NationStates Jolt Archive

I support life in the unborn but I am for the death Penalty. That sounds Ironic doesnt it?

The Democratic Republic of Pneumalia belives that the unborn haven't had a chance to commit a crime that is negative to society, therefore shouldn't be punished by death.

However, those who have committed crimes negative to society (i.e. murders, hate crimes, etc.) should be punished for thier doing so in an equally negative degree to which thier crime was committed.

Signed,
The Democratic Republic of Pneumalia

well, i say im pro abortion only in that im not anti life or anything. I just dont think the government has right to say its wrong. However the death penalty would be a government supported murder in the eyes of the citizens, so i am against it.

Pro-Abortion? WTF is that supposed to mean? ("Abortions are great, everyone should have them as often as possible!")

It is entirely possible to be Pro-Choice and vehemently Anti-Abortion.

I am for abortion and the death penatly in certain cases only. To have an abortion just to have it is wrong. Now if a woman was raped then its okay.

As for the death penatly. If you can prove 100% that the person is guilty of killing another person then they should be shown to the pearly gates.

The Democratic Republic of Pneumalia belives that the unborn haven't had a chance to commit a crime that is negative to society, therefore shouldn't be punished by death.

However, those who have committed crimes negative to society (i.e. murders, hate crimes, etc.) should be punished for thier doing so in an equally negative degree to which thier crime was committed.

Signed,
The Democratic Republic of Pneumalia

A hate crime is a crime motivated by emotions and prejudices against a particular group of people, yes? In other words, thoughts.

Tell me, what is the difference between stabbing someone in a robbery, and stabbing someone because they belong to N group? It isn't (At least in America) illegal to hate someone because they belong to N group. But it is illegal to stab someone. Why then does motive matter at all? In either case, the individual was stabbed. The motive doesn't make the wound any more grievous. The motive is not the crime, the stabbing is the crime, and thus only the crime, not the thought behind it, should be punishable.

It is entirely possible to be Pro-Choice and vehemently Anti-Abortion.
I am.

I hate abortion, I would never have one (that would be really weird…) but I think it is sometimes necessary and I would allow someone else to make that decision for themselves.

I'm also vegetarian but I have nothing against someone else eating meat.

That being said I would never support the killing of a sentient life form.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

well, i say im pro abortion only in that im not anti life or anything. I just dont think the government has right to say its wrong. However the death penalty would be a government supported murder in the eyes of the citizens, so i am against it.

That's Pro-Choice, not Pro-Abortion.

I'm not for banning abortions, but I'd like to see the UK's Abortion Act tightened up. I'm strongly against the death penalty, something is up when the state is allowed to kill people. Anyway, only God can take life, not the state.

The Democratic Republic of Pneumalia belives that the unborn haven't had a chance to commit a crime that is negative to society, therefore shouldn't be punished by death.

However, those who have committed crimes negative to society (i.e. murders, hate crimes, etc.) should be punished for thier doing so in an equally negative degree to which thier crime was committed.

Signed,
The Democratic Republic of Pneumalia

A hate crime is a crime motivated by emotions and prejudices against a particular group of people, yes? In other words, thoughts.

Tell me, what is the difference between stabbing someone in a robbery, and stabbing someone because they belong to N group? It isn't (At least in America) illegal to hate someone because they belong to N group. But it is illegal to stab someone. Why then does motive matter at all? In either case, the individual was stabbed. The motive doesn't make the wound any more grievous. The motive is not the crime, the stabbing is the crime, and thus only the crime, not the thought behind it, should be punishable.

I agree, however what I listed above were examples. While writing my position on the subject, i found it to be awkward sounding to just simply list murders as an example. Therefore I added hate crimes in with the bunch.

Also, I don't understand why you're concerning yourself so much with the example of hate crimes (which, i might add is a pointless detail) when the major idea of what I have written is the fact that punishment should be equal to the crime committed. In other words, The death penalty should only apply when a victim has been killed. Or more so that if one robs a bank, he or she shouldn't nessecarily be sent to the death sentence.

The Democratic Republic of Pneumalia belives that the unborn haven't had a chance to commit a crime that is negative to society, therefore shouldn't be punished by death.

However, those who have committed crimes negative to society (i.e. murders, hate crimes, etc.) should be punished for thier doing so in an equally negative degree to which thier crime was committed.

Signed,
The Democratic Republic of Pneumalia

A hate crime is a crime motivated by emotions and prejudices against a particular group of people, yes? In other words, thoughts.

Tell me, what is the difference between stabbing someone in a robbery, and stabbing someone because they belong to N group? It isn't (At least in America) illegal to hate someone because they belong to N group. But it is illegal to stab someone. Why then does motive matter at all? In either case, the individual was stabbed. The motive doesn't make the wound any more grievous. The motive is not the crime, the stabbing is the crime, and thus only the crime, not the thought behind it, should be punishable.

In the case of a "hate-crime" the act is a premeditated attack, whereas determing premeditation in a murder curosory to a robbery is abit more difficult, so hate-crimes of murder are always 1st Degree, but murder's in the course of robbery can either be 1st or 2nd degree (note however, that there is generally no manslaughter in the course of a properly tried murder during robbery, since the death cannot be classified as accidental, since it was in conjunction with the commission of another crime.) So at the least it will always be 2nd Degree.

The difference:

Abortion: Killing an innocent

Well unless you believe in original sin…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Bad Joke New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

I think abortion and the death penalty are the same only abortion is on innocent people!!!!!!! :x :evil:

And the death penalty takes away the life of a sentient being.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

We, the Monarchy of Lionovia, feel that it is the woman's choice, when the subject of abortion is at hand. She has to carry and nurse the child, and if the fetus is concieved in an ill manor, such as rape, the woman should have last say, if the pregnancy is terminated.
The death penalty shall stand in Lionovia! Heinous crimes, such as murder, shall be dealt with, in a manor fitting just and swift hearings, and shall be decided over by the Council of the Court. Executions shall be carried out via beheading, or hanging. In some cases, if the crime is bad enough, surviving family members shall be offered the chance to see the execution through themselves, to the convicted party.

This poll is a bit biased, if you ask me. It's just a little thing, really, but still, it's biased. I'm for freedom, not death.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Pro-Abortion? WTF is that supposed to mean? ("Abortions are great, everyone should have them as often as possible!")

It is entirely possible to be Pro-Choice and vehemently Anti-Abortion.

Yes, the language of the poll is severely biased.

Pro-Choice (w/ regard to abortion) is accurate. Pro-abortion is accurate only in certain rare points of view. Pro-Life is accurate in certain points of view. Anti-CHOICE is accurate in all cases. Linguistically it makes more sense to phrase it this way. In either way, you are arbitrating over a person's choice.

It seems that still a fair percentage are more consistent on the choice side of the issue.

Pro-Abortion? WTF is that supposed to mean? ("Abortions are great, everyone should have them as often as possible!")

It is entirely possible to be Pro-Choice and vehemently Anti-Abortion.

Thankyou!
On a personal level, I abhore abortion, but on a societal level I support the choice.

I support life in the unborn but I am for the death Penalty. That sounds Ironic doesnt it?

Ironic, NO because the unborn is unable to choose his/her fate, yet the rapist, murderer, or drunk driver make the choice to violate lives they destroy.

I'm gonna say that this isn't really a UN issue, and shouldn't be in this forum.

Ironic, NO because the unborn is unable to choose his/her fate, yet the rapist, murderer, or drunk driver make the choice to violate lives they destroy.


Why does not having choice have anything to do with it? An ant does not make a rational informed decision about infesting the strangers bar, they just stay wherever they can survive. What makes the foetus, who is also incapable of making a rational, informed decision, different then an ant. Why would many people kill one and not the other? Is it because it is human? What makes humans so special anyway?

A convicted 'rapist, murderer, or drunk driver' is a person. They have not only life but sentience. They have, like the foetus, potential. Instead of the potential to grow it is the potential to change, the potential to be rehabilitated. They are capable of making choices that turns their life around.

It is that capability that should be protected, not the lack of it.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

Ironic, NO because the unborn is unable to choose his/her fate, yet the rapist, murderer, or drunk driver make the choice to violate lives they destroy.


Why does not having choice have anything to do with it? An ant does not make a rational informed decision about infesting the strangers bar, they just stay wherever they can survive. What makes the foetus, who is also incapable of making a rational, informed decision, different then an ant. Why would many people kill one and not the other? Is it because it is human? What makes humans so special anyway?

A convicted 'rapist, murderer, or drunk driver' is a person. They have not only life but sentience. They have, like the foetus, potential. Instead of the potential to grow it is the potential to change, the potential to be rehabilitated. They are capable of making choices that turns their life around.

It is that capability that should be protected, not the lack of it.



culpability, responsiblity, accountability....

Those executed for the commition of a Capital offense, are executed in accordance with the choices they already made. After-the-fact choices play no bearing on their accountability of action in the past.

They are executed because they made a conscience, deliberate choice to commit a crime of which they were deserving of death. Unlike most other corporal crimes, they can never redeem the victim of their crime, and therefore "rehabilitation" is a moot point.

It's a sad, sad world, when "rehabilitation" of criminals takes precedence over holding them accountable for their crimes.

About the only way I would advocate lieniency on one as such, would be if they demonstrated culpability and pled guilty.

Well unless you believe in original sin…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Bad Joke New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

That's true, but my opinion still stands.

culpability, responsiblity, accountability....

Those executed for the commition of a Capital offense, are executed in accordance with the choices they already made. After-the-fact choices play no bearing on their accountability of action in the past.

They are executed because they made a conscience, deliberate choice to commit a crime of which they were deserving of death. Unlike most other corporal crimes, they can never redeem the victim of their crime, and therefore "rehabilitation" is a moot point.

It's a sad, sad world, when "rehabilitation" of criminals takes precedence over holding them accountable for their crimes.

About the only way I would advocate lieniency on one as such, would be if they demonstrated culpability and pled guilty.

I'm not saying that they should not be punished, I just don't feel they are beyond redemption.

On a similar note; murderers create pain for friends, family, and loved ones. If we frown on their action why do we wish cause the same pain?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

culpability, responsiblity, accountability....

Those executed for the commition of a Capital offense, are executed in accordance with the choices they already made. After-the-fact choices play no bearing on their accountability of action in the past.

They are executed because they made a conscience, deliberate choice to commit a crime of which they were deserving of death. Unlike most other corporal crimes, they can never redeem the victim of their crime, and therefore "rehabilitation" is a moot point.

It's a sad, sad world, when "rehabilitation" of criminals takes precedence over holding them accountable for their crimes.

About the only way I would advocate lieniency on one as such, would be if they demonstrated culpability and pled guilty.

I'm not saying that they should not be punished, I just don't feel they are beyond redemption.

On a similar note; murderers create pain for friends, family, and loved ones. If we frown on their action why do we wish cause the same pain?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

Removing responsibility. The pain of the criminals own act was a causation of the criminal's families pain.

Murderer's are beyond "redemption".... that's the clencher. Redemption necessitates that the price of their act be paid in full. The murderer is redeemed when he is executed. The price of his act of murder has been paid in full by his own life.

The act of removing capital punishment, is to remove redemptive and restitutorial work from the equation of punishment. Any murderer that truely was "rehabilitated" would demand that his life be forfeit, out of his own personally recognized culpability of his act of murder.

Rehabilitation is the recognization of what they did was wrong, not merely being sorry for being caught and locked up for what they did, but recognizing the wrong they commited to others, and willingness to pay back what they took from their victim.

The philosophical problem with those who oppose the death penalty, is that they don't truely believe in culpability, resonsibility, accountability, and redemption. They hold those words at less to no value.

The criminal could go out "rehabilitated" (in your view of rehabilitation), never comitt another crime, but yet NEVER be redeemed regardless of how much good he does in society. Murder is an eternal crime, and only paid by an eternal punishment.

In the case of theft, when a person breaks into a persons house, steals some of the persons items. The criminal is punished in the form of confinement, and equaly punished in responsibility in having to repay all that he stole and damaged... the later is the act of redemption... if he is not redeemed by his acts, then he is punished further; but no matter how much corporal punishment he is endured with, none of it removes his necessitative responsible act to redeem his victims, for his crime. In murder, the confinement is the act of punishment upon what he did, his execution is the redeption upon society and the victim.

Anybody who comits murder, and were truly rehabilitated, and were to truly seek redemption, would DEMAND they, themselves, be executed.

Any other view then this, is based upon a view, that people should not be held fully accountable for their own actions. And is therefore a viewpoint based upon injustice.

The system of justice developed to hand out vengeance in a fair manner, vengeance and justice are inexorbantly connected, and never divorced.

To remove vengeance, is to remove punishment from the system of justice.

To remove punishment, is a denial of personal accountability and culpability of people for their actions.

To deny personal accountability and culpability is to express that no one is resonsible for what they do.

The removal of personal responsibility is to enact a system of lawlessness, and out right chaos.

Pro-Abortion?

It is entirely possible to be Pro-Choice and vehemently Anti-Abortion.

Agreed.

The poll should really say "Pro-Choice" instead of Pro-Abortion.

Another interesting NationStates poll would concern the actually practices within just legally pro-choice nations. A question along the lines of "What percentage of your NationStates child bearing population has had at least one abortion?" might be appropriate. Though I'm not sure. :/

OOC: I don't even know if such a statistic exists in the real-world, because I suspect that the number of women whom have had abortions may be higher than what governments are reporting based on the similar reasoning that domestic abuse often goes unreported / undocumented. Basically, this is an extremely touchy personal issue for many people, so I hope there are no hard feelings associated with any discussions.

10kMichael

"You know, in Texas they are working on legislation to speed up the death penalty in the case where there are three or more credible witness' that saw you do it. Most other states are trying to ban the death penalty, my state is installing an express lane...."

-Ron White, Comedian.

I am pro abortion and pro death penalty.

Bastards who do crimes even if before their born (age does not matter), must be punished severly.