Capital punishment.

[CassinoChips]

The goal of capital punishment isn't to prevent these types of crimes (the law is there to do that), it's to ensure these types of people don't have a chance to commit them again, as they've clearly shown they had no problem doing it before they were caught. It isn't for the good of the criminal, it's for the good of the society. Whether it works is debatable but that's the reasoning behind it. There are of course cases of innocent people being imprisoned, perhaps on death row, but no system is without its faults (not saying it doesn't need improvement). At least in the US, prisons are already over capacity and conditions for inmates are terrible with all the crowding.

You don't have a chance to re-offend if you're given a life sentence without chance for parole.

Hal addressed the crowding issue. It's in lower security prisons, not lifers/death row.

If you want to better prevent murder and other heinous crimes, there are many socio-economic factors to consider; but even if all of them are fixed and just about everyone is happy, there will still be the psychotics and sadists who take pleasure in inflicting pain onto others, and enjoy taking their lives away. What would you do with them?

Psychosis is a medical condition. Maximum security medical facility for treatment. Otherwise, imprison them for life to remove them from society.

 

[asm]

I'm sure being innocent in death row isn't all that bad when you are considering how much taxpayer money you're saving and "the system has it's faults".

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I'm sure being innocent in death row isn't all that bad when you are considering how much taxpayer money you're saving and "the system has it's faults".

Everything has its faults though, the judicial system and prison and penalty system both. I mean you can't have everything fixed at once and expect it to be perfect. Change comes in different pieces and different places, imo I think a capital punishment enforcing system is just a better one as far as my vote goes.

I have a different question now though for everyone. How many of you anti-capitol punishment people really think its more merciful to let a maniac live amongst other maniacs in a more accepting group? Is it like a morality thing about not killing them or what? I mean imo, while I find "death" a more fearful punishment to a person commiting a crime, I find a life sentance less merciful in the long run.

We might as well fly them off to "Azkaban" and have them live with the "Dementors".

 

[asm]

Everything has its faults though, the judicial system and prison and penalty system both. I mean you can't have everything fixed at once and expect it to be perfect. Change comes in different pieces and different places, imo I think a capital punishment enforcing system is just a better one as far as my vote goes.

Ah, but that's a luxury statement made by you simply because you're not on the receiving end of injustice.

I mean, I'd disagree with death penalty even if there was a 100% method of ensuring only the guilty get the penalty, but at least I could understand the reasoning.


Now you're just advocating murder as a punishment for murder of innocent people, yet you're also condoning the state murdering innocent people. That's not even touching other crimes where there's plenty of grey area when it comes to actual definite proof, like child molestation.

Does the state get murdered for murdering innocent people?


edit:

I have a different question now though for everyone. How many of you anti-capitol punishment people really think its more merciful to let a maniac live amongst other maniacs in a more accepting group? Is it like a morality thing about not killing them or what? I mean imo, while I find "death" a more fearful punishment to a person commiting a crime, I find a life sentance less merciful in the long run.

We might as well fly them off to "Azkaban" and have them live with the "Dementors".

I don't know about merciful, the main gist about opposing the death penalty for me is that 1 innocent person by the state is enough to warrant letting a thousand criminals live, if that's a choice that has to be made. Deterrance in that sense, is secondary. I posted about it mostly because it's illogical to say it deters.

But yes, I think it's also a ethical question. Since I don't condone murder, I don't see why I should condone murder by the state either. Exiling someone into a penitentiary keeps me safe from the murderer. Seems like the killing part has more to do with revenge than justice. Perhaps the two overlap for some and I can understand some parts of it, but that's not my opinion.

Prisoners when serving life, can actually prove useful to the state. Cheap labor, etc. etc.
Have someone do registry plates for 30 years, certainly more beneficial and utilitarian than icing the dude

 

[Will Graham]

You are condemning murderers to the death penalty, yet totally willing to allow a few innocent people to be killed along with them. I just cannot comprehend that thought process

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Well now I was not the one really talking about the other end on the system. So please don't pin me down on it =P.

I am sorry, but I never said I was willing to condem them to death....HOWEVER, since you spoke the words for me, and regarding the fact that I believe life in prison to be a worse punishment anyhow, I guess I am even less willing them give them that punishment.

And lets not kid ourselves, most death sentances take soooo much time to enforce, its plenty of time to clear a name afterwards. I think that any person who could put such a magnificant frame as to insure instant death... is hard to believe.

 

[Will Graham]

In some cases time will be irrelevant, for example if a suspect has no supportable alibi, that isn't going to change over any amount of years in all likelihood. You did not make the statement condemning them, but you said you could 'not agree with this anymore'

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I don't know about merciful, the main gist about opposing the death penalty for me is that 1 innocent person by the state is enough to warrant letting a thousand criminals live, if that's a choice that has to be made. Deterrance in that sense, is secondary. I posted about it mostly because it's illogical to say it deters.

But yes, I think it's also a ethical question. Since I don't condone murder, I don't see why I should condone murder by the state either. Exiling someone into a penitentiary keeps me safe from the murderer. Seems like the killing part has more to do with revenge than justice. Perhaps the two overlap for some and I can understand some parts of it, but that's not my opinion.

Prisoners when serving life, can actually prove useful to the state. Cheap labor, etc. etc.
Have someone do registry plates for 30 years, certainly more beneficial and utilitarian than icing the dude

Well I guess to rebuttal the first part I would warrant 1,000 criminals living might cost more then that one innocent life being put away in the first place. At least that is what my money would definately be on.

I guess its just agree to disagree. Sure they can be useful, but I don't want their help. Feed them to the snakes hehe. It may be cruel, but I've spent some time in countries with more strict death penalties, and it seems a lower crime rate in general to be the result.

 

[asm]

Well I guess to rebuttal the first part I would warrant 1,000 criminals living might cost more then that one innocent life being put away in the first place. At least that is what my money would definately be on.

I guess that's a sensible argument, if one prescribes to everything being counted as money. As a perverse example, I'm sure the state can make a lot of money by killing all the homeless people, but that certainly doesn't make it ethical in any sense of the word.

I guess its just agree to disagree. Sure they can be useful, but I don't want their help. Feed them to the snakes hehe. It may be cruel, but I've spent some time in countries with more strict death penalties, and it seems a lower crime rate in general to be the result.

I can understand that view, at least if you can establish someone is 100% guilty with no conflicting evidence. I don't agree with it, but I understand. I don't see why monetary gain is an argument towards the death penalty, but providing cheap labor and thus monetary gain isn't?

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I guess that's a sensible argument, if one prescribes to everything being counted as money. As a perverse example, I'm sure the state can make a lot of money by killing all the homeless people, but that certainly doesn't make it ethical in any sense of the word.

Oh I think you misunderstood the argument, I was not counting money, but other human life. You take 1000 criminals with severe sentances, (I would include rape, or drunk killings.) Now you pit these criminals agaisn't the pain and suffering they "could" cause. e.g guard being killed, outside plots to kill, furthur rape or murder if released on long good terms. You pit them agaisnt that 1 "possible" life that got falsly accused... who is going to serve a horrible sentance regardless. After doing so, would you think the still worth it? Because if you do, then we have different opnions =)

 

[Will Graham]

These people aren't being released, so far from what I see all anti-penalty debaters have said that Death Row inmates serve life. Where life means not twenty years, but till the day they die. As far as I recall there has been one notable Death Row breakout, and all inmates were recaptured an no lives were lost

 

[Roland_Deschain]

These people aren't being released, so far from what I see all anti-penalty debaters have said that Death Row inmates serve life. Where life means not twenty years, but till the day they die. As far as I recall there has been one notable Death Row breakout, and all inmates were recaptured an no lives were lost

Like I said, my money is on the 1,000 to 1 being more harmful, wether it be by an outside crime set up, in prison violence to staff, or w/e the case may be. Thats a lot of deadly people. my opinion remains as said, I am for the death penalty in almost every aspect.

 

[asm]

Oh I think you misunderstood the argument, I was not counting money, but other human life. You take 1000 criminals with severe sentances, (I would include rape, or drunk killings.) Now you pit these criminals agaisn't the pain and suffering they "could" cause. e.g guard being killed, outside plots to kill, furthur rape or murder if released on long good terms. You pit them agaisnt that 1 "possible" life that got falsly accused... who is going to serve a horrible sentance regardless. After doing so, would you think the still worth it? Because if you do, then we have different opnions =)

Oh!
That's an interesting point, though I can't really comment on such things besides the completely hypothetical (because I honestly just don't know what happens in everyday prison). I mean, I see occasional news of a prison shitstorm in latin american prisons, but a maximum security prison in the US, for example?

Prison recidivism is a problem though, rehabiliation and gradual release seems to bite some of it. Hypothetically though, that problem would be fixed by simple not releasing dangerous criminals at all if recidivism is seen as a problem too steep to handle.

The point about the false accusation though was that verdicts can be completely overturned. You can free a prisoner that is on life sentence. He might enjoy decades of living even after being incarcerated wrongly.
You can't "free" someone that was killed by the state a decade ago. Well, you can mark on his gravestone that he wasn't a bad guy after all, but that's not very comforting.

 

[Tucker]

Even though I am generally a Conservative person, I am against the death penalty.

-As many people have said, it is more expensive to have the death penalty. The judicial process is long and expensive, because all measures of affirming the person guilty is used.

-What if the person isn't guilty? It's almost impossible to figure out if the person is 100% guilty.

-To me, it is almost a little barbaric. Oh, that man killed someone? Lets kill him. IMO, I don't think killing them should be a form of punishment.

-Alright, so let's say this man is a rapist? We can A. Kill him. Very short, not even painful. He may be gone, but it's a quick and easy punishment, and for him maybe even better than jail. Or, you can B. Lock him up, where every day he has to think about what he did, and know that that is why he is here. If the jail is a sad, dismal, and sick place, then he has to live every day looking forward to nothing. Now, which seems like a better punishment?

Much of what I said has already been stated, but whatevs.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Any rational argument for the death penalty (cost, deterrence, etc) is completely contradicted by fact. So, I have not seen a single rational, factual argument in support of capital punishment throughout this entire thread.

What I have seen is people assuming that their opinions trump evidence by making the same ignorant claims that have already been proven to contradict evidence, conflating revenge with justice, using justice as an argument but accepting the unjust punishment of innocent people, and other irrational, hypocritical arguments.

The reason I disagree with capital punishment has nothing to do with my morality. While I too have the base urge to see savage criminals suffer or die for their crimes, I am also not a common animal and am thus governed by higher thought rather than instinct. The justice system is for justice, not revenge. It is the government's job to protect the public from criminals that are beyond rehabilitation and to deter similar crimes, and this is better served by life imprisonment, as demonstrated by every single piece of evidence shown in this thread.

 

[Tmoo]

This thread is a hotbed of activity. It will take some time to reply to everything.

You don't have a chance to re-offend if you're given a life sentence without chance for parole.

Hal addressed the crowding issue. It's in lower security prisons, not lifers/death row.

Psychosis is a medical condition. Maximum security medical facility for treatment. Otherwise, imprison them for life to remove them from society.

That's also a valid option. I didn't say it has to be death, but that or exile (imprisonment) are the two options available. either one works.

I'm sure being innocent in death row isn't all that bad when you are considering how much taxpayer money you're saving and "the system has it's faults".

It is not an excuse, as you're implying, but an admittance that the justice system of the US (and indeed, the world over) is imperfect and can make grave mistakes that cost lives. Innocent people in prison at all is a horrid fate.

Ah, but that's a luxury statement made by you simply because you're not on the receiving end of injustice.

I mean, I'd disagree with death penalty even if there was a 100% method of ensuring only the guilty get the penalty, but at least I could understand the reasoning.

Now you're just advocating murder as a punishment for murder of innocent people, yet you're also condoning the state murdering innocent people. That's not even touching other crimes where there's plenty of grey area when it comes to actual definite proof, like child molestation.

Does the state get murdered for murdering innocent people?

---

I don't know about merciful, the main gist about opposing the death penalty for me is that 1 innocent person by the state is enough to warrant letting a thousand criminals live, if that's a choice that has to be made. Deterrance in that sense, is secondary. I posted about it mostly because it's illogical to say it deters.

But yes, I think it's also a ethical question. Since I don't condone murder, I don't see why I should condone murder by the state either. Exiling someone into a penitentiary keeps me safe from the murderer. Seems like the killing part has more to do with revenge than justice. Perhaps the two overlap for some and I can understand some parts of it, but that's not my opinion.

Prisoners when serving life, can actually prove useful to the state. Cheap labor, etc. etc.
Have someone do registry plates for 30 years, certainly more beneficial and utilitarian than icing the dude

Criminals aren't put on death row unless there is overwhelming evidence to support. There is of course still room for error. I can see where you're coming from, wanting to save an innocent life even if it means thousands of murderers get to live. I respect that, but I still believe the death penalty has a place in the justice system. I don't advocate the murder of innocents, ever, as you insinuate. I'm trusting that the system will only go so far as to execute a criminal if they are without a doubt guilty.

You are condemning murderers to the death penalty, yet totally willing to allow a few innocent people to be killed along with them. I just cannot comprehend that thought process

I am not. You assume that I am. You are putting words into my mouth (or anyone who is not decidedly against the death penalty).

-As many people have said, it is more expensive to have the death penalty. The judicial process is long and expensive, because all measures of affirming the person guilty is used.

-What if the person isn't guilty? It's almost impossible to figure out if the person is 100% guilty.

-To me, it is almost a little barbaric. Oh, that man killed someone? Lets kill him. IMO, I don't think killing them should be a form of punishment.

-Alright, so let's say this man is a rapist? We can A. Kill him. Very short, not even painful. He may be gone, but it's a quick and easy punishment, and for him maybe even better than jail. Or, you can B. Lock him up, where every day he has to think about what he did, and know that that is why he is here. If the jail is a sad, dismal, and sick place, then he has to live every day looking forward to nothing. Now, which seems like a better punishment?

-Yes. that process is to ensure that they committed the crime and no innocents are put to death. I don't know about the costs, but I do know the entire legal system is full of horrendous fees.

-The point of the justice system existing is to determine that. While there is certainly a what if, to have no decisive judgment circumvents it all. You can't leave a case as a 'what if'.

-This world is more barbaric and horrid than any of us can imagine. Most of us here live in a comfortable bubble, physically isolated from the world.

-And what of those who have no remorse? You said to kill them is barbaric, yet you're okay with them suffering life sentences. I too wish for serial killers and the like to suffer, but the point of the death penalty is to eliminate them, not torture them.

Any rational argument for the death penalty (cost, deterrence, etc) is completely contradicted by fact. So, I have not seen a single rational, factual argument in support of capital punishment throughout this entire thread.

What I have seen is people assuming that their opinions trump evidence by making the same ignorant claims that have already been proven to contradict evidence, conflating revenge with justice, using justice as an argument but accepting the unjust punishment of innocent people, and other irrational, hypocritical arguments.

The reason I disagree with capital punishment has nothing to do with my morality. While I too have the base urge to see savage criminals suffer or die for their crimes, I am also not a common animal and am thus governed by higher thought rather than instinct. The justice system is for justice, not revenge. It is the government's job to protect the public from criminals that are beyond rehabilitation and to deter similar crimes, and this is better served by life imprisonment, as demonstrated by every single piece of evidence shown in this thread.

I notice that everyone assumes there are innocent people on death row. Are there? We don't know. There is a whole slew of processes to determine whether they are. Lawyers know better than any of us. Conflating revenge with justice, am I? I thought my first post was rather objective and not the standard 'all criminals should die' or 'the death penalty sucks that's final!'. I in fact didn't say whether I was for or against the death penalty. Though I will give that I didn't explore the non-death side of my argument, I felt there was quite enough of that from other posters. I don't feel my thoughts on this topic are at all hypocritical or irrational, I'm just not being blindly passionate and argumentative.

The justice system IS for justice, and not revenge - to me, the purpose of the death penalty's existence is to permanently eliminate those who pose a clear threat to society, who have been without a doubt convicted of their crimes, who have no chance for rehabilitation. Death or exile. I'm not staunchly for or against death. Whether it's better than a life sentence or not isn't what I'm arguing. I'm saying I believe it does have a place here.

'higher animal and thus governed by higher thought' made me lol. As far as biology is concerned, humans are no higher than any other primates, we simply have the best ability to adapt and the cunning to survive over other organisms - but It's a statement that fits perfectly in a thread about morals, legality, being holier-than-thou to anyone who doesn't agree, and twisting words to suit their agenda.

TL;DR I respectfully disagree with your sentiments. My opinion, as all of yours are, on the topic hasn't changed.

 

[Tucker]

-The point of the justice system existing is to determine that. While there is certainly a what if, to have no decisive judgment circumvents it all. You can't leave a case as a 'what if'.

As Licky said, there are many instances where people have been put in jail and later discovered to be innocent. If the death penalty were put into effect, they would killed.

-This world is more barbaric and horrid than any of us can imagine. Most of us here live in a comfortable bubble, physically isolated from the world.

I know it is. So lets not try to be like that in our legal system.

-And what of those who have no remorse? You said to kill them is barbaric, yet you're okay with them suffering life sentences. I too wish for serial killers and the like to suffer, but the point of the death penalty is to eliminate them, not torture them.

Even if they have no remorse, they still know that because of their actions, they are in that dismal place. It also gives time for repentance.
Notice the term capital "punishment". I wouldn't call it torture, as torture is much more extreme and is usually unjust, but punishment. The point is that this option is a better form of punishment, and can leave room for redemption.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

I notice that everyone assumes there are innocent people on death row.

I only assumed the possibility - and that doesn't even matter for the purposes of my argument. We know that people have been executed before with contrary evidence arising later or when they didn't even commit the crime, and that's enough to show that any system like this is faulty.

Conflating revenge with justice, am I?

I didn't say you were. I didn't even say everyone was.

I thought my first post was rather objective . . . to me, the purpose of the death penalty's existence is to permanently eliminate those who pose a clear threat to society, who have been without a doubt convicted of their crimes, who have no chance for rehabilitation. . . . I'm saying I believe it does have a place here.

Yes, but that doesn't change that it's still a poor argument. It's been repeatedly said, but we can't know without a doubt if they've been correctly convicted. And it's irrational to execute them from an economic perspective if you're concerned with maintaining any judicial integrity. So I understand the reasoning, but it's still demonstrably incorrect. The only thing that makes sense from that perspective is if you're more concerned with whether it's more humane to kill them or imprison them for life. And that varies by individual.

As far as biology is concerned, humans are no higher than any other primates, we simply have the best ability to adapt and the cunning to survive over other organisms

Humans are definitely better than chimps when it comes to advanced thought processes, moral considerations, and surviving in modern society, so yes, in this situation humans are better than chimps. I was also just being a melodramatic twat, so you shouldn't take that statement too seriously.

but It's a statement that fits perfectly in a thread about morals, legality, being holier-than-thou to anyone who doesn't agree,

But I am holier than thou, why can't you see that yet?

and twisting words to suit their agenda.

What words were twisted? Yours? I wasn't even referring to you in my post. You didn't add anything new to the thread, so I didn't consider it.

TL;DR I respectfully disagree with your sentiments. My opinion, as all of yours are, on the topic hasn't changed.

I didn't think anyone's opinion was going to change, but the people who disagree with me being wrong hasn't changed either. Dohohoho

 

[Tmoo]

I was also just being a melodramatic twat, so you shouldn't take that statement too seriously.

---

But I am holier than thou, why can't you see that yet?

---

I didn't think anyone's opinion was going to change, but the people who disagree with me being wrong hasn't changed either. Dohohoho

Right on. This thread's too embittered. The twisting of words statement wasn't directed at anyone in particular, I was being a sarcastic ass as well. When typing my replies to the recent posts I replied as if they were directed at me, I understand they aren't.

I don't think anyone's opinion is going to change on this matter, really. Everyone's here to voice opinions, argue, and then leave it after a few days. That's been the fate of every debate on this forum, and on most forums on the internet.

It's been repeatedly said, but we can't know without a doubt if they've been correctly convicted. And it's irrational to execute them from an economic perspective if you're concerned with maintaining any judicial integrity. So I understand the reasoning, but it's still demonstrably incorrect. The only thing that makes sense from that perspective is if you're more concerned with whether it's more humane to kill them or imprison them for life. And that varies by individual.

That's essentially what I'm getting at. Do we want to make them suffer or just stop them? If the convict doesn't show any signs of remorse and is unable to return to society, even given the cheap labor, I feel that it's better to just execute them than have them sit in prison for the rest of their life, where they have no goals to aspire to and their life is forfeit. This is probably where everyone disagrees.

I only assumed the possibility - and that doesn't even matter for the purposes of my argument. We know that people have been executed before with contrary evidence arising later or when they didn't even commit the crime, and that's enough to show that any system like this is faulty.

I don't deny it, there is a lot the legal system can improve on, all of us here know that. In advocating the death penalty that arbitrarily means an error could occur and an innocent perishes, and for that I'd be promoting injustice - but I still choose to believe it has a valid purpose, and I still have some faith in the courts.

As Licky said, there are many instances where people have been put in jail and later discovered to be innocent. If the death penalty were put into effect, they would killed.

---

Even if they have no remorse, they still know that because of their actions, they are in that dismal place. It also gives time for repentance.
Notice the term capital "punishment". I wouldn't call it torture, as torture is much more extreme and is usually unjust, but punishment. The point is that this option is a better form of punishment, and can leave room for redemption.

It takes a lot to get onto death row. For those who were wrongly executed, those cases are dark stains on the system and it means something went wrong during the process.

I disagree about repentance - for those who feel no remorse, they are fully self-absorbed and don't feel they need to be repentant for anything. I'm not arguing which form of punishment is better - I'm saying the death penalty has a place in the system, for killing off the criminals who have no remorse for their actions and who would pose a clear threat to society. Clearly, simply keeping them in prison is also an option, but my point is that the death penalty is just as valid.

I know it is. So lets not try to be like that in our legal system.

The world could use more kindness. Any convict who is able to reform should be given the chance. When I say the death penalty has a place, I mean for those who lack a conscience or morality, for heinous crimes such as mass murder. These are the types who patiently sit in their prison cells, content in their narcissism.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Any rational argument for the death penalty (cost, deterrence, etc) is completely contradicted by fact. So, I have not seen a single rational, factual argument in support of capital punishment throughout this entire thread.

What I have seen is people assuming that their opinions trump evidence by making the same ignorant claims that have already been proven to contradict evidence, conflating revenge with justice, using justice as an argument but accepting the unjust punishment of innocent people, and other irrational, hypocritical arguments.

The reason I disagree with capital punishment has nothing to do with my morality. While I too have the base urge to see savage criminals suffer or die for their crimes, I am also not a common animal and am thus governed by higher thought rather than instinct. The justice system is for justice, not revenge. It is the government's job to protect the public from criminals that are beyond rehabilitation and to deter similar crimes, and this is better served by life imprisonment, as demonstrated by every single piece of evidence shown in this thread.

I found this a little unfair.

First of all the whole ARGUEMENT itself is not fact by any means, otherwise there would be not arguement in first place. Just because YOU don't find other peoples opinion rational, does not make YOUR opinion better my friend. Half of these debate subjects are based on things that are not fact but rather perspective... if we only acted on what is in front of us then mankind would get no where.

I mean deterrance and costs are being debated in this thread by people who are willing to voice their opinions on the matter and are meeting each subject with their own justification for what they believe. Perhaps a better place for you to start would be to do the same, rather then clump us together as hypocritical, unjest, and ingnorance abiding people. I do not think this is a fair way to debate. Facts can be misleading, especially if you believe everything you read, and its hard to debate how you feel on a matter, but easy to jump in and say that all of our opinions should be voided because you think so.

None of this is evidence of fact, its merely evidence of different opinions. Everyone should know that evidence can be flawed, facts can be biast and one sided, and that facts can be changed, and are always changed... humans make facts, and then spew them out relentlessly sometimes.

HOWEVER, since you are hellbent on facts and evidence, explain this... regarding ONLY the subject of deterrance. You can not tell me the following argument is not rational.

http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB412.pdf

This is an article about China's catpital punishment, which ranges between 68 different crimes other then murder, and accounts for almost 60% percent of worldwide executions. China has four times Americas population, yet a mere fraction of violent crimes, along with many other crimes. And the PEOPLE, also agree with this situation by about 95% or more. This is a lower wealth of society to boot.

You say that detterance proves non effective, but if you look outside your own borders you will realize that it has already been proven effective in other places. Furthermore after spending a year and a half here I feel safer in the darkest places of the big city in a foreign land then I would in my own country. It has brought an air of comfort, peace and community... for gods sakes the cops do not even carry guns. I am not afraid to give credit where credit is due, and acknowledge a good idea when I see one.