NationStates Jolt Archive

I think its wrong, what do you think Myoutisinia?


Is there some part of “Thou shalt not kill”, that is unclear? It is immoral.

I think its wrong, what do you think Myoutisinia?
I'm not Myoutisinia, but I think that the death penalty is perfectly fine.
I also think that the place for your "witty" rebuttle is in the actual thread you wish to rebutt.

I think it's wrong, but I couldn't provide you with another 'solution'. I can't seem to understand the whole 'killing thing'. Just don't do it. We'd all be better off. Love, and peace and such :fluffle:

Depends on what crime was committed I suppose. I'm not sure.

The death penalty seems to be less practical than imprisonment in most cases., so I'm against it. But I could make exceptions in extreme cases, where the criminal is so dangerous that they must be removed from the world.

I am not particularly for it or against it. I would say that there is the possibility of wrongful execution, but if someone has shown that they cannot handle interacting within society then it is a legitimate punishment.

I am not particularly for it or against it. I would say that there is the possibility of wrongful execution, but if someone has shown that they cannot handle interacting within society then it is a legitimate punishment.

If we are going to have the death penalty then we should expand it. All those hardcore felons in prison just sitting in jail cells. Something more... permanent could be done with them right? All or nothing for this half-assed system we have now is worthless. This is a little extreme so just doing away with it would save the taxpayers some money with all the appeals that will be filed.

I'm in favor of it. Do unto others as you want others to do to you.

Kill a person? Like hell anyone wants you to stay alive anyway.

i dont like the death penalty and i think it should be abolished

but until it is i dont feel badly for any miserable murderer who gets executed for his crimes.

I don't agree with the application of the death penalty for the follow reasons: It lowers the perceived value of human life, it fails to acheive social deterant a over 90% of murders are NOT premeditated & specific deterant is acheived through life imprisonment.

What I DO agree with is the ability to exercise the death penalty as an option for plea bargaining.

It's fine with me. Frankly, some people deserve it.

A lot of scholars say that "thou shall not kill" would be better translated as "thou shall not murder." Since I don't personally know Hebrew I couldn't say. Though, thou shall not murder would be more consistant since there are crimes mentioned in the Bible in which the punishment was death.

That said, I'm against the death penalty but don't have very strong feelings on the issue. Life in prison acomplishes the same goal of getting the person off the street where they can't hurt people and is actually cheaper then putting someone to death (in our current system). Also we should do everything in our power to avoid mistakes, but when they occur we can release prisoners on life sentences while we cannot release someone from the death sentence after they have been killed. From a Christian perspective, a life sentence gives the person more time to repent.

Law used to be so much... simpler.
the bloody code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bloody_code)

It reduces crime by reducing the criminals.

What people fail to consider is that there are fates worse than death. Yeah, it says "thou shalt not kill" in the bible, but it doesn't say anything like "thou shalt not mutilate", so instead of executing criminals, just amputate their arms and legs and let them get along with life that way.

Ok, so that may be a bit harsh, but what about a simple lobotomy? That'll take the fight out of a mass murderer. If that's not good enough, how about a hemispherectomy? Kind of hard to have crimes of passion if you no longer have the ability to understand what passion is.

I'm against it. I don't think we have the right to take someone's life, even if they have killed.

I'm against it. Look, no matter how you slice it, it is government sanctioned murder. Whatever happened to that old lesson we learned as children? Two wrongs do not make a right.

It's like saying killing is wrong unless of course you decide it's right. Which is filled with so much hypocrisy I can't even stand the stench.

What is even more baffling is that most pro-life people are for the death penalty, quite the double standard.

What is even more baffling is that most pro-life people are for the death penalty, quite the double standard.
This is the one I love. How can you call killing a foetus murder, but killing a fulling grown human justice?

Saying that the death penalty is murder is the same as saying that a parking fine is theft, an utterly absurd statement.

You've all missed the essential problem with the death penalty.

If someone is falsely fined, he can be reimbursed.

If he is falsely imprisoned, he can be released.

If he is falsely executed, there are problems in bringing him back to life.

This is the one I love. How can you call killing a foetus murder, but killing a fulling grown human justice?

If that full-grown human being is a serial rapist and murderer, then most would cal it justice. It is difficult to see how a foetus could do any of that.

You, and Stephistan have absolutely no morality.

I'm in favor of the death penalty, but only if DNA evidence can conclusively prove the accused did in fact committ the crime in question.

...and then only for serious and violent crimes, or crimes against children.

You, and Stephistan have absolutely no morality.

Interesting. You know, some people would say that intolerance would be immoral. But then again, your people believe killing abortion doctors is "god's will" or some such nonsence, so what should we expect.

The death penalty is wrong, but one cannot be lenient over people who have committed horrible crimes.

Here's my solution: When someone commits horrible crimes that would warrant his arrest for life, he may chose, from his own free will, to either try to be beneficial to society from inside the prison for the rest of his life, or to have himself executed by the state (Essentially a suicidal decision).

At the same time, prisons must be rehabilitation centers, giving people who have committed less than horrible crimes a chance to better themselves, learn something, and benefit society from inside the prison.

The only purpose of a prison is to re-educate people into being useful members of society again. Unless they can be trusted to from now on follow society's rules, the public needs to be protected from those specimens.

But when someone commits crimes horrible enough to warrant his term to extend beyond his natural lifespan, there is no point in re-educating, although there must be ways to benefit society even while in prison. The society may not take the life of even such an individual without his expressed consent. But if an inmate who has no chance to ever breathe air that isn't filtered by prison bars, decides his life serves no purpose, he must be allowed to end his life, himself or with the help of the state, by his own free will.

There will be no perfect solution when dealing with human and how they react to society. So will kill and some will not, its a fact of life. As to deal with the killers locking them up is really not a good end game solution. It, ususally, lends itself to hardening the criminal furthur so that if he is released will if inflict more harm so that he feels that he has vindicated himself agaisnt the system. Also I think that I would also be wise to point out that it is expensive to keep people intered for long periods of time. Also, as sad as it is to say, some people can not be changed or rehibilitated to live in society.

The state has no right to take the life of one of its citizens. Period.

I am much more in favor of putting all dangerous criminals to work for no money. A little slave labor to pay back society.

I don't find anything wrong with the death penalty. It'd make the world a better place and save us a bit of money in running prisons if all violent criminals (proved beyond doubt) were executed.

Besides, what good is life in prison? Might as well just execute them and get it over with.

If you commit an inhuman crime, such as murder, you have lost all human rights. Really, the longer you let a violent criminal alive, the more chances he/she has to do something else, inside a prison or outside.

If you forget the minor technicalities for a second.. the best solution would be to have the criminals cryogenically frozen like in that film what's-it-called, with that actor what's-his-name.. then if there has been a miscarriage of justice you can just thaw him/her out and send them on their soggy-but-free way. IT might be quite expensive , but you could recoup some of the money by letting people pay to come and see the "exhibits" .

It's fine with me. Frankly, some people deserve it.

No one deserves to die. What I think should be legalised though, is euthanasia. I think that if someone wants to die that the government should let them and if they want help doing it, make euthanasia a profession.

IT might be quite expensive , but you could recoup some of the money by letting people pay to come and see the "exhibits" .

Hey, if it's money you're looking for, public executions on pay-per view will make a killing! :D

I for one, would pay good money to be able to see Saddam shot live. OR, we could do a Running Man type of game show, where criminals can earn freedom (or maybe just extra cigarettes) by competing in lethal events....

Hey, if it's money you're looking for, public executions on pay-per view will make a killing! :D

I for one, would pay good money to be able to see Saddam shot live. OR, we could do a Running Man type of game show, where criminals can earn freedom (or maybe just extra cigarettes) by competing in lethal events....

Yes we could even bring back gladiatorial combat .. and the lions.. excellent idea. "What have the Romans ever done for us ?"

You, and Stephistan have absolutely no morality.

Yes us not wanting the government to murder people should be seen with utter contempt. Spare me! It is the people who think they have a right to take any life who is without morals. I sleep just fine at night. Let me guess, next you'll claim to be a Christian..lol :rolleyes:

The state has no right to take the life of one of its citizens. Period.

The concept of rights is never that simple.

No one can violate the rights of another. If someone does, then his rights become forfeit. That is a general principle that has universal acceptance. The forfeiture takes many forms, forfeiture of property rights (fines, or confiscations of goods), forfeiture of liberty of person (imprisonment), and forfeiture of life. Since the principle is accepted, the only argument is over the amount. If you do not accept that principle of administering justice, then you cannot accept any punishment for crime, whether it is execution for crimes against humanity, or a fine for parking too long.

(If anyone didn't understand it, think of the old story, a man asks a woman "Would you sleep with me for 1 billion dollars?", the woman answers "Yes", then he asks "would you sleep with me for one dollar?", and she gets outraged at the very idea. He says "Why are you so angry, you've established that you would prostitute yourself, all we're doing is negotiating over the price.

In terms of negotiation over the degree of forfeiture acceptable, the point of contention is over the practality of the punishment. Concerns over practality take the forms of fiscal concerns (the right of the taxpayers not to have their money wasted), and reversability in the case of a wrongful verdict.

Therefore, the only argument against the death penalty that is compelling is the irreveocability of death. There is no argument on the grounds of right to life, unless the argument applies to all punishments for crime.

Are you arguing against all punishments for crime? Against traffic fines? Against imprisonment? It is necessary for you to clarify this.

Yes us not wanting the government to murder people should be seen with utter contempt. Spare me! It is the people who think they have a right to take any life who is without morals. I sleep just fine at night. Let me guess, next you'll claim to be a Christian..lol :rolleyes:

Bollocks. You cannot claim a moral equivilent between abortion, and execution. In one, a person who has done nothing wrong, has violated the rights of no one is being killed, in the other, a duely constituted authority, following due process has found someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a bestial crime, a crime so severe that the only punishment satisfactory is death.

Not the same at all, and as I have said before, execution doesn't contradict the right to life. Execution is not murder because the person being executed has forfeited through his actions his right to life, in the same way as a person who leaves his car in a one-hour parking zone for three weeks forfeits his property rights and is fined.

Bollocks. You cannot claim a moral equivilent between abortion, and execution. In one, a person who has done nothing wrong, has violated the rights of no one is being killed, in the other, a duely constituted authority, following due process has found someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a bestial crime, a crime so severe that the only punishment satisfactory is death.

Not the same at all, and as I have said before, execution doesn't contradict the right to life. Execution is not murder because the person being executed has forfeited through his actions his right to life, in the same way as a person who leaves his car in a one-hour parking zone for three weeks forfeits his property rights and is fined.

A foetus is not a person. It is a potential person. In the case of UK law on this, the time period during which a foetus can be aborted means that it cannot survive outside the womb.
Personally, I am very uncomfortable with women who use abortion as a method of birth control. But do you know what? I don't have to carry that child, and I don't have to look after it when it is born. The bit that I find really amusing about the so called "pro life" argument is that many of its protagonists are also against any kind of welfare state. What exactly do you propose a single woman living on benefits does if she gets pregnant?

As far as execution is concerned, my main objection to it is that it is clear that it doesn't deter murder. If you start to expand it to rape, molestation, armed robbery etc. then it might (though frankly I have my doubts), but is that really a road you want to go down? Let me ask you a question. Should a "pro life" activist who bombs an abortion clinic and kills a practitioner working there be sentenced to death?

Another interesting hypocrisy in all this is that many of the right in the US are also those who abhorr the Islamist governments and their attitude to freedom. It seems to me that arguments that propose the killing of gynaecologists and obstetricians who work within the law but not the law you want to see, who propose expansion of the death penalty as a means of deterent and who beleive that unsubstantiated theory regarding creation be taught as science aren't a million miles away from the very people they claim to be savages.

I don't get how people who are for abortion can be against the death penalty. Mind you, I personally am emphatically pro-choice.

I am also a supporter of the death penalty for heinous crimes where guilt is proven beyond a doubt (Dahmer, Gein, and Lake and Ng spring to mind here).

All those people saying that life imprisonment is enough protection for society forget about the people most at-risk from these people: other prisoners and prison guards. But I guess, it doesn't matter to you anti-death penalty people if a few drug dealers and male prostitutes get murdered in prison. I suppose its one of the perks of being a prison guard; the ever-present threat of murder...:rolleyes: .

I like the death Penalty.

A foetus is not a person. It is a potential person. In the case of UK law on this, the time period during which a foetus can be aborted means that it cannot survive outside the womb.

That's a philosophical debate not necessarily germane to the death penalty debate, I would add that there is no basis for forestalling a life. That he or she is a potential person is enough.

My way of determining humanity is simple, is it a complete (in sense of being whole, as in a severed arm is not a human) distinct organism that can be classified as homo sapien by some scientific test? Under such a classification, a foetus is clearly human.

As far as execution is concerned, my main objection to it is that it is clear that it doesn't deter murder. If you start to expand it to rape, molestation, armed robbery etc. then it might (though frankly I have my doubts), but is that really a road you want to go down? Let me ask you a question. Should a "pro life" activist who bombs an abortion clinic and kills a practitioner working there be sentenced to death?

Deterrence (or lack thereof) is a fairly sound argument, provided you accept that the aim of judicial punishment is principly to deter. I don't deterrence is a secondary effect, and in any case, asserting deterrence (or lack thereof) as an argument for or against a punishment is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. You could produce 100 people who say it wouldn't deter them, and I could produce 100 who say it would.

Arguments over proportionality of punishment aren't really relevant. The general principle is that a forfeiture of rights is justified where someone has violated the rights of another (in committing a crime), arguing over what degree and type of forfeiture for which offenses are a matter of negotiation.

I've already answered your question over whether an execution. Execution is justified in the sense that the bomber took away others rights, and therefore forfeits his own rights. Since the right he took away is life, life should be forfeited when he is found guilty by a duely constituted authority, his act is sifficicnetly severe to warrant execution. However, if the investigating authorities got the wrong man, or if the rules in court were broken, such a conviction is worthless.

In like cases where the punishment administered is a fine, or a term of imprisonment, then the situation can be righted by the return of monies to the person wrongly fined, and release for the person wrongly imprisoned. If someone is wrongly executed, there are problems with reversing it. If you had actually read my posts, instead of getting an anti-life bee in your bonnet you'd have gotten this.

As for the practitioner, he is paid to end a human life, or at least forestall it. He should be tried and punished by duely constituted authority.

You may think the question hinges on the fact that the bomber murdered someone who is himself a murderer, but it doesn't. The actions of the victim of a murder do not make murder justified. I can't believe that you've not gotten the due process theme that has run through my posts.

Another interesting hypocrisy in all this is that many of the right in the US are also those who abhorr the Islamist governments and their attitude to freedom. It seems to me that arguments that propose the killing of gynaecologists and obstetricians who work within the law but not the law you want to see, who propose expansion of the death penalty as a means of deterent and who beleive that unsubstantiated theory regarding creation be taught as science aren't a million miles away from the very people they claim to be savages.

Don't hijack the thread. No discussion of abortion is relevant to discussion of the death penalty, because implicit such a discussion is that the people being executed have had due process and a fair trial in a court of law, which has convicted them of an extremely severe crime, that the law that proscribes the crime at least allows execution as one of the penalties (mandatory sentencing is not germane to this question), and that a judge has passed such a sentence.

The above criteria cannot be applied to a foetus for obvious reasons.

Islamist governments are also not relevant to this debate again for obvious reasons, namely the lack of due process, and the abundance of arbitrary law. In a discussion of the death penalty among Westerners, there is prior acceptance of the fact that laws are made in an elected assembly in accordance with a constitution.

Once again, stick to the question, read peoples' posts, and don't hijack the thread.

If you want to rant about the rightness, or wrongness of abortion, start another thread, or find an existing one on abortion. All that's necessary in this thread in terms of talking about abortion is to make it clear that it is not relevant to a discussion of the death penalty for the reasons I outlined.

I would add that Stephistan bringing up the topic was not a serious attempt at making headway in this debate, merely ad-hominem. I would further add that this is not unprecedented for her.

I don't get how people who are for abortion can be against the death penalty. Mind you, I personally am emphatically pro-choice.

I am also a supporter of the death penalty for heinous crimes where guilt is proven beyond a doubt (Dahmer, Gein, and Lake and Ng spring to mind here).

All those people saying that life imprisonment is enough protection for society forget about the people most at-risk from these people: other prisoners and prison guards. But I guess, it doesn't matter to you anti-death penalty people if a few drug dealers and male prostitutes get murdered in prison. I suppose its one of the perks of being a prison guard; the ever-present threat of murder...:rolleyes: .

Good point, and it falls for the anti-life, and anti-death penalty to justify how they can agree to the killing of the totally innocent, but disagree with the killing of the decidedly guilty.

"Beyond a doubt" doesn't exist, Western-type systems of justice (I recognise no other kind, the rest are systems of injustice) require "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", but one must recognise that we exist in time, and in time things may change. In the trial, with the information at hand, a jury may reasonably find a defendant guilty, but later new evidence may come to light, or new methods of forensics. Given that this is the case, it is necessary that punishments be reversable.

I personally like the Demolition Man idea, a deep freeze, suspended animation. It has the same basic effect, but you can defrost them, if the conviction was wrong.

Just to clarify my position, I oppose the death penalty on the sole grounds that wrongfully executed people cannot be brought back to life, while other punishments can be reversed (life deprivation of property, or imprisonment).

In the three cases I listed, there is actually no possible doubt. Dahmer had pieces of his victims in his freezer and cooking pot, Gein had their skin and genitalia tanned, and Lake and Ng, besides having the bones of over 200 people on their property, videotaped themselves torturing, raping and murdering several people, including a newborn baby and their mother.

See no doubt in those cases, no problems with possible innocence.

Good point, and it falls for the anti-life, and anti-death penalty to justify how they can agree to the killing of the totally innocent, but disagree with the killing of the decidedly guilty.



No it doesn't. It falls to the "pro life" camp to prove that the destruction of a foetus is the killing of a human being. Your definition is frankly not helpful, since it doesn't recognise that there is more to a human being than simply being human.

However, apologies for the hi-jack, in the context it didn't appear so. I would like to carry this on elsewhere though.

With regard to your remarks about due process, that already takes place-I'm really not sure what your point is. The US has states where the death penalty is in place, and states which don't. They both apply due process. Surely the point of this discussion is the morality , and that proved the proportionality of applying the ultimate sanction?
Funnily enough, I agree with you totally about why it should not be applied, though it is only one of several reasons.

Death penalty is wrong. No one has a right to kill anyone. No matter what they have done.

No it doesn't. It falls to the "pro life" camp to prove that the destruction of a foetus is the killing of a human being. Your definition is frankly not helpful, since it doesn't recognise that there is more to a human being than simply being human.

Firstly, it doesn't fall to the pro-life to prove anything of the sort. To merely prove that it is a "potential human being" is enough because no one has the right to forestall.

My definition is unhelpful to abortion advocates, it is however testable in an objective, no "philosophical" definition of what is human is. Throwing non-falsifiable hypotheses is what is unhelpful.

With regard to your remarks about due process, that already takes place-I'm really not sure what your point is.

The point is that the application of due process clearly differentiates execution and abortion. Ergo, the attempt to bring it in in the form of an ad-hominem remark is clearly not appropriate.

The US has states where the death penalty is in place, and states which don't. They both apply due process. Surely the point of this discussion is the morality , and that proved the proportionality of applying the ultimate sanction?

The application of due process differentiates execution and abortion. No foetus gets his day in court.

Morality isn't the only point. Practicality is the point, and a punishment is not practical if it cannot be reversed because non-reversable punishments don't allow for the possibility of those in charge of finding guilt getting it wrong.

Death penalty is wrong. No one has a right to kill anyone. No matter what they have done.

Look, instead of posting a rant that hasn't taken the rest of the thread contents into account, why not read the arguments, and comment on them, as I shall do.

No one has the right to seize personal property, yet everyone here would accept that someone who, for example, leaves his car in a one-hour parking zone for two hours. should have his property seized in the form of a fine.

The right-to-life argument against the death penalty has already been debunked by me. Why not read it, and try to debunk it?

I simply reject the notion that revenge could provide justice.

That means that both jail and death penalties can only be applicable until the criminal no longer represents a danger to society.
That completely excludes the death penalty, and makes most cases of jail penalties overly harsh.

"The Death Penalty"

Society has the right to be protected against predators. Nuff said.

I'd say i'm for the death penalty in certain situations, but what gives me doubts about it is......


If someone is falsely fined, he can be reimbursed.

If he is falsely imprisoned, he can be released.

If he is falsely executed, there are problems in bringing him back to life.

"The Death Penalty"

Society has the right to be protected against predators. Nuff said.

what happens if she's a fox?

1. My definition is unhelpful to abortion advocates, it is however testable in an objective, no "philosophical" definition of what is human is. Throwing non-falsifiable hypotheses is what is unhelpful.



2. The point is that the application of due process clearly differentiates execution and abortion. Ergo, the attempt to bring it in in the form of an ad-hominem remark is clearly not appropriate.

3. The application of due process differentiates execution and abortion. No foetus gets his day in court.

4. Morality isn't the only point. Practicality is the point, and a punishment is not practical if it cannot be reversed because non-reversable punishments don't allow for the possibility of those in charge of finding guilt getting it wrong.




My apologies, I'm not great with the quotes functions, so I'll number your points and respons:

1. Your definition is unhelpful because, by definition it is yours. It is also extremely simplistic and appears to negate the entire subject with regard to philosophical discussion about the very nature of being. Which leads me on to...

2 and 3. Roe vs Wade most certainly was conducted using due process. I'll grant you that this was about the rights of the woman, not of the foetus, but the ruling is clear. Until that law is changed, the principal, if not the individual right of an unnamed and dependent potentiality, has indeed been established. The foetus is not a human being, therefore it has no human rights.

4. Agreed 100%.

Law used to be so much... simpler.
the bloody code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bloody_code)

It reduces crime by reducing the criminals.
This actually raises an interesting point!
The Bloody Code died out around the 1850s because judges and juries though that punishments were too harsh for many of the criminals, so they became less inclined to find them guilty in court.

"The Death Penalty"

Society has the right to be protected against predators. Nuff said.
Ditto

1. Your definition is unhelpful because, by definition it is yours. It is also extremely simplistic and appears to negate the entire subject with regard to philosophical discussion about the very nature of being. Which leads me on to...

The philosophical definitions of human life are not useful simply because they are non-falsifiable. Until quite recently, many thinkers would hold that a black wasn't human.

2 and 3. Roe vs Wade most certainly was conducted using due process. I'll grant you that this was about the rights of the woman, not of the foetus, but the ruling is clear. Until that law is changed, the principal, if not the individual right of an unnamed and dependent potentiality, has indeed been established. The foetus is not a human being, therefore it has no human rights.

Roe v. Wade was not an example of due process, it was clearly a power grab.

It is also an appeal-to-authority. Why should I accept that 5 judges can define human life?

Whether or not it is human is not human is not essentially relevant, potentiality is enough because no one has the right to forestall.

What abortion advocates have to establish is that a foetus is the property of the mother. This they cannot do because the idea of holding that a foetus is a part of the mother's body is not biologically correct.

I'll give you a counter example. A finger. We can clearly say that a severed finger belongs to someone. How? If there's only one person with a severed finger, it is obvious, but let us say that there are three people each missing one or more fingers, and they all have the same size of each finger, and the cuts and skin colour are identical, but we only find one severed finger. We have to determine who it belongs to. We decide to test DNA. The person to whom the DNA corresponds is the owner of the finger. A foetus would fail such a test, it would only have half commonality.

A foetus is clearly a distinct organism. It is linked, and dependent, but that is not relevant.

Dependency doesn't entail the right to destroy the dependent party, unless you accept the Roman doctrine of patria potestas (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias). Under this doctrine, the pater familias had vitae necisque potestas—the "power of life and death"—over his children, his wife, and his slaves, all of whom were said to be sub manu, "under his hand." This power also included the right to kill unwanted children.

In one, a person who has done nothing wrong, has violated the rights of no one is being killed, in the other, a duely constituted authority, following due process has found someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a bestial crime, a crime so severe that the only punishment satisfactory is death.
Why is murder bestial? Beasts dont do it. Its human, nothing else. All that talk about monstrous, bestial and whatnot, is an effective way of dehumanizing a criminal. But they are not, even if they are destructive to society. Treating criminals as second-class citizens or subhumans helps to appease the conscience when executing them or cutting into their rights even after they served their time, but it forgets a important thing about humans. We can change, we are not build around a set of instincts that leave us only one choice of action. A man who slays his wife and her lover in a fit of passion will possibly begin to repent it seconds later and sure after serving several years. Even in prison he can be a valuable member of (his) society, dead he aint of no use for anyone.
And for those who still think all criminals have forfeited their rights to be full members of society, i hope you never illegally downloaded a single datafile for example. Else choke on your hypocrisy.
I stand by it, some of the most nice people i know are "criminals", either data-thieves, tokers, drug smugglers (a few gramms for their own use, but still) and similar smalltime crimes.

About to major arguments always creeping up in these discussions, protection of society and executions being cheaper for the taxpayer: Removal from society does work well with max-sec prisons. Even with their higher costs compared to normal prisons they are still cheaper on average than an execution.
Killing off all those on wellfare would be cheaper for the taxpayer too, and beneficial to society, but money shouldnt decide on issues like human life.

The philosophical definitions of human life are not useful simply because they are non-falsifiable. Until quite recently, many thinkers would hold that a black wasn't human.

Roe v. Wade was not an example of due process, it was clearly a power grab.

It is also an appeal-to-authority. Why should I accept that 5 judges can define human life?

Whether or not it is human is not human is not essentially relevant, potentiality is enough because no one has the right to forestall.

What abortion advocates have to establish is that a foetus is the property of the mother. This they cannot do because the idea of holding that a foetus is a part of the mother's body is not biologically correct.

I'll give you a counter example. A finger. We can clearly say that a severed finger belongs to someone. How? If there's only one person with a severed finger, it is obvious, but let us say that there are three people each missing one or more fingers, and they all have the same size of each finger, and the cuts and skin colour are identical, but we only find one severed finger. We have to determine who it belongs to. We decide to test DNA. The person to whom the DNA corresponds is the owner of the finger. A foetus would fail such a test, it would only have half commonality.

A foetus is clearly a distinct organism. It is linked, and dependent, but that is not relevant.

Dependency doesn't entail the right to destroy the dependent party, unless you accept the Roman doctrine of patria potestas (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias). Under this doctrine, the pater familias had vitae necisque potestas—the "power of life and death"—over his children, his wife, and his slaves, all of whom were said to be sub manu, "under his hand." This power also included the right to kill unwanted children.

The Law itself is based on a variety of philosophical premises. The very notion of property and theft are philosphical rather than "provable" concepts. One cannot exist without the other. Indeed , the notion of what defines life itself at the other end of the age spectrum is a huge debate in its own right. Legal philosophy is at the corner of law. Without it, we must cling to simple definitions of so called "natural" law.

I can understand your attitude to Roe V Wade, because it defines the entire issue so well. You say why should you accept the decisions of 5 judges on what constitutes the state of human being? I say why should you have the right to define it in purely your own biological terms and allow that definition to determine that the rights of the woman carrying that potentiality as being less than that of the unborn itself? You might argue that her right to existence is not being challenged, but her right to decide what goes on inside her own body as a result of her own legal actions most certainly is.

Your illustration of the finger is really not a lot of use. Noone can dispute that the foetus is an organism, and noone can state that a finger is anything other than a mass of differentiated tissue that is part of another organism. As you clearly know children are not the property of their parents. But (certainly in the UK), it is also illegal to self harm (say for example, cutting off a finger) or to willingly allow another to harm you. You do not, in fact, own your own body because it is not property.

So I'm afraid it all comes down, yet again to your definition of the foetus. To me it is not a child. You say that noone has the right to forestall-if I interpret you correctly I would agree believe it or not. At least to a point. Noone has the right to force termination on anyone else. However, the rights of the potential mother far outweigh the rights of the foetus, and that is why forestalling by force would be wrong. Not because the foetus has a right to life, but because the woman has a right to self determination.

I'm against death penalty and I don't know any good arguments for it.

Revenge? I don't think that a state should base its actions on emotions. Besides, what if the victims do not want revenge?

Deterence? Doesn't work, that should be known by now.

What do we punish people for? To educate and to provide security I guess. Death penalty is hardly a educational tool and security can be accomplished by other means.

I'm against death penalty and I don't know any good arguments for it.

Revenge? I don't think that a state should base its actions on emotions. Besides, what if the victims do not want revenge?

Deterence? Doesn't work, that should be known by now.

What do we punish people for? To educate and to provide security I guess. Death penalty is hardly a educational tool and security can be accomplished by other means.

The death penalty is the only punishment that insures that the murderer does not repeat his crime. Therefore, I think the death penalty should be used when the individual in question has shown that he will murder again.

I don't agree with the application of the death penalty for the follow reasons: It lowers the perceived value of human life, it fails to acheive social deterant a over 90% of murders are NOT premeditated.Agree. There's also the danger of sending an innocent man to his death.

This isn't really a question on Britain or Europe though. Thankfully, if any idiot tried imposing the death penalty here, they'd be swiftly booted out of office

Oh, wait. David Davis.

The death penalty is the only punishment that insures that the murderer does not repeat his crime. Therefore, I think the death penalty should be used when the individual in question has shown that he will murder again.

Not necessarily. Cutting the murderer's arms and legs off, would also ensure that he would not murder again.

Not that I would advocate such measures. A high security prison would do the same job.

Also, how can you prove beyond doubt, that someone will murder again?

I can understand your attitude to Roe V Wade, because it defines the entire issue so well. You say why should you accept the decisions of 5 judges on what constitutes the state of human being? I say why should you have the right to define it in purely your own biological terms and allow that definition to determine that the rights of the woman carrying that potentiality as being less than that of the unborn itself? You might argue that her right to existence is not being challenged, but her right to decide what goes on inside her own body as a result of her own legal actions most certainly is.

Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with abortion, and all to do with state rights, and the role of the judiciary. It didn't establish a right to abortion. What it established is that if the state governments are not proceeding to the liking of 5 judges (political appointees), then they have the right to upsurp the relevant powers. That it applied to abortion is secondary, and anyone who tells you it was about abortion just doesn't understand the case and its implications. I could be an ardent anti-life activist, devoting all my time to saying mothers can kill their children, and have exactly the same attitude.

The real reason the abortion movement supports Roe v. Wade is that they want to carry out their agenda, and they don't care what they have to do to do it. They don't care about destroying a democratic system, they'd probably vote for Kim Jong il if he proposed legalising abortion.

My views on Roe v. Wade have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

Any person's ability to exercise rights end where the rights of others are violated. You may as well have said "Why should you have the right to detmine my rights as being less than Jester III's right not to be assaulted?".

The parts of her body are indeed hers to do with as she pleases, but a foetus is not part of her body. It is a distinct organism. I can prove this scientifically. Take a cell from the mother, and a cell from the foetus, test their DNA without telling the technician, or the scientist who, or why, and the scientist will tell you "The cells are from two different people, who appear to be related"

Since the foetus is a distinct organism, and you've not established that its her private property, she clearly has no right to kill it.

So I'm afraid it all comes down, yet again to your definition of the foetus. To me it is not a child. You say that noone has the right to forestall-if I interpret you correctly I would agree believe it or not. At least to a point. Noone has the right to force termination on anyone else. However, the rights of the potential mother far outweigh the rights of the foetus, and that is why forestalling by force would be wrong. Not because the foetus has a right to life, but because the woman has a right to self determination.

Such a right can only apply to things that are her property.

No one has the right to forestall potential, unless that which is being forestalled is the property is the person forestalling.

A foetus is not part of the body of the mother. It is linked to it.

Your illustration of the finger is really not a lot of use. Noone can dispute that the foetus is an organism, and noone can state that a finger is anything other than a mass of differentiated tissue that is part of another organism. As you clearly know children are not the property of their parents. But (certainly in the UK), it is also illegal to self harm (say for example, cutting off a finger) or to willingly allow another to harm you. You do not, in fact, own your own body because it is not property.

Actually you not only do have the right to mutilate yourself, it is in some cases encouraged, organ donations for example. If your body was not something you owned, you would have no legitimate claim on deciding whether or not to donate parts of your body.

Can you point to a statute that says self-harm by itself is illegal (I can understand a law against cutting off your finger in someone else's house, because your leaving a body part in theur house violates the owner's property rights). It is frowned upon, and evident self-harm is taken by the state as a cue for action (within the state-run health system).

You are treating a foetus as though it were merely a part of the mother, as opposed to a distinct organism.

Why is murder bestial? Beasts dont do it. Its human, nothing else. All that talk about monstrous, bestial and whatnot, is an effective way of dehumanizing a criminal. But they are not, even if they are destructive to society. Treating criminals as second-class citizens or subhumans helps to appease the conscience when executing them or cutting into their rights even after they served their time, but it forgets a important thing about humans. We can change, we are not build around a set of instincts that leave us only one choice of action. A man who slays his wife and her lover in a fit of passion will possibly begin to repent it seconds later and sure after serving several years. Even in prison he can be a valuable member of (his) society, dead he aint of no use for anyone.

Very warm and fuzzy. You addressed precisely nothing. Arguing over the semantics of describing murder just shows the bankruptcy of your argument.

About to major arguments always creeping up in these discussions, protection of society and executions being cheaper for the taxpayer: Removal from society does work well with max-sec prisons. Even with their higher costs compared to normal prisons they are still cheaper on average than an execution.

Choke on your own hypocrisy. You say that a criminal should not forfeit his rights, yet you advocate imprisonment.

Imprisonment violates many rights: freedom of movement, property rights, privacy, freedom to do as you please (providing you harm no one else), you you advocate imprisonment.

Since you clearly accept the idea that a criminal should forfeit his rights, the only discussion is haggling over the degree.

And for those who still think all criminals have forfeited their rights to be full members of society, i hope you never illegally downloaded a single datafile for example. Else choke on your hypocrisy.

You know where you can stick the ad-hominem.

The death penalty is the only punishment that insures that the murderer does not repeat his crime. Therefore, I think the death penalty should be used when the individual in question has shown that he will murder again.

What if, say five years after the execution, new evidence turns up that indicates, or even proves the innocence of the dead man, or if a new method of testing evidence does the same?

There are problems in bringing wrongfully executed people to life.

I'd prefer the punishments used in Demolition Man.

A high security prison would do the same job.

No, it hasn't. Murder happens in prison too.

What do we punish people for? To educate and to provide security I guess. Death penalty is hardly a educational tool and security can be accomplished by other means.

No, punishment means the forfeiture of certain rights because the guilty party violated the rights of others. Death is in accordance with this. The real problem with the death penalty is that it cannot be reversed if wrongfully administered.

[QUOTE=Disraeliland]

1. Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with abortion, and all to do with state rights, and the role of the judiciary.
The real reason the abortion movement supports Roe v. Wade is that they want to carry out their agenda, and they don't care what they have to do to do it.
2.They don't care about destroying a democratic system, they'd probably vote for Kim Jong il if he proposed legalising abortion.

3. My views on Roe v. Wade have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

4. Any person's ability to exercise rights end where the rights of others are violated. You may as well have said "Why should you have the right to detmine my rights as being less than Jester III's right not to be assaulted?".

Since the foetus is a distinct organism, and you've not established that its her private property, she clearly has no right to kill it.



5. Such a right can only apply to things that are her property.

6. Actually you not only do have the right to mutilate yourself, it is in some cases encouraged, organ donations for example. If your body was not something you owned, you would have no legitimate claim on deciding whether or not to donate parts of your body.

Can you point to a statute that says self-harm by itself is illegal (I can understand a law against cutting off your finger in someone else's house, because your leaving a body part in theur house violates the owner's property rights). It is frowned upon, and evident self-harm is taken by the state as a cue for action (within the state-run health system).

QUOTE]


1. I didn't say that it did. What I did say was that it got to the nub of the issue. Which I think I proved it did. It is a human rights trial. And a foetus is not a human being. Were it so considered to be, then the Constitutional argumentsthat were held to prove that the state of Texas could not legislate during the first trimester would obviously have been able to be used to protect the foetus.

2. Come on. Don't get frisky about ad hominems and then use them. That is frankly just daft, and beneath you.

4. Well, that is because we appear to be looking at the issue from two utterly irreconcilable angles-based on our respective definitions of what constitutes a human being. A foetus is a seperate organism, and a human organism at that. Once again, the real issue is whether or not it can be said to have human rights in and of itself as a human being.
5&6. I'll come back to you on that one, but the case I was thinking of in particular was one that concluded the individual does not have the right to consent to another person assaulting them (the case involved a group of homosexual sadomasocists with a fetish for nailing each others' scrotums to the kitchen table since you ask....... I concede I could have worded that a lot better ;)

No, punishment means the forfeiture of certain rights because the guilty party violated the rights of others. Death is in accordance with this. The real problem with the death penalty is that it cannot be reversed if wrongfully administered.

Yes, but I didn't define "punishment", but tried to explain why I think punishment is necessary and what punishment should accomplish. You only state the procedure of punishment, not the reasons.

Person A violates rights of person B. Therefore Person A should lose certain rights. Why? Education (a part often neglected in modern penitentiary systems) and security.

EDIT:

No, it hasn't. Murder happens in prison too.

Ok, good point. Maybe prisons have to be more secure.

1. I didn't say that it did. What I did say was that it got to the nub of the issue. Which I think I proved it did. It is a human rights trial. And a foetus is not a human being.

It was not a human rights trial. It determined how government in the United States would work, and whom could make it work.

The abortion issues were a trigger, they aren't relevant to the decision they made (namely that if a majority of the SC don't like something, they can change it, even if there is no constitutional basis for it)

It was not a human rights trial. It determined how government in the United States would work, and whom could make it work.

The abortion issues were a trigger, they aren't relevant to the decision they made (namely that if a majority of the SC don't like something, they can change it, even if there is no constitutional basis for it)

Oh for goodness sake. That is simply taking your ball home because you don't like the game.

The decision was taken clearly on the basis of the 14th Amendment clause with reference to due process, and was also very much about where and when the state (be that Texas or the USA) has the right to interfere in the privacy and decision making of the individual.

That argument is settled. The ONLY argument that remains is whether or not the foetus has the rights that would be expected for a human being.

Very warm and fuzzy. You addressed precisely nothing. Arguing over the semantics of describing murder just shows the bankruptcy of your argument.

Semantics play an important part of building viewpoints. And if you fail to see where i am heading, well thats your problem, and not lacking content.

Choke on your own hypocrisy. You say that a criminal should not forfeit his rights, yet you advocate imprisonment.

It was about removing voting rights for convicts, violating personality rights like privacy after they served etc. For the time criminals are in prison they have cuts into their rights, but there is no need to keep that on when they are through. Show me where i said otherwise. A convict is still a citizen, the prison time with decreased rights is his punishment for the damage done to society. But the particular mindset shared by a lot of people that criminals who once transgressed should never be able to reintegrate is something else. This is a follow-up of the oppinion building i commented upon in the "warm and fuzzy" part where i "addressed precisely nothing".

You know where you can stick the ad-hominem.

"hypocrite n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold". Thus someone enganging in criminal activity while badmouthing criminals qualifies as such, right?
Thus i fail to see where that was ad-hominem. Calling you a wanker would be. If you never did something wrong, you arent targeted. If the shoe fits, wear it.

The death penalty is the only punishment that insures that the murderer does not repeat his crime. Therefore, I think the death penalty should be used when the individual in question has shown that he will murder again.
Substitute murderer for, lets say, thief and your argument still holds. But is it reasonable?

It was about removing voting rights for convicts, violating personality rights like privacy after they served etc. For the time criminals are in prison they have cuts into their rights, but there is no need to keep that on when they are through. Show me where i said otherwise. A convict is still a citizen, the prison time with decreased rights is his punishment for the damage done to society. But the particular mindset shared by a lot of people that criminals who once transgressed should never be able to reintegrate is something else. This is a follow-up of the oppinion building i commented upon in the "warm and fuzzy" part where i "addressed precisely nothing".

And this has precisely what to do with the death penalty? Are you proposing that someone be executed, then after a time, brought back to life?

"hypocrite n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold". Thus someone enganging in criminal activity while badmouthing criminals qualifies as such, right?
Thus i fail to see where that was ad-hominem. Calling you a wanker would be. If you never did something wrong, you arent targeted. If the shoe fits, wear it.

You were attacking the posters, not their arguments. Instead of trying to disprove the notion that for his crimes, a criminal should forfeit some, or all if his rights, you said " i hope you never illegally downloaded a single datafile for example. Else choke on your hypocrisy". Suggesting that they are criminals and hypocrites is ad-hominem.

Substitute murderer for, lets say, thief and your argument still holds. But is it reasonable?

Are you arguing in terms of principle, or degree.

For all you folks who claim to be "good Christians" just remember your beloved Jesus was a victim of the death penalty.

Here click this; http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Comedy.html

Nuff said.

For all you folks who claim to be "good Christians" just remember your beloved Jesus was a victim of the death penalty.

Here click this; http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Comedy.html

Nuff said.

And to educate those who are not Christians, the death penalty was an integral part of the plan from the beginning.

And this has precisely what to do with the death penalty? Are you proposing that someone be executed, then after a time, brought back to life?

Excuse me, Mr. Talking About Abortion, for being only tangetially on topic. As you might have guessed by now, i am against the death penalty because it leaves no room for repentance and reintegration. Full reintegration, if possible, is what i see as the goal of the punishment, something made vitually impossible by people holding the viewpoints i attacked.


You were attacking the posters, not their arguments. Instead of trying to disprove the notion that for his crimes, a criminal should forfeit some, or all if his rights, you said " i hope you never illegally downloaded a single datafile for example. Else choke on your hypocrisy". Suggesting that they are criminals and hypocrites is ad-hominem.

No, stating that they are criminals bitching about criminals being antisocial, destructive to society, not fitting of having full rights etc, if and when they have engaged in criminal activities themselves, would make them hypocrites is not an attack ad-hominem, its telling the truth. For those who sit on their high moral horse with the full right of never having broken the law themselves are not included in what you view as an attack. Like i said, i tossed a shoe to try on, even with the attempt to provoke, but the semantics you do not seem to like show clearly that i did not attack someone.

Are you arguing in terms of principle, or degree.
Degree. And argueing the notion that something, just because it works, is the right solution, like in the last sentence of my first post.

And to educate those who are not Christians, the death penalty was an integral part of the plan from the beginning.

That would be old Testament dear, not new, meaning AD!

I personally support the death penalty, but it should be left up to individual states to decide if they want a death penalty or not.

That would be old Testament dear, not new, meaning AD!
New Testament - Jesus had to die in order to be resurrected.

New Testament - Jesus had to die in order to be resurrected.

I was only pointing out that your logic was from the old Testament and is not current Christian law. In fact the church (all Christian churches) and the Pope do not support the death penalty.

I was only pointing out that your logic was from the old Testament and is not current Christian law. In fact the church (all Christian churches) and the Pope do not support the death penalty.
I've been to quite a few Christian churches that support the death penalty.

Most Christian churches in the US are not under a single, unifying authority.

And to educate those who are not Christians, the death penalty was an integral part of the plan from the beginning.

I'm genuinely interested to know how you work that out Sierra. Please could you explain?

I'm genuinely interested to know how you work that out Sierra. Please could you explain?

In order to be resurrected, Jesus had to die.

He can't commit suicide, so he had to be killed. And, the story doesn't go on long enough for him to die of old age.

There's also an interesting story element here that is not seen in previous religions - the role of the state. Here, the Roman state executes Jesus.

Got it? Everyone in my Sunday school class understood it.

I've been to quite a few Christian churches that support the death penalty.

Most Christian churches in the US are not under a single, unifying authority.

Sheesh and I'm an atheist, just goes to prove us atheist hold human life more precious then some of you Christian fundi's. And they say we have no morals.:rolleyes:

Also keeping in mind that the USA is the ONLY first world nation to still live by such a barbaric law that sanctions government controlled murder. Says something about America methinks.

However I will remind you once again, old Testament said "an eye for an eye" The new Testament says "turn the other cheek", so whatever church you've been to that claims to be Christian and supports the death penalty are not "real" Christians.

Excuse me, Mr. Talking About Abortion, for being only tangetially on topic. As you might have guessed by now, i am against the death penalty because it leaves no room for repentance and reintegration. Full reintegration, if possible, is what i see as the goal of the punishment, something made vitually impossible by people holding the viewpoints i attacked.

More ad-hominem. :rolleyes: You should have brought your remarks into context.

No, stating that they are criminals bitching about criminals being antisocial, destructive to society, not fitting of having full rights etc, if and when they have engaged in criminal activities themselves, would make them hypocrites is not an attack ad-hominem, its telling the truth. For those who sit on their high moral horse with the full right of never having broken the law themselves are not included in what you view as an attack. Like i said, i tossed a shoe to try on, even with the attempt to provoke, but the semantics you do not seem to like show clearly that i did not attack someone.

Do you know what ad-hominem is? It is man instead of the ball, attacking other posters rather than their arguments. The statement that someone is a criminal, or a hypocrite, and should not be posting is ad-hominem.

Nowhere in the statements I pointed to is any attempt to address other peoples' arguments. Merely labelling them criminals.

Whether or not it is true is irrelevant. The arguments are what's relevant.

In order to be resurrected, Jesus had to die.

He can't commit suicide, so he had to be killed. And, the story doesn't go on long enough for him to die of old age.



Why could he not have died as an happy old man?

Why could he not have died as an happy old man?

Because everyone loves a good action adventure story. ;)

Because everyone loves a good action adventure story. ;)
And a really, really gross movie...

And a really, really gross movie...

That is was. I can't bvelieve people actually took their kids to see it. Man, sickening really.

So some parts of Christianity support Death Penalty because otherwise it would be bad story telling? That makes sense somehow...

That is was. I can't bvelieve people actually took their kids to see it. Man, sickening really.
Well, I knew better than to take my kids in. But, the tools and means of lashing, as well as the effects, were extremely accurate.

What I believe most Western people refuse to believe is that in other parts of the world, and in our own past in particular, life was far more brutal and harsh than anything we can imagine.

Well, I knew better than to take my kids in. But, the tools and means of lashing, as well as the effects, were extremely accurate.

Hahaha WL, you don't know that, it's not like you were there..lol :p

So some parts of Christianity support Death Penalty because otherwise it would be bad story telling? That makes sense somehow...

No. The death penalty is an integral part of the story of Christ. That doesn't make it right (in fact, most churches say it was a great, but necessary wrong).

Some Christians through the ages have famously upheld the death penalty.

In 1209, during the "Albigensian Crusade" against the Cathar heresy in Southern France, the forces of Orthodox Catholicism had been besieging the city of Beziers, defended by the Cathar heretics, for some time. Finally they breached the walls of the city and prepared to storm it. The commander of the crusade, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, pointed out that not everybody in the city was a heretic, some of them were good Catholics, so how should they treat the inhabitants when they captured the city? A monk who was actually present at the siege recorded the answer of the Papal Legate to the Crusaders, Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, as "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet." ("Kill them all. God will know his own." ) So the Crusaders followed his advice and killed everybody they could find in Beziers.
The Abbot presumably said it in everyday French (or Occitan) , and the account we have is in Latin, but there seems no reason to doubt that he really did give that advice.

Some sources have a different Latin for the same quote, i.e. "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

Hahaha WL, you don't know that, it's not like you were there..lol :p
I've seen people beaten with a whip in southern Egypt. Pretty close. Just no barbs in the lashes.

So some parts of Christianity support Death Penalty because otherwise it would be bad story telling? That makes sense somehow...

No, I was just joking. The Christian doctrine now that is followed by authentic Christians do not support the death penalty. It is why Jesus did nothing to save himself and apparently taught his followers to "turn the other cheek" and "to forgive all those who trespass against them" all that peace & love stuff. Americans cherry pick the bible. "Homo's OMG no that's a sin!!!" "The death penalty, that's okay." Hypocrisy is all it is.

For, most ardently. Why compel society to expend the finance for the internment of a convicetd murderer when they may be executed for considerably less expenditure.

For, most ardently. Why compel society to expend the finance for the internment of a convicetd murderer when they may be executed for considerably less expenditure.

Why compel society to expend the finance for the internment of old and sick people when they may be executed for considerably less expenditure.

For, most ardently. Why compel society to expend the finance for the internment of a convicetd murderer when they may be executed for considerably less expenditure.

That's actually not true, cost the state more to kill a murder than to keep him in prison for the rest of his life. Because when you get sentenced to the death penalty your appeals process can go on for sometimes 20 years, that costs millions, where as the same process is not given to convicted murders who do not get sentenced to death.


So not only is it morally wrong, it's also not cost effective.

Why compel society to expend the finance for the internment of old and sick people when they may be executed for considerably less expenditure.

Because they have not contravened the law by enacting murder, oh ye of the somewhat overtly ironic text.

That's actually not true, cost the state more to kill a murder than to keep him in prison for the rest of his life. Because when you get sentenced to the death penalty your appeals process can go on for sometimes 20 years, that costs millions, where as the same process is not given to convicted murders who do not get sentenced to death.


So not only is it morally wrong, it's also not cost effective.

Hmm, one axe blow or fifty years of internment and nutrition?

why is it wrong? Those who murder abandon all legal rights.

Because they have not contravened the law by enacting murder, oh ye of the somewhat overtly ironic text.

What about very rich murderers who could pay for a lifetime sentence? Should they be killed also? Surely your financial argument wouldn't apply here.

Hmm, one axe blow or fifty years of internment and nutrition?

why is it wrong? Those who murder abandon all legal rights.

But that is not how the system works. People sentenced to death have a right to all and every appeals due process afforded by law. People who get the death penalty are sometimes not killed for over 20 years because of the process. So no, it's not cost effective, it would be cheaper to just keep them in prison for the rest of their natural lives.

People who support the death penalty really have no valid argument except revenge, which is not a valid argument really either. It's morally wrong, it's not cost effective, many people are put to death who have later been proven to have been innocent.


It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to kill one innocent one

But that is not how the system works. People sentenced to death have a right to all and every appeals due process afforded by law. People who get the death penalty are sometimes not killed for over 20 years because of the process. So no, it's not cost effective, it would be cheaper to just keep them in prison for the rest of their natural lives.

Why isn't a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment not allowed the right to all and every appeal afforded by law?

Why isn't a person who has been sentenced to life imprisonment not allowed the right to all and every appeal afforded by law?


In death penalty cases it's automatic that they get to run the appeals process. Not the case for people convicted of murder who are sentenced to life. They have to come up with new and compelling evidence that they are innocent before an appeals court will even look at it and even then the appeals courts sometimes turn them down. Can't do that to a death penalty case. It's just the way your system works.

I think its wrong, what do you think Myoutisinia?

Well, I am not in favor of the death penalty...mainly because it is a perfect punishment...administered by an imperfect judicial system.

What happens when we toast the wrong guy? You can't just go and say..."OOOOPS...sorry...." and bring the guy back to life, now can you?

Besides, life in prison without the possibility of parole is far greater suffering than death would be, anyway.

Let's see...the choice is death...or spending the next fifty years in a cage....hmmm, I think I'll take death. If you really want to punish someone, then punish them...and do it in a way that if, God forbid, we find out we punished the wrong guy, later on...we can at least do SOMETHING to make it up to the guy wrongfully punished!

Maybe my view is somewhat colored by the fact that, in childhood, I always got blamed whenever anything got fucked up at home. Anything broken? anything missing? My fault. I had to prove myself innocent, or I was guilty. And plenty of times both me and my brother knew goddam well it was HIS fault, and that little son of a bitch sat there and watched me take HIS punishment. Bastard! I still hate him to this day.

Why the death penalty doesn't make sense:

It cannot deter crime, because:

a)The would-be murderer is a sociopath, thinks himself to be a genius, and thus cannot be caught. Besides, the world is his playground. Why would anyone punish him for playing with his toys?

b)The would-be murderer is normal, but is about to commit a crime of passion. Think of the time you were most pissed-off in your life. Now multiply that rage by ten. You won't be thinking about being put to death when you're filled with such fury.

c)The would-be murderer is schizophrenic or suffers some other psychosis, and literally doesn't know what he's doing.

So that's why it cannot logically deter future heinous acts.


Here's why it is wrong:

a)Innocent people die. It's very hard to prove someone guilty beyond doubt, and there are documented cases of innocent people being murdered by the state.

b)It costs a ton of money. It would be far cheaper to lock someone up in a cell for 80 years than to fry him.

c)It sets a bad example. We are against murder... yet it's okay for the state to murder someone? Ahhh, no.

d)If we really want to punish someone, there are far worse forms of punishment than a fairly quick and painless death.

The death penalty is in place in some states for vengeance's sake -- so the maniacally pissed-off, irrational family of the deceased can have their revenge.

Sorry, but such an irrational motive as revenge/vengeance is not a valid reason to keep a barbaric institution in place.

Why the death penalty doesn't make sense:
<snip>
Sorry, but such an irrational motive as revenge/vengeance is not a valid reason to keep a barbaric institution in place.

Well said. I agree... The Death Penalty is barbaric, useless as a deterrent from crime, and occaisonally claims innocent lives, which is completely unacceptable.

This is the one I love. How can you call killing a foetus murder, but killing a fulling grown human justice?

You forgot that most of the right-to-lifers also support the south American death squads...they're against gun control, and nuclear-weapons control....when these guys say "right to life" they are talking about THEIR RIGHT to decide which people should live or die!!

Thank you, George Carlin!!

-snip-

People who support the death penalty really have no valid argument except revenge, which is not a valid argument really either. It's morally wrong, it's not cost effective, many people are put to death who have later been proven to have been innocent.

If a murderer is allowed to keep his own life, then his life is worth more than the life or lives he took. Punishment proves that because he has taken life, his is no longer worth preserving. And the death penalty is the ultimate statement of that.

And as far as "many people...later been proven to have been innocent", that is often said, but never with any proof. If there has been one innocent person proven to have been put to death wrongfully, that name would be known by each and every one of us, because the opponents of the death penalty would shout it from the rooftops.

Wait, there is an innocent person who was put to death, whose name is known to everybody---Jesus Christ.;)

OK, name another lawfully executed person who was later proved to be innocent...

-snip-
Besides, life in prison without the possibility of parole is far greater suffering than death would be, anyway.

Let's see...the choice is death...or spending the next fifty years in a cage....hmmm, I think I'll take death.
-snip-


Why is it that convicted murderers normally take every avenue of appeal, so that they end up delaying their deaths by 20 years or more? Rarely does a death row inmate ask to have their sentence carried out more quickly.

Maybe they are afraid that what awaits them after death will be worse than life behind bars...

After all, who really knows? And no one who knows has come back recently to tell us all about it, at least not convincingly...:(

You forgot that most of the right-to-lifers also support the south American death squads...they're against gun control, and nuclear-weapons control....when these guys say "right to life" they are talking about THEIR RIGHT to decide which people should live or die!!

Thank you, George Carlin!!

Well, it is confusing the other way around. Democrats want to save criminals from the death penalty, want to keep me from killing criminals with my own gun, and want women to be allowed to kill their own unborn on demand.

Neither are very consistent on the subject of life and death, nor on the subject of left and right.

But that is not how the system works. People sentenced to death have a right to all and every appeals due process afforded by law. People who get the death penalty are sometimes not killed for over 20 years because of the process. So no, it's not cost effective, it would be cheaper to just keep them in prison for the rest of their natural lives.

People who support the death penalty really have no valid argument except revenge, which is not a valid argument really either. It's morally wrong, it's not cost effective, many people are put to death who have later been proven to have been innocent.

There is another justification: the death penalty provides a deterent to those who think that killing is a valid way of settling business or as a means to an end. The death penalty says to all those who think that they are above the law, "If you kill; you can be killed."

Sheesh and I'm an atheist, just goes to prove us atheist hold human life more precious then some of you Christian fundi's. And they say we have no morals.:rolleyes:

You hold criminals' lives precious, but not unborn babies (but take note: although I am personally 100% pro-life, I don't believe in imposing morality on others).

Well, it is confusing the other way around. Democrats want to save criminals from the death penalty, want to keep me from killing criminals with my own gun, and want women to be allowed to kill their own unborn on demand.

Neither are very consistent on the subject of life and death, nor on the subject of left and right.

I guess I'd be pro-death if you follow that line of thinking. I support gun rights, abortion, and the death penalty!

You hold criminals' lives precious, but not unborn babies (but take note: although I am personally 100% pro-life, I don't believe in imposing morality on others).

If you are to say that these "unborn children" are life, what about when I deliberately cut myself. I am killing a culture of cells much like the feti that you have such a problem with kiling.

If you are to say that these "unborn children" are life, what about when I deliberately cut myself. I am killing a culture of cells much like the feti that you have such a problem with kiling.

As a Christian, I believe human beings have souls. Cells are not human beings.

I guess I'd be pro-death if you follow that line of thinking. I support gun rights, abortion, and the death penalty!

I'm at least as consistent as you are.

On the death penalty, the only thing is has going for it is the insurance that the felon will never commit the crime again. The deterrent value is dubious (related to the odds of being caught and convicted), and I do not believe in either punishment or rehabilitation (see the works of Dr. Samenow for the reasons why).

I believe that locking up non-violent and violent felons until they are 55 years or older is the most effective means of reducing crime (forget rehabilitation and punishment) and keeping the populace safe from depradations.

As for capital crimes, I believe it is the system of judgment that is broken - there are obvious cases that I can point to where the death penalty could be applied with no worry as to who actually committed the crime. And it's obvious that mistakes were made in other cases (notably ones that relied on eyewitness testimony). I would probably restrict its use until a study could arrive at a better method of applying it (a reduced method in all likelihood).

Barring that, I would need a Constitutional Amendment to certify unconditionally that a person sentenced to a life sentence would have to serve that sentence in reality - no parole, no release, no prison budget cuts, nothing short of a win on appeal. That way, no state could get around it and release prisoners on life sentences - ever.

As a Christian, I believe human beings have souls. Cells are not human beings.

Don't you get it: human beings are cells!:rolleyes:

There is another justification: the death penalty provides a deterent to those who think that killing is a valid way of settling business or as a means to an end. The death penalty says to all those who think that they are above the law, "If you kill; you can be killed."

Quite the opposite. Studies have shown that the Death Penalty does not have any deterrence effect, but having Death Penalty says that is's OK to kill under certain cirumstances.

Well, it is confusing the other way around. Democrats want to save criminals from the death penalty, want to keep me from killing criminals with my own gun, and want women to be allowed to kill their own unborn on demand.

Neither are very consistent on the subject of life and death, nor on the subject of left and right.

...which is why i recommend that people either adopt a totally pro-life or anti-life stance:

either protect the unborn and the criminals both, or condemn both.

...which is why i recommend that people either adopt a totally pro-life or anti-life stance:

either protect the unborn and the criminals both, or condemn both.

I'm basically pro-death.

Quite the opposite. Studies have shown that the Death Penalty does not have any deterrence effect, but having Death Penalty says that is's OK to kill under certain cirumstances.

What studies?

Quite the opposite. Studies have shown that the Death Penalty does not have any deterrence effect, but having Death Penalty says that is's OK to kill under certain cirumstances.

Those circumstances being after a lawful trial. :D

So potential murderers should have a lawful trial for their victims first, getting a jury or judge to agree that the victim should be killed, and then the potential murderer can carry out the sentence.;)

Don't you get it: human beings are cells!:rolleyes:

Human beings are cells, but cells are not human beings.

What studies?

You will find tons of material here (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STUDIES).

Those circumstances being after a lawful trial.

So potential murderers should have a lawful trial for their victims first, getting a jury or judge to agree that the victim should be killed, and then the potential murderer can carry out the sentence.

Don't forget the original statement:

There is another justification: the death penalty provides a deterent to those who think that killing is a valid way of settling business or as a means to an end.

So we kill people who think that "killing is a valid way of settling business or as a means to an end". Like... supporters of Death Penalty?

I was only pointing out that your logic was from the old Testament and is not current Christian law. In fact the church (all Christian churches) and the Pope do not support the death penalty.

Correction: The Roman Catholic Church (which is one of many Christian Churches) officially does not support the death penalty. Nor does the Pope...who is the titular head of the Roman Catholic Church.

You will find tons of material here (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STUDIES).



Don't forget the original statement:



So we kill people who think that "killing is a valid way of settling business or as a means to an end". Like... supporters of Death Penalty?

I no care about deterrent effect...me want punishment for bad people, show society values innocent life more than evil life!:D

I like the fact that murders are considered monsters whereas soldiers are just doing a job. we live in a society that makes rules for one person and rules for another. in this world we have now you would think murder or crime to that matter would be extinct, but utopia is impossible. murder is wrong so is to kill another in response. i was always told two wrongs dont make a right, so why do we ignore this teaching. its the break down of respect for others that leads to this crime happening, now one cares what happens to each other anymore sadly.
i dont care if the bible tells my thou shall not kill, surely thats just common sense! so why does no one even the christian right not believe this when it comes to killing heretics or anyone who does not believe in their religion.
this world is too compleicated, just by the rules that people need to have respect for each other
by the way the death sentence sucks

I no care about deterrent effect...me want punishment for bad people, show society values innocent life more than evil life!:D

But all you accomplish is to show that you don't value life at all. At least that's how I see it.

Do you know what ad-hominem is? It is man instead of the ball, attacking other posters rather than their arguments. The statement that someone is a criminal, or a hypocrite, and should not be posting is ad-hominem.
Maybe i wasnt clear enough, but:
What i adress is not a fact like "capital punishment is a deterrent", but a certain bundle of oppinions, a mindset. Like, to introduce another tangential example, people calling for castrating rapists with a rusty spoon and feeding their testicles to them. I could argue that this is cruel and unusual and therefore not fitting, which would be the rational approach. But this does not alter how they feel. I can as well appeal for what is left of their compassion or try to ashame them for being disturbed individuals whose sense of justice is not only perverted but on par with exactly the barbarism they want to punish in the first place.

Nowhere in the statements I pointed to is any attempt to address other peoples' arguments. Merely labelling them criminals.
I did not label anyone a criminal who isnt deserving of it. Its a "look, you arent any better" approach to those who are, in the hope of getting people to realise that they arent any better if only the extent of their crime is less. An attempt to show those who claim that per se criminals are [...] the splinter in their own eye while they are pointing at the beam-carrying serious offender.

You, and Stephistan have absolutely no morality.
Neither myself nor Stephistan have killed or condoned the killing of others. I'd say that place our morality slightly higher then soemone who compares murder to parking fines.

Neither myself nor Stephistan have killed or condoned the killing of others. I'd say that place our morality slightly higher then soemone who compares murder to parking fines.

You have a permissive attitude to abortion, therefore you condone killing, and killing of those who've done nothing wrong to justify it. You cannot rationalise it by saying that those killed in abortion are not human, the creed of every genocide is "these people are less than human". I've not seen a single logically consistant, or impressive argument that a foetus is not human. Enough said.

It is a morally and intellectually inconsistant position to opposing the death penalty. Also, the fact that you find execution and abortion to effectively be the same killing (or at least you accuse the people you're "arguing" against of it) indicates this inability to make moral considerations.

My comparison of execution to parking fines is accurate. Both are examples of the state taking away someone's rights because of something he did.You have not made the slightest attempt to show otherwise. Insulting me is not a refutation of my argument.

Exactly why you can't grasp simple concepts like that is beyond me.

I did not label anyone a criminal who isnt deserving of it. Its a "look, you arent any better" approach to those who are, in the hope of getting people to realise that they arent any better if only the extent of their crime is less. An attempt to show those who claim that per se criminals are [...] the splinter in their own eye while they are pointing at the beam-carrying serious offender.

Nevertheless, it is still going after the poster, rather than the content of his post.

The deterrent effect argument isn't impressive one way or the other. You could interview 1000 people who would say that they aren't deterred, I could interview 1000 who would say they are, and we'd still get nowhere fast.

Quite the opposite. Studies have shown that the Death Penalty does not have any deterrence effect, but having Death Penalty says that is's OK to kill under certain cirumstances.

Having parking fines says it OK to steal in certain circumstances. Look, the "right-to-life" argument against the death penalty is simply rubbish, for the same reason as the "private-property rights" argument is rubbish when used against the imposition of parking fines. This is because all criminal punishments are essentially the same: the criminal is deprived of his rights because he violated the rights of others.

I'm quitting this thread if the fucking ABORTION talk does not go away!
This is a thread about the death penalty, not fucking abortion. You wanna debate fucking abortion, go make your own goddamn thread and quit hijacking this one.

I want to talk about the death penalty and nothing else on this thread. Why does motherfucking ABORTION always have to come into these threads?

I'm sick of all the bullshit, pro and anti abortion.

For what it is worth, I'm for it, to the extent that the mother's rights, as a fully grown human being, should supercede the rights of only a potential.

As I am sterile, unable to ever have any part in creating a child, period, I really could give a shit less about abortion, I really don't have a dog in the fight, except that I don't think people should be able to force their views on others who do not share them. Because I feel that way, I am pro-choice. But I don't feel strongly about it.

I want to talk about what this thread was originally about...the death penalty. Go take the fucking abortion talk and put it on another thread.


Oh, and by the way, I'm anti-death penalty.

I am so because the death penalty is a perfect punishment (the criminal will never commit crime again) BUT it is administered by an imperfect judicial system (thus the very real possibility that an innocent person will get the death penalty) and you can't take it back after it has been administered, when you later find out you fried the wrong guy.

Besides, isn't it MORE punishment to spend the rest of your life (50 years or more) in a CAGE...than it is to just be put to death? And you can always have inmates doing something useful to society to pay society back for the crimes that were committed. A dead man can't pay society back. A live, imprisoned, enslaved person can be forced to make restitution, through labor, to society, for the crimes that the criminals committed against society.

Keel Haul the Bastards!

For all you folks who claim to be "good Christians" just remember your beloved Jesus was a victim of the death penalty.

Here click this; http://www.stephaniesworld.com/Comedy.html

Nuff said.
What be your point?
The Good Blighty saved us all yarr.