in other people.

Now I realise it shouldn't make any difference that the perpetrator of a hate crime is straight or gay, so maybe this reveals my own prejudices. However, I have sat and thought about this, and I honestly can't see it as "right" to be as angry and condemning of a gay man who is guilty of hate crimes against gay people as I would be if a straight person were guilty of the same crimes.

I cannot express enough how difficult it is for a gay kid to grow up in the environment Haggard was trapped in. I simply cannot bring myself to be too judgmental of anything he has done thus far.

If he DID kill a gay person for being gay, of course that would be a whole other situation. I would call for him to be locked away for good, and I would be quite angry if he weren't in prison for the rest of his life. However, I would still feel quite saddened for him, and I would STILL hope he could come to terms with his sexuality, and come to some sense of peace, even if it was in prison.

Quote:

---

(unless you're accusing Haggard of violence himself, in which case, bring cites or shut up)

---

No, I'm not. And there's no need to talk to me in this manner. Try harder to keep it civil Gaviani.

Quote:

---

Before you try the "Haggard's views cause people to commit violence" angle, making statements that someone construes in a way that provokes them to violence (and that's charitably ceding your premise that he does - which I do not) IS NOT morally (or logically) equivalent to KILLING, BOMBING, OR OTHERWISE DESTROYING PEOPLE OR THINGS

---

I'm asking how far do those who sympathize with Haggard extend their forgiveness and compassion. Anti-gay views CAN and HAVE played a role in hate crimes against gays. What I said was "This sort of public denunciation can play a role in the proliferation of hate crimes against homosexuals." I never referred to TH speech and said "this has directly led to a gay hate crime."

There is no question that a bomber creates more destruction with his/her actions. My argument is merely why does a terrorist with a brutal childhood, and upbringing deserve less sympathy than someone like TH? Why is TH a victim and not the bomber who suffered mental and physical abuse? I'm not suggesting he or she DOES deserve forgiveness or compassion. Just why not?

Re: Compassion

The nature of the act is important to degrees of compassion. It is easy to forgive someone for speaking; less so to forgive them for killing. The scale is so disproportionate that there's little correlation between the two.

My answer:
I pity his indoctrination and inner conflict, while feeling cruelly gleeful that yet another anti-gay zealot has been revealed as a hypocrite. Had he bombed a gay nightclub, I'd pity, be horrified, and recommend life imprisonment all at once.

Re: Death Penalty
In Canada, there have been a few instances of wrongful sentences in the past few years; RCMP planting evidence, proof that the accused wasn't at the scene being totally ignored, DNA evidence being ignored, that kind of thing. Local police forces are regularly proved to be setting up illegal stings, falsifying breathalizer tests because they don't like someone, etc. It's hard to recommend a penalty as irrevocable as Death when the authorities responsible act so irresponsibly.

First, I'd like to clarify that the Biblical view on homosexuality is that it is immoral simply because it disobeys the biblical law. Not because Christians believe homosexuals are evil, or that homosexual activity is any worse than any other sin, be it lying, fornication (which most homosexuals take part in anyway... All of them if you take into account that their marriages aren't biblical to begin with) adultery, or any of the other "Big 10". God does not hate homosexuals, but feels separated from them by their disobedience, just as he feels separated from all of mankind- in the Christian faith.

Because this fellow is of the Christian faith, it makes sense for him to feel separated from God by something that he considers sin, and part of his sinful nature as a human being. Just as he should feel separated from god by telling a little white lie, (which you may rest assured he did) or commiting adultery.

Just because some of you don't agree that he should think that Homosexuality is a sin doesn't change the fact that Christianity considers it to be, based on the words in the holy texts of both Christianity and Judaism. Saying that he should just accept the fact that he is gay is the same as saying that he should no longer be a Christian, and as much as many of you would love for him to make both of those decisions-- it's incredibly un-American.

note- I am a huge fan of Theology, I am however not a worshiping Christian though I was raised in a Christian houshold. Any responses to this saying that I'm brainwashed too or something absurd like that would be lost on me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tartun
Saying that he should just accept the fact that he is gay is the same as saying that he should no longer be a Christian, and as much as many of you would love for him to make both of those decisions-- it's incredibly un-American.

---

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
That's (partly) why I see it as very little difference. If you pardon someone after he's been imprisoned for twenty or thirty years, those years are GONE.

---

Losing twenty or thirty years is a horrible thing, but death can take more than twenty or thirty years away from you. When I was growing up, there was a case of wrongful conviction that recieved a huge amount of press all over Canada that is pretty relevant to this topic.

David Milgaard spent 22 years in jail for the rape and murder of Gail Miller. He was ultimately proven innocent and released 16 years ago. In those 16 years he found love, got married, and had chlidren. He has described what he does now as "writing and enjoying life". Had he been executed, that would be at least 38 years we would have taken from him, and given he's only 56 years old, he's probably going to be around for at least another 10 or so years. So, while we can't give David Milgaard those 22 years back, we can and have "given back" 16+ years to him that he would have lost if we had executed him.

On a side note, because Milgaard lived to prove his innocence, the real killer of Gail Miller was found and imprisoned.

Quote:

---

First, I'd like to clarify that the Biblical view on homosexuality is that it is immoral simply because it disobeys the biblical law. Not because Christians believe homosexuals are evil, or that homosexual activity is any worse than any other sin, be it lying, fornication (which most homosexuals take part in anyway... All of them if you take into account that their marriages aren't biblical to begin with) adultery, or any of the other "Big 10". God does not hate homosexuals, but feels separated from them by their disobedience, just as he feels separated from all of mankind- in the Christian faith.

---

I can appreciate this fact Tartun, and appreciate how TH's inner turmoil is being compounded by the teachings of his faith. Please believe me when I say that I'm not trying to be offensive or rude when I say that "I" believe that religious texts are simply wrong when it comes to this issue. Haggard will likely keep to his religious teachings and faith, but I suspect at the cost of his sexual integrity and maybe even his marriage. I don't think he can gain a new enlightenment by the supression of his sexual desires.

On a side note, this is one of the themes I really enjoy rp'ing as a Bastite. (talking about how suppression of desires is unhealthy) :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Would those who sympathize with Haggard also sympathize with the terrorist who bombed a building or market if it were discovered that this terrorist was mentally and emotionally abused, endured harsh family, and society condition, indoctrinated and such as a child which made him/her into what they are today? I doubt it.

---

And this is exactly why nobody takes kestra seriously, and why he is considered an irrational hyper-partisan.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaviani
Ignoring the off-topic nature of the response, two fallacies:

1) The dichotomy of 'reversibility' between execution and imprisonment: it is equally difficult to give a wrongly imprisoned man time back as it is to revive a wrongly executed man. This is not an argument militating in favor of imprisonment. If anything, structure your argument that imprisonment is more incremental, and so it is easier to adjust the punishment mid-way, etc. This, however, is basically the oldest fallacy in the death penalty argument.

---

Respectfuly, I think your premise (which I have italicized) is wrong. Incarcerated individuals haven't lost any time. An individual that has been in prison for 10 years has experienced the same amount of time that a free individual has during that period. Imprisonment doesn't rob an individual of time, it merely reduces the quality of their life during that time. That loss of quality of life is something that can, in most cases, be replenished in the form of monetary compensation or something similar.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaviani
2) Morality and the cost of enforcement: your statement - "Yeah, it sucks when morality is inconvenient and requires effort." - implies that if something is "moral," the enforcement costs behind its action inherently no longer matter.
...
A prisoner takes a frightening amount of resources.

---

Clearly some sort of cost-benefit analysis is required, and perhaps we can investigate this more thoroughly in a dedicated thread, but I will leave you with this reference:

Quote:

---

A new study released by the Urban Institute on March 6, 2008 found that Maryland taxpayers have paid at least $37.2 million for each of the state’s five executions since 1978 when the state reenacted the death penalty. The study, prepared by the Urban Institute, estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case. The study examined 162 capital cases that were prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 and found that seeking the death penalty in those cases cost $186 million more than what those cases would have cost had the death penalty not been sought. At every phase of a case, according to the study, capital murder cases cost more than non-capital murder cases.

---

The study in question can be found here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf

Now this higher cost certainly is partially a result of the nature of the capital crimes, but also of the greater administrative costs and typically longer appellate and penalty phases of the trial that are afforded to capital cases.

I consider myself a God-fearing libertarian communist. I think if things throw down Gav and I will be on even further sides. :)

I would personally like to state that while I am a very believing Christian, I do think the both of you are incredibly intelligent. I love reading your posts when they contain your own arguments and contribute more to the discussions (Gav - while I recognize the need, I don't personally like reading when you point out fallacies... mainly because I see most of them too and I believe them to be glaringly obvious)

Anyways:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta I cannot begin to explain how frustrated I am by the disingenuous innocence of scientific method that Maelgrim and Rosuav display thread after thread, when they restate absolute falsehoods and inventions over and over again as though their embarrassing and ignorant posts were extraordinary discoveries that had never before been considered by the scientific elite, when in fact any undergrad of biological or geological science could expose their misunderstandings and falsehoods in moments without significant effort.

---

One thing *I* have noticed is that the Christian God is often mocked on the forums and on citizen. Not openly, but rather in 'sniping' formats that are not enough to really call someone on, but are enough to be hurtful and offensive.

Neither you Malacasta nor Gav contribute to that, but it is something that I have noticed repeatedly. I liken that to feeling the same way when you perceive Rosuav ignoring your well-crafted/insightful rebuttals. It is what you believe to be truth to be completely and 100% ignored / disrespected can be an outright frustrating thing.

I would suggest that as a result of this both within Threshold and in western cultures, it has bred an 'us vs them' mentality where neither side is really looking to understand the other rather studies what the other has to say with the intent of trying to find all the nitpicky flaws.

Since I'm Canadian, I am not 100% certain on this, but after following this past US election it seemed the same could be said for how political repbulicans/democrats behave.

I would long for the day to sit down with Malacasta / Gaviani (heck Ari too actually) with some coffee and beers of you all prefer and genuinely try to find truth without any of our own preconceptions. It's amazing what believing you are right but being willing to be wrong can do to the relationships/discussions around you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Now this higher cost certainly is partially a result of the nature of the capital crimes

---

Unfortunately this caveat almost completely invalidates the statistical information. It's like saying that grand larceny carries a potential prison sentence, but an on-the-spot parking ticket doesn't, and then pointing out the massively higher adminstrative cost for the former. I haven't looked at your PDF (hanging out till next week when my broadband becomes truly broad again), but if it shows all the actual figures, then it'd be more feasible to lift out ONLY the, shall we say, potentially-capital crimes (murder, rape, whatever it be), and compare. The trouble is that no two cases are identical, so it's never going to be possible to get a complete rundown; however, you may very well be right in that the possibility of a capital sentence will result in more effort being put into appeals etc (perhaps it's considered not worth the hassle of appealing against a 20 year sentence when the chance of winning the appeal is slim, but you'll try it for the sake of avoiding execution). If that's the case, then it would basically get to be a calculatable (highly approximate) value - and then figure that the extra appeals etc on a capital sentence equate to X years' maintenance of a life sentence.

It'd be handy information to have. Equivalent to three years? ten? twenty? fifty? Of course, hard to figure everything perfectly on the imprisonment side either, because prisons have certain capacities, and when you exceed those, you have a lot of other expenses to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
Anyways, the thing is, Gaviani, I don’t think all things ARE equal.

I don’t accept your proposition that Rosuav argues in good faith. I’d love for him to tell me, Rosuav, please tell me how it is that you ignore every substantive post on science or politics that attacks your ‘common sense’ understanding of the world.

---

Of course they're not equal, they never will be.

I have at times attempted to argue from solid fact, but the trouble is that any legitimate arguments (on both sides) always get swamped by a host of other posts, making it impossible to have any sort of real discussion over any length of time. Invariably the heat gets to the point where continuing to argue will only result in a flame war, and so in the interests of avoiding such, I just quietly drop off the posting. Perhaps this is a bad thing for me to do, but when I'm posting from work during my lunch time, I have to restrict myself to half an hour for everything I want to do - and often it just doesn't feel like a worthwhile use of time to argue something till it goes flamey.

Thresh Forums is almost completely unmoderated - mods, how often have you had to (a) delete a post? (b) edit someone else's post? (c) close/lock a thread? (d) any other anti-flame-war action? Most moderatorial work, from what I've seen, has been things like moving threads to more appropriate places, forking a thread when half of it veers off and half doesn't, that sort of thing. I'd be very much surprised if more than a couple dozen posts are deleted each year. Compare against Railpage, on which my brother is a mod... granted, they have a much higher traffic rate, but even scaling for that, the mods have a LOT more work to do. (Again, not all things are equal, and Railpage has a policy that fatalities are NOT to be discussed (because it always leads to bad things, flame wars or whinge wars), so a discussion about the such-and-such level crossing will have to be locked as soon as someone brings up that their niece's best friend's cousin's brother ran across the tracks two years ago and got killed by an oncoming train, but that isn't all the moderation that's done.) Why is Thresh forums so civil? I think there's several reasons.

1) It's closed. We don't have a bunch of idiots signing on and posting rubbish, and we don't have spammers posting "Buy my product, visit my blog, here's a link to my web site". Also, the entire concept of banned users recreating with a different name (not a creator of moderatorial work, but certainly a multiplier) doesn't exist.

2) Everyone here is, theoretically at least, an adult. This very thread, and also the also-current one about the porn industry bailout, would be a bit awkward to discuss on open boards, because either someone underage would start posting inappropriate stuff, or some adult would say "We can't discuss this here! There are children on this board!" and flame everyone who carries on the discussion. Personally, I think the latter is worse.

3) But mainly, Threshold is a community, and (for the most part at least!) its members are respectful of each other. Most people are known by the same name on Forums as they are on Citizen, and all the regular posters know who each other are. (Eh, sorry about the 2AM grammar.) Just as people wouldn't normally stand up at a table, point to someone on the opposite side, and scream "YOU IDIOT, what sort of rubbish is THAT that you're saying?!", even though they do it from the relative anonymity of a forums post, so Threshers don't flame each other nearly as much as happens elsewhere. The signal-to-flame ratio is even higher here than it is on Savoynet, where (again) people often know each other, and most people's real names are attached to their posts. (Really quite amazing is the tendency to flame casually at anyone you think isn't listening, or anyone you don't actually know.) What keeps the flames down? Respect. Respect. Respect. And remembering the person behind the post.

Let's maintain the respect levels that this board needs, and hopefully productive discussion will continue unabated.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Unfortunately this caveat almost completely invalidates the statistical information.

---

No, it doesn't. It simply requires some simple analysis. For example, capital-punishment worthy crimes in which the death penalty is not sought are perfectly comparible to those in which it is sought. Also, it's not impossible to identify parts of a capital trial that simply wouldn't exist in a non-capital trial.

I don't know why you'd immediately claim a complete invalidation of the statistics in the study while admitting that you haven't even read it. The study in fact compares the trial process between capital and non-capital cases when considering cost differences.

Thread split as per request.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
No, it doesn't. It simply requires some simple analysis. For example, capital-punishment worthy crimes in which the death penalty is not sought are perfectly comparible to those in which it is sought. Also, it's not impossible to identify parts of a capital trial that simply wouldn't exist in a non-capital trial.

---

Which was exactly what I said. The statistic _as given_ is of no value, but compare specific instances and then it will be.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Respectfuly, I think your premise (which I have italicized) is wrong. Incarcerated individuals haven't lost any time. An individual that has been in prison for 10 years has experienced the same amount of time that a free individual has during that period. Imprisonment doesn't rob an individual of time, it merely reduces the quality of their life during that time. That loss of quality of life is something that can, in most cases, be replenished in the form of monetary compensation or something similar.

---

That's completely fair - I think many (even most?) people would regard time spent alive in prison as tantamount to having been robbed of that time entirely, though - or perhaps even worse, as one sees the life they had prior degrade entirely (losing your spouse, having your position within the community divvied up/filled by others, etc.). The problem with the last part of this argument is that almost every single Western legal system (for various reasons, many of them good) does not recognize a right of action to compensate someone wrongfully imprisoned unless that wrongful imprisonment was due to deliberate or knowing misconduct on the part of the state. Should this be compensable? There's a pretty good argument, I think, that it should - but of course, that would be subject to all kinds of trade-offs in return as well (which could fill a book, much less a thread).

Quote:

---

Clearly some sort of cost-benefit analysis is required, and perhaps we can investigate this more thoroughly in a dedicated thread, but I will leave you with this reference:

---

That was my whole point in pointing out the weaknesses of your one-line reply earlier. I don't necessarily disagree with you. How, when, and whether to apply the death penalty is obviously an argument so delicate and multifaceted on both sides that it borders on the irresolvable. I think the idea that extreme caution need be used, or that even it ought never be used for the possibility of type I error can never be eliminated, is legitimate. I just didn't think you had such a prima facie dominating argument that you could shut Rosuav down with one line and consider it done.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tartun
Just because some of you don't agree that he should think that Homosexuality is a sin doesn't change the fact that Christianity considers it to be, based on the words in the holy texts of both Christianity and Judaism. Saying that he should just accept the fact that he is gay is the same as saying that he should no longer be a Christian, and as much as many of you would love for him to make both of those decisions-- it's incredibly un-American.

---

Actually, CHRISTIANITY doesn't consider it to be, even though Haggard's sect certainly does. Accepting that he is gay is not the same as saying he should no longer be a Christian. There are many gay christians. There are many churches that are welcoming and affirming to gay Christians. Just because conservative evangelicals go about pretending to represent the totality of Christian thought on every social issue doesn't make it true.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
Which was exactly what I said. The statistic _as given_ is of no value, but compare specific instances and then it will be.

---

Allow me to clarify. The study in question already took those things into account when calculating the price of the death penalty. They only compared capital eligible cases, and so on. As a result, their numbers regarding the additional cost of the death appear to be very valid.

So, the statistics _as given_ are quite valuable.

The fact that you're arguing this when you obviously haven't read the study - and appear to have to intent to do so - indicates that you're not interested in any logical debate on this topic at all. You've made some irrational gut-instinct, and probably emotionally motivated decision, and don't care what the facts are. I shouldn't be surprised; this seems to be your modus operandi when debating subjects involving impirical evidence.