NationStates Jolt Archive

I was sitting in a lecture today, and my mind began to drift. As usual, it eventually found its way to why I don't like the government intruding into my life, why I mistrust the State, etc. General libertarian speculations.

And then it hit me: The biggest way that the government can intrude into our lives is by ending them.

Now, I have been on this forum for almost two years now. And in those two years, I have made posts defending capital punishment. My argument was the usual: Someone who takes a life deserves their life taken.

I still believe that.

I still believe that if you kill someone in cold blood, you deserve to die just as painfully as they did. But that tooth-for-tooth transcends human legalities and resides in the lofty realms of natural law. I believe that governments, which I think are flawed, corruptable, and untrustworthy, should not have the authority to end life as a penalty. Why? The general argument: He didn't kill him, but the case was shitty/he was a scapegoat, so they execute him, and the DNA test comes back clean 20 years after the fact.

So, no. I don't believe in the whole "You just shouldn't kill people" or "Society shouldn't give up on its citizens" idea. I simply believe that the legal system is not right for handing out life and death.

I was sitting in a lecture today, and my mind began to drift. As usual, it eventually found its way to why I don't like the government intruding into my life, why I mistrust the State, etc. General libertarian speculations.

And then it hit me: The biggest way that the government can intrude into our lives is by ending them.

Now, I have been on this forum for almost two years now. And in those two years, I have made posts defending capital punishment. My argument was the usual: Someone who takes a life deserves their life taken.

I still believe that.

I still believe that if you kill someone in cold blood, you deserve to die just as painfully as they did. But that tooth-for-tooth transcends human legalities and resides in the lofty realms of natural law. I believe that governments, which I think are flawed, corruptable, and untrustworthy, should not have the authority to end life as a penalty. Why? The general argument: He didn't kill him, but the case was shitty/he was a scapegoat, so they execute him, and the DNA test comes back clean 20 years after the fact.

So, no. I don't believe in the whole "You just shouldn't kill people" or "Society shouldn't give up on its citizens" idea. I simply believe that the legal system is not right for handing out life and death.

To be sure, you shouldn't trust individuals either.

I'm against the death penalty because it makes more economical sense to give them a sentence of life with no parole (it's cheaper to house and feed someone for the rest of their natural life than to put them to death, due to the appeals).

Now, I have been on this forum for almost two years now. And in those two years, I have made posts defending capital punishment. My argument was the usual: Someone who takes a life deserves their life taken.

I still believe that.

I still believe that if you kill someone in cold blood, you deserve to die just as painfully as they did. But that tooth-for-tooth transcends human legalities and resides in the lofty realms of natural law.
So are you advocating vigilantism?

What if we privatized capital punishment?

What if we privatized capital punishment?

That is so crazy it just might work...

And its a good idea.

What if we privatized capital punishment?

Would you be paying the companies per person killed? Because I don't think I need to point out the flaw if that were the case.

That is so crazy it just might work...

And its a good idea.

I take it you are joking, yes?

What if we privatized capital punishment?
You'd have to also privatise the legal system to satisfy Kirav's concerns.


Oh, and fuck no.

So are you advocating vigilantism?

Not saying that we ought to take execution into our own hands, but that if you boil everything down to what did actually happen, whether we were there or not, if it was done, it deserves to be returned. I am not saying, though, that we should neccessarily return it.

I'm against the death penalty because it makes more economical sense to give them a sentence of life with no parole (it's cheaper to house and feed someone for the rest of their natural life than to put them to death, due to the appeals).


You know, I have never, ever understood that. Like, logically, I follow the process, don't get me wrong. But it just seems so wierd!
giggle*


But I totally understand where Kirav is coming from, and I find myself struggling with it sometimes. Do I believe in the death sentance? Yes, I do. But at the same time, our legal system is flawed, and the innocent might be killed. Which really defeats the whole purpose.

To be sure, you shouldn't trust individuals either.

Actually, for complete certainty, you can't really trust yourself either.

Actually, for complete certainty, you can't really trust yourself either.

SHHH! I might hear you!

Actually, for complete certainty, you can't really trust yourself either.

If I did, I'd be out having fun on a Friday night, not here talking to you. ;)

If I did, I'd be out having fun on a Friday night, not here talking to you. ;)

Well, I'm over here in Saturday morning, and I can tell you you would have regretted it.

I take it you are joking, yes?

Nope.

I still believe that if you kill someone in cold blood, you deserve to die just as painfully as they did. But that tooth-for-tooth transcends human legalities and resides in the lofty realms of natural law. I believe that governments, which I think are flawed, corruptable, and untrustworthy, should not have the authority to end life as a penalty. Why? The general argument: He didn't kill him, but the case was shitty/he was a scapegoat, so they execute him, and the DNA test comes back clean 20 years after the fact.

So, no. I don't believe in the whole "You just shouldn't kill people" or "Society shouldn't give up on its citizens" idea. I simply believe that the legal system is not right for handing out life and death.

If murderers deserve death, but its not the Government's right to deal it out, who should do so? Is it justifiable for an ordinary citizen to take the law into his own hands? And how do we determine who's guilty? If a citizen is allowed to take the law into their own hands, do they not become the Government, in a sense? What I see here is an ill-thought out and rather revolting romanticising of vigillantism.

And since you believe that murderers "deserve to die just as painfully" as their victims did, I ask you if you can justify, in any way other than a blind appeal to emotion or tradition, the notion that it is ethically justifiable to inflict needless pain, or, especially, to use a disgusting and abhorrent act as an excuse for committing the same act yourself.

If all you're saying is that you wont shed a tear for a murderer if they do happen to die, then I can understand your viewpoint, though I don't agree with it. But if you're arguing that "natural law" gives citizens a right to take the law into their own hands, then you need to rethink your possission on the matter.

Edit: Looking back, it seems your argument is more of a philosophical view that they deserve it, rather than an argument that we should take it into our hands. I still cant say I agree though. Frankly I don't think its our place to say weather another human being deserves death.

Capital punishment has provide us with the satisfaction for blood lust and vengeance. Since human have empathy, we just as capable of compassion as we do enjoying other's suffering. They are punish not only for their crime, but as a scapegoat of emotional displacement, sacrificed to cleanse the unfairness of the world. To see punishment on criminals is to bring fairness and predictability to people's lives. It is the manifestation of "do what to others as other would have done to you".

I am not here to agree on it's practice, but clearly there are many people out there who sleep better knowing that someone got executed for what they deserved, even though they have no relation with the actual crime.

Outside our intuitive moral judgment and emotional rush, there are no logical reasons why we respond to murder by killing one more. Safety is not a factor here as the alternative is to lock them away from society for life, and if we want to be really rational about it clearly a life sentence is more painful than an easy death.

To quote Gandalf, "Many who live deserve to die, and some that die deserve to live. Can you give it to them?" If the answer to the second part is no, you have no right to answer yes to the first part. In any case, what is so holy and sacred about government that it deserves power over the life and death of its citizens? The government, any government, has committed far greater evils than the Ted Bundys of this world ever will.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/84/FacesGanon.JPG

I was going to Photoshop Ganon's face onto Dubya Bush's, but I have more pressing matters to attend to.

To quote Gandalf, "Many who live deserve to die, and some that die deserve to live. Can you give it to them?" If the answer to the second part is no, you have no right to answer yes to the first part. In any case, what is so holy and sacred about government that it deserves power over the life and death of its citizens? The government, any government, has committed far greater evils than the Ted Bundys of this world ever will.

HA, I use the exact same quote when I talk about the death penalty. I used to be against the death penalty, and then I read Starship Troopers.

I am against the death penalty for a number of reasons.
Having been through the jury selection process twice, but thankfully never having been selected, I think it’s insane to put someone to death based on our legal system. It was after this process that I realized we’ve a legal system, not a justice system.
The job of the defense attorney should be to defend his/her client without question. The job of the prosecuting attorney should be to FIND the TRUTH. From speaking to many lawyers I find this isn’t the case. What kind of person goes after prosecution and the death penalty for the sake of winning and furthering their career? Are they really any different than the people they’re prosecuting?
Executions lower us to the same level as those we execute.
What kind of people carry out executions? What kind of people do we create? Who wants to associate with someone who kills a helpless person and then goes home and just carries on life as if nothing happened. “Oh well, It’s just my job.”

I used to be against the death penalty, and then I Starship Troopers.

That's not a sentence.

What if we privatized capital punishment?

Yeeessss, privatize, and televize!! Sponsered by Miller Lite!!

That's not a sentence.

and then I read Starship Troopers.*** eesh thats embarasing when that happens.

Yeeessss, privatize, and televize!! Sponsered by Miller Lite!!

I think their should be more options for people on death row. Like, maybe let them join the army and volunteer:salute: for a suicide mission. Or let them fight to the death against exotic animals and death row inmates from other countries in a giant arena to win the coveted wooden sword. Or let them commit suicide by a method of their choice. I dunno, its just a damn waste the way they do it now.

So, no. I don't believe in the whole "You just shouldn't kill people" or "Society shouldn't give up on its citizens" idea. I simply believe that the legal system is not right for handing out life and death.

Does this mean that you don't think that the government should be running the criminal justice system?

To be sure, you shouldn't trust individuals either.

Well, a government is just a group of individuals in charge of a country.

and then I read Starship Troopers.*** eesh thats embarasing when that happens.

Hang on a minute. So what is your position?

For or against?

I was sitting in a lecture today, and my mind began to drift. As usual, it eventually found its way to why I don't like the government intruding into my life, why I mistrust the State, etc. General libertarian speculations.

And then it hit me: The biggest way that the government can intrude into our lives is by ending them.

Now, I have been on this forum for almost two years now. And in those two years, I have made posts defending capital punishment. My argument was the usual: Someone who takes a life deserves their life taken.

I still believe that.

I still believe that if you kill someone in cold blood, you deserve to die just as painfully as they did. But that tooth-for-tooth transcends human legalities and resides in the lofty realms of natural law. I believe that governments, which I think are flawed, corruptable, and untrustworthy, should not have the authority to end life as a penalty. Why? The general argument: He didn't kill him, but the case was shitty/he was a scapegoat, so they execute him, and the DNA test comes back clean 20 years after the fact.

So, no. I don't believe in the whole "You just shouldn't kill people" or "Society shouldn't give up on its citizens" idea. I simply believe that the legal system is not right for handing out life and death.

actually, The biggest way that the government can intrude into our lives is not by ending it, but removing everything from your life. AKA imprisionment. if they kill you, you could turn into a Martyr and that would then make you unkillable.

but if they just took you away and locked you up where no one can find you... they not only stopped you from becoming a martyr (no body, thus no proof that you're dead) but they can then work on brainwashing you and turn you into a cronie.

I'm now against the Death Penalty...In a way.
I was sitting in a lecture today, and my mind began to drift. As usual, it eventually found its way to why I don't like the government intruding into my life, why I mistrust the State, etc. General libertarian speculations.

And then it hit me: The biggest way that the government can intrude into our lives is by ending them.

Now, I have been on this forum for almost two years now. And in those two years, I have made posts defending capital punishment. My argument was the usual: Someone who takes a life deserves their life taken.

I still believe that.

I still believe that if you kill someone in cold blood, you deserve to die just as painfully as they did. But that tooth-for-tooth transcends human legalities and resides in the lofty realms of natural law. I believe that governments, which I think are flawed, corruptable, and untrustworthy, should not have the authority to end life as a penalty. Why? The general argument: He didn't kill him, but the case was shitty/he was a scapegoat, so they execute him, and the DNA test comes back clean 20 years after the fact.

So, no. I don't believe in the whole "You just shouldn't kill people" or "Society shouldn't give up on its citizens" idea. I simply believe that the legal system is not right for handing out life and death.

Kirav:

Punishment that fits the crime, in the British Virgin Islands.
If you kill a person, a person will kill you.
If you shoot a person to death, a person will shoot you to death.
If you stab a person to death, a person will stab you to death.
If you strangle a person to death, a person will strangle you to death.
If you rape a person, great question? lol.

That's why I kill people personally :eek:

A ruler who makes his methodology a doctrine, institutionalized/systematized to persist postmortem, has invented a state. States first tool is violence: to cull enemies and resisters, leaving generations of the most docile. A greater tool, a second step, the infrastructure of which greatly expands a state's lifespan, is faith. When the children of men beaten into submission believe their masters are good and so are glad to be ruled by them individuals will self-regulate and spread the state's evangel. So the greatest power of a state isn't death as an end-in-itself but death and lesser degrees of violence as a means into engineering a populace that's a glutton for punishment. Democrats and Republicans are products of this process. The former thinks health will come from the state if only we make small:hail:sacrifice. The latter thinks our state is good and must be:salute:spread throughout the world. I'm sorry, I'm lying. They both agree on internal zealousness and proselytizing; politicians just emphasize one principle or another to distract from the fact both parties treat the state as God: it will/should rule.