RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates

RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Aswad -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 3:15:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 My belief has always been that we have it there to feel better that people that horribly wrong society and it's members receive retribution. It sates the lust for blood, and it provides closure; that about sums it up, I think. When we think about how everyone is concerned about finding the scapegoat- err... I mean... criminal, of course- during the course of an investigation, the picture gets even uglier. Everyone wants to go back to sticking their head in the sand, and that requires some kind of feeling of closure, so they can pretend everything is as it should be, and that their environment is now free of disturbances. That has people working double time to find some credible scapegoat (which is fortunately quite often the guilty party) in time for elections. Health, al-Aswad.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 3:17:04 PM)
quote: Japan has a low crime rate for all sorts of reasons. The death penalty isn't one of them, but I'm not going to do the research for you. If Japan decides to hang people until their neck breaks, it's bad news... for everybody. Lawyers are still debating whether any form of execution constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. If you had the choice, which would you go for? I know that the death penalty is not the sole contributor of Japan's low crime rate. But it is a factor, and that just burns you anti death penalty folks up doesn't it? Like I said in my first post, they are a democracy and they are the 2nd wealthiest nation. But they are not included in the argument when it comes to the death penalty. America is bad mouthed for being the only western democracy to still execute killers. But that is racist, and you know it. The West is not the only civilized country in the world. So in my mind, these people that attack us as being the only Western people to use the death penalty are racists.

thompsonx -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 3:24:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: Japan has a low crime rate for all sorts of reasons. The death penalty isn't one of them, but I'm not going to do the research for you. If Japan decides to hang people until their neck breaks, it's bad news... for everybody. Lawyers are still debating whether any form of execution constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. If you had the choice, which would you go for? I know that the death penalty is not the sole contributor of Japan's low crime rate. But it is a factor, and that just burns you anti death penalty folks up doesn't it? Like I said in my first post, they are a democracy and they are the 2nd wealthiest nation. But they are not included in the argument when it comes to the death penalty. America is bad mouthed for being the only western democracy to still execute killers. But that is racist, and you know it. The West is not the only civilized country in the world. So in my mind, these people that attack us as being the only Western people to use the death penalty are racists. slaveboyforyou: I would suggest that you need a dictionary and perhaps a class in logic. Your conclusion does not follow your premise. thompson

Aswad -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 3:28:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou Ages ago, killers were taken care of by family members. They were hunted down and disposed of by the bereaved. Well, someone was. They still practice this in various Islamic cultures, and some who immigrate from such a background, retain the practice. Of course, sometimes it's not feasible to be certain you've got the right one, or not doable to retaliate against that person directly, so you rape one of their women instead. That provides closure. Retribution is had. Justice is served. Honor is restored. For some definition of retribution, justice and honor, at least... quote: We have the death penalty to stop vigilantism. Err... no. The incidence of vigilantism over there is higher, pro capita, than it is up here. You have the death penalty. We do not. Any causal relation between those two is pretty much nonexistant, and in any case, you still have to ask yourself why the notion that vigilantism is bad actually came about. It's not as if bloodthirsty mobs tend to suddenly have the impulse to look for solid evidence of guilt. Such things don't change overnight for no apparent reason; if anything, we're a complacent species, and not very fond of change. When you have vigilantism, justice isn't neccessarily done. More likely than not, a scapegoat will suffice, if it takes too long to find the guilty party and be assured of their guilt. But at least that murder felt real good and satisfying while you were doing it, so all is good, right? And no way will the bereaved of that murder doubt the guilt you are sure of, eh? Clearly, there is no grounds for them to retaliate in turn, is there? ~sigh~ Human. All too human. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 3:41:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou I know that the death penalty is not the sole contributor of Japan's low crime rate. It's not even a significant factor. quote: But it is a factor, and that just burns you anti death penalty folks up doesn't it? Not at all. There's plenty of things I do not support that would lower crime rates. In fact, the following set will reduce it to close enough to zero that a mouse would starve on the difference: Executing everyone living below the poverty line, along with all possessors of unregistered firearms; mandating abortions for mothers with poor parenting skills or financial situation, or where the father is abusive or genetically predisposed for emotional pathologies; killing off all immigrants and hostile sub-populations; beacon tagging of all citizens with logging of whereabouts at all times; getting rid of habeas corpus; giving the police blank-check access to all means at their disposals without controls; mandating the possession of firearms, along with training in their use; having the death penalty for everything (including sodomy, many forms of BDSM, lending a CD to a buddy, etc.); full DNA registration of all residents; genetically profiling criminals to kill of all living or unborn individuals that are deemed at risk of developing unacceptable proclivities. So... are you go for all that? Does it burn you that those are effective means to acheive your goal? Health, al-Aswad. P.S.: For reference, the only reason I have not visited Japan, and possibly moved there, is my objection to their use of the death penalty; hardly inconsistent with my views on the US, and certainly not racist by any stretch of even the most creative of imaginations.

Politesub53 -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 4:12:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad It sates the lust for blood, and it provides closure; that about sums it up, I think. Not always, sometimes it prevents criminals from being released only to kill again. Do you not feel any of the crimes listed deserve a death sentence if proper investigations and trials have been given ? <Mochida, 65, was executed for the 1997 murder of a woman he had raped eight years earlier. The ministry said the murder was in revenge for reporting the rape, for which he was sentenced to seven years in prison. Matsubara, 63, was convicted of killing, raping and robbing two women in separate cases in 1988 after he broke into their homes. In one case, he knocked a 61-year-old woman on the floor, strangled her with an electrical chord, raped her and stole $260. About two months later, Matsubara broke into another home and strangled, raped and robbed a 44-year-old woman. Nago, 37, was convicted of stabbing to death his brother's 40-year-old wife and 17-year-old daughter with a dozen thrusts of a sashimi knife. He also attacked his brother's 13-year-old son, but the boy survived.>

luckydog1 -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 4:16:55 PM)
Aswad, I simply disagree with the relativism you present. Deciding on your own with no sanction to kill and murder is far different than investigating, arrest with rules and then pre decided punishment for the breaking of a law decided by a democratic process. Throw in appeals, jury trial, and rights. Your comparison with Muslims is a red herring and kind of racist. IF the people (including all of the women freely participating) of a nation decide through a democratic process that women with out veils should have acid thrown in thier faces, then I would reluctantly consider it legitimate. That is not the case in any Muslim nation. So you have no gotcha. The ones where this does happen are weak states where the Central Governmnet has basically no controll over regions, and self appointed locals with no legitimate lawmaking stature do it on thier own, usually hiding thier own faces while doing it. Why is it you would force a person to pay for the murderer of thier loved to have food and medical care, and access to free education? Get to write letters and sell art work? That seems horribly wrong, and insulting to the people who loved the victim.

luckydog1 -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 4:21:36 PM)
luckydog: In the U.S. what is the cost of one verses the other? thompson Don't understand your question thompson. Of what vs what? Cost?

Alumbrado -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 5:15:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Aswad, I simply disagree with the relativism you present. Deciding on your own with no sanction to kill and murder is far different than investigating, arrest with rules and then pre decided punishment for the breaking of a law decided by a democratic process. Throw in appeals, jury trial, and rights. Your comparison with Muslims is a red herring and kind of racist. IF the people (including all of the women freely participating) of a nation decide through a democratic process that women with out veils should have acid thrown in thier faces, then I would reluctantly consider it legitimate. That is not the case in any Muslim nation. So you have no gotcha. The ones where this does happen are weak states where the Central Governmnet has basically no controll over regions, and self appointed locals with no legitimate lawmaking stature do it on thier own, usually hiding thier own faces while doing it. Why is it you would force a person to pay for the murderer of thier loved to have food and medical care, and access to free education? Get to write letters and sell art work? That seems horribly wrong, and insulting to the people who loved the victim. I'm very opposed to the death penalty, but that doesn't mean I'm going to swallow every piece of rhetoric or faulty logic that comes down the pike with that label attached. As I mentioned, I completely reject the notion that the violence a rape victim might employ to stop a rapist is comparable morally or legally to the force used by the rapist. And I don't see the act of murdering for fun, or profit, or out of disregard (especially when the victim has had no chance at a trial etc.) to be on a par with someone accepting the duty to pull a trigger to stop a murder in progress , or pull a switch to execute someone else. Having said that, I believe that the last option should be replaced with a non-lethal one, but not because of a flawed argument.

Aswad -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 5:34:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not always, sometimes it prevents criminals from being released only to kill again. Correction: sometimes, it is more convenient to kill a person who has been convicted of a crime than to keep them locked up. I take it the distinction is pretty clear: people who are probably criminals are executed for money, not security. quote: Do you not feel any of the crimes listed deserve a death sentence if proper investigations and trials have been given? I have never encountered a crime that deserves a death sentence. There are, however, actions that would prompt me to administer one. Bear in mind that I've argued the objective content in the native paradigm. My own morality is not the one I'm debating, as it's off-topic and unpalatable. Many people feel that someone "deserves" to die, for whatever reason, and it doesn't fly in my world. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 6:00:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Aswad, I simply disagree with the relativism you present. If you disagree with the relativism, then you're basically stuck with absolutism, which is the one I explicitly debunked. Thing is, I am not really a moral relativist, either. I don't think they have a better word for it, though. Absolute realist, perhaps. Morality is an exclusively human condition. We ascribe value to things, ideas, and so forth. These are only preexisting if you admit the validity of religious law as a divine blueprint, and there are a number of religions out there who do so. Some of those regularly have their believers executed for following their own notion of religious law. So, you're left with either leaving it at disclosing what religious law you think governs morals in the universe, or facing the fact that morals are not only relative, but in fact absolutely relative. quote: Deciding on your own with no sanction to kill and murder is far different than investigating, arrest with rules and then pre decided punishment for the breaking of a law decided by a democratic process. Yup. Doing it without a permission slip involves far less premeditation. Doing it with a permission slip with twenty names on it also involves a bunch of conspirators. I don't suppose you'd suggest a drug lord can have a vote in his cartel as to whether to off someone, etc.? So you need to go a lot deeper if you're going to try establishing points of reference that distinguish one from the other. quote: Your comparison with Muslims is a red herring and kind of racist. It is neither. Do you dispute that certain countries have laws to the effect that I stated? Do you dispute that these laws are as valid in these countries as yours is in your own country? Do you dispute that to assert the law as the yardstick of morals is consummate with asserting that the law is moral? These are fundamental questions, not mere distractions. The only red herring is implying I am forwarding a racist argument, when in fact my line of argumentation fundamentally builds on tthe notion that all cultures are objectively of equal value and validity, with differences only arising in the subjective judgments of people of cultures that hold opposing values. quote: IF the people (including all of the women freely participating) of a nation decide through a democratic process that women with out veils should have acid thrown in thier faces, then I would reluctantly consider it legitimate. That is not the case in any Muslim nation. Ah, but you see, the criminals don't get to vote on the death penalty issue, either. Either way, you are imposing your own cultural values, in that your assessment as to whether such a thing is legitimate depends on the culture in question being conformant to your own cultural value that women must necessarily have voted on it. In the cultures in question, that would be criminal, and also contrary to their sense of morality. Hence, it would have to happen in a manner that is contrary to their judicial, political, cultural and moral identity as a nation, in order for you to recognize their decisions as valid. And by that same line of reasoning, there is no law against murder in the countries in question that you hold as legitimate, since women didn't vote to outlaw murder in the first place. It's easy to lose sight of the consequences of our assumptions and assertions in such cases. For me, a full mesh matrix, written down on paper, tends to give a good overview of the objective, rational facts of the matter. Those are usually horribly unpleasant to contemplate in depth if you're starting from an absolutist position, but they give a certain perspective. quote: So you have no gotcha. In fact I have a double-bind. quote: Why is it you would force a person to pay for the murderer of thier loved to have food and medical care, and access to free education? Get to write letters and sell art work? That seems horribly wrong, and insulting to the people who loved the victim. It also seems somewhat odd to kill someone to save money. But if you want to get into the legitimacy of taxes, or socioeconomics and the value of human life, we can do that. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 6:08:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Don't understand your question thompson. Of what vs what? Cost? He's presumably referring to the extensive costs of death row and executions, along with "appeals, jury trials and rights" (your words). And the comparison would probably be keeping the prisoner in a closed facility, growing his own food and sewing his own clothes, when not doing busy doing community work. It's hardly rocket science to implant a tracker in the iliac bone, and he's not going anywhere witthout it. The costs can be kept very low. Bear in mind that US law specifically makes an exception to the law against slavery that allows a court to rule that a person is to perform slave labor, or even (theoretically) rule that they are to be one, legallly speaking. A lot less embarassing when a group of college students stand where one of the witnesses reported standing and see nothing but a huge brick wall that had been around at the time of the crime, blocking visibility just as completely as back when someone was sentenced to death row based an that witness' testimony. Saying "sorrry" to a corpse doesn't do much good, does it? Or to those who loved it while it was a person; before the execution-turned-murder. Health, al-Aswad.

luckydog1 -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 7:05:26 PM)
Wow, thats a lot aswad, I suppose the throwing out dozens of points is an effective argument stratagey, in that many people will get bored and walk away. First I never accused you of Moral relatavism. I mean you are comparing apples and oranges. Pretending that an execution after a trial appeals under a democratic legal system is the same as a rapist killing someone in an alley, is simply nonsense, no matter how many hundreds of words you write about it. To pretend that if I do not accept that since they are both fruit, Apples and Oranges are exactly the same thing and equivilant, I must be an absolutist is just stupid reasoning. Please argue against what I say, not what you want to pretend I said. A drug lords decision does not have the legal sanction of a Democratic government behind it, and is in no way comparable, and I included the qualifier in my statement showing the difference. I included the qualifier "previously decided law" on purpose, because it shows the criminal did indeed have a voice in the creation of the law, before he was arrested. And he choose to engage in actions that would limit his rights to vote on what the law will be in the future. For your "acid in the face" example to work you have to show me a country that actually has that law on the books. As I pointed out there is none. And using a made up example with no bearing on reality is what I consider a red herring argument. I don't know how you define it. you ask me some specific questions. Do you dispute that certain countries have laws to the effect that I stated? Yep, I challange you to find one Do you dispute that these laws are as valid in these countries as yours is in your own country? Since they do not exist, it is a meaningless question. And as I have pointed out several times, the source of the authority to make law matters. Do you dispute that to assert the law as the yardstick of morals is consummate with asserting that the law is moral? I have not asserted any such thing. Your foolish ascribing of absolutism might make you think so. What is wierd is that you are in fact entirely arguing from your own moral perspective, while stating that you are not. "Many people feel that someone "deserves" to die, for whatever reason, and it doesn't fly in my world." Your world is your personl subjective opinion on moral issues, if you want to use a differnt word thats ok, but that is Morals. " when in fact my line of argumentation fundamentally builds on tthe notion that all cultures are objectively of equal value and validity, with differences only arising in the subjective judgments of people of cultures that hold opposing values. " Does this include Pro and Anti Death Penalty Cultures? IF so we are back to your subjective disaproval against your stated line of reasoning. Or is consistency only required from those you debate? The costs of the Death Penalty are not even a part of my argument. Currently in America it costs more to execute than hold life in prision. Its probably much cheaper in China. But that is a decided cost, and it could be much cheaper or more expensive, not really germaine to my argument. And you completely misunderstand my point. I don't care about the money, I care about forcing people to labor to provide for the Killers of thier Children. I know that they only spend a few moments (probably less than one second) a year working to pay for the killers of their children to take classes, and get their teeth fixed. Morally and realistically, I think it is an insult to them. That is making them slaves.

luckydog1 -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 7:07:32 PM)
A different point, I said I was all in favor of making the Justice system as accurate as possible. I am fully aware that eye witness testimony is very unreliable, and would not want the Death Penalty imposed based on Eye Witness Testimony alone.

Aswad -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 8:19:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Wow, thats a lot aswad, I suppose the throwing out dozens of points is an effective argument stratagey, in that many people will get bored and walk away. Fringe benefit? [:D] No, seriously, that's not it at all. I just happen to be a bit passionate about this, and I type at the speed of a professsional secretary, plus have something of an engineering mindset. Thus, I prefer to approach things in a systematic manner, addressing each of the points that I consider relevant to what I am trying to say. I would make a terrible news reporter (no big headlines, punchlines or the like), but I do make a damn good systems engineer, security analyst and various other things that require addressing things thoroughly. I happen to feel that the life and death of humans merit thoroughness. quote: First I never accused you of Moral relatavism. I mean you are comparing apples and oranges. Pretending that an execution after a trial appeals under a democratic legal system is the same as a rapist killing someone in an alley, is simply nonsense, no matter how many hundreds of words you write about it. And I am explaining how it is apples and apples, as well as why it is the same principle, and note that it's thus inconsistent. I have never said you can't construct arbitrary rules, give them the status of law, and abide by them. What I have said is that in any prevalent morals, if applied consistently, it's wrong. I have never said morals are usually applied in a consistent manner. Nor have I said that people need to do so, either. Do you dispute that it's hypocrisy not to? quote: To pretend that if I do not accept that since they are both fruit, Apples and Oranges are exactly the same thing and equivilant, I must be an absolutist is just stupid reasoning. Apples and oranges are both fruit. Executions and murder are both killing. You may like one and dislike the other. But beyond that, the analogy breaks down, as the standards that divide them are incongruent with the morals that are usually claimed to underlie them. quote: Please argue against what I say, not what you want to pretend I said. A drug lords decision does not have the legal sanction of a Democratic government behind it, and is in no way comparable, and I included the qualifier in my statement showing the difference. Then please explain to me what puts the government in such a lofty position as to be morally entitled to decide who lives or dies. In point of fact, that is known as agent-centric morality: the notion that the morality of an act depends on the actor, rather than the victim or the act itself. And the notion that a democratic government is any different in that role than any other group, is a completely arbitrary distinction, which again makes it a relative thing. It also applies the law differentially, and sets the state above the people. Further, the standards as to which entity is thus entitled varies from culture to culture, and there are legally recognized incarnations of the principle that you have taken exceptions to. quote: I included the qualifier "previously decided law" on purpose, because it shows the criminal did indeed have a voice in the creation of the law, before he was arrested. Provided he had not been a criminal prior to that. quote: And he choose to engage in actions that would limit his rights to vote on what the law will be in the future. No argument there. quote: For your "acid in the face" example to work you have to show me a country that actually has that law on the books. Actually, you are missing the point. My assertion was that law does not equate to morals. This is much more simply demonstrated by consulting history. In some older societies (e.g. Egypt), it was recognized that a man could be sentenced to the loss of his children (i.e. they'd be executed for something he did). Laws in European medieval history made quite sharp distinctions between nobility and regular people. Laws in Nazi Germany had some interesting clauses on Jews, I suspect. Or, if you want to go for contemporary, how about a woman being executed for having been raped? quote: Do you dispute that certain countries have laws to the effect that I stated? Yep, I challange you to find one See above. quote: Do you dispute that these laws are as valid in these countries as yours is in your own country? Since they do not exist, it is a meaningless question. And as I have pointed out several times, the source of the authority to make law matters. So you assert that your personal judgment as to what constitutes a valid law supersedes that of the enforcing government? quote: Do you dispute that to assert the law as the yardstick of morals is consummate with asserting that the law is moral? I have not asserted any such thing. Your foolish ascribing of absolutism might make you think so. Then why were you replying to my arguments by saying that the distinction of legality has bearing on the ethics of the matter? quote: What is wierd is that you are in fact entirely arguing from your own moral perspective, while stating that you are not. Nope. Here is mine, in brief: Citizens are those who are pledged to the society. The laws in the society can say what they will and be enforced. Residents who are not citizens are not entitled to any rights whatsoever. If you want to kill people for wearing pink, it's not my problem; I don't liive there. quote: Your world is your personl subjective opinion on moral issues, if you want to use a differnt word thats ok, but that is Morals. Morals are entirely subjective and arbitrary, by their very nature. I have commented on the integrity, consistency and universality of prevailing ones. quote: Does this include Pro and Anti Death Penalty Cultures? IF so we are back to your subjective disaproval against your stated line of reasoning. Or is consistency only required from those you debate? I do not need to approve of your laws and morals to consider them valid. That does not preclude noting that there are inconsistencies in your application of them. quote: The costs of the Death Penalty are not even a part of my argument. Currently in America it costs more to execute than hold life in prision. Its probably much cheaper in China. But that is a decided cost, and it could be much cheaper or more expensive, not really germaine to my argument. You neglect to include socioeconomic concerns, such as the cost to police officers when hard criminals know their best option is to take down a police officer. Even drug traffickers from Russia don't bother making the attempt up here, and our cops carry neither guns, nor bullet proof vests. It would be trivial for them to do it. But they know they face at most 21 years in prison, and likely no more than 10, even if they committed premeditated murder. And the recidivism rates are an order of magnitude lower than the US. In most cases, with the right rehabilitation efforts, a citizen that has done murder can be returned to society as a productive member of it, and will contribute far more to the GNP and tax income than the cost of their trial, incarceration and rehabilitation. It should also be mentioned that the right approach to this offers about 4% recidivism on hard crimes, vs. US figures of 70%+. quote: And you completely misunderstand my point. I don't care about the money, I care about forcing people to labor to provide for the Killers of thier Children. Then don't. Let the criminal work to earn his keep, whether during or after incarceration. quote: I know that they only spend a few moments (probably less than one second) a year working to pay for the killers of their children to take classes, and get their teeth fixed. That is not the case up here, as I mentioned, and a flaw in your implementation, not the soundness of the idea. quote: Morally and realistically, I think it is an insult to them. Generally, people up here would seem to take offense less easily, as 10+ years in prison generally gets a sigh of relief and a contented smile. I fail to see how it is morally an insult to them not to take vengeance upon one who has done them wrong. For that matter, how is it then morally wrong to commit murder with vengeance as the motive in the first place? quote: That is making them slaves. I would like to hear the reasoning behind that, as I already noted they don't need to pay a damn for it. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 8:20:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 A different point, I said I was all in favor of making the Justice system as accurate as possible. On this we agree completely. quote: I am fully aware that eye witness testimony is very unreliable, and would not want the Death Penalty imposed based on Eye Witness Testimony alone. It was not a hypothetical scenario. Health, al-Aswad.

laurell3 -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 9:15:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: laurell3 My belief has always been that we have it there to feel better that people that horribly wrong society and it's members receive retribution. It sates the lust for blood, and it provides closure; that about sums it up, I think. I've personally never seen the justice system provide closure for bereaved families even including death penalty cases. I think they believe it will but even when the system responds appropriately and they get the result they were seeking their sorrow, grief and anger is not abated by it. I have seen victims sacrifice however to be scrutinized and traumatized further by the system in order to provide safety for the next victim. That type of closure and positive feeling I have commonly witnessed.

thompsonx -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 10:59:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 luckydog: In the U.S. what is the cost of one verses the other? thompson Don't understand your question thompson. Of what vs what? Cost? luckydog: What are the cost of sentencing a person to life in prison without parole vs. sentencing a person to be executed. thompson

luckydog1 -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 11:25:31 PM)
Thompson those costs are entirley arbitrary and have no relevance to a discussion of the Morality of the issue. Currently it cost's more ususally to execute. Aswad, but the words execution and murder are not the same. In any language or culture. They are not apples and apples. We simply disagree. You however, are using made up definitions to set up your premise, and to me a premise based on made up definitions is faulty.

luckydog1 -> RE: Japan hangs three death-row inmates (2/3/2008 11:28:28 PM)
Is there a country where a woman was executed by the government for being raped? Please give me a current example. Refering to ancient egypt hardly qualifies for, "Do you dispute that certain countries have laws to the effect that I stated?" Note the tense of the verb.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875