RE: The death penalty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Marc2b -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 6:58:28 AM)

quote:

I am all in favor of expanding capital offenses so that we will execute the convicted rapist of any child under the age of 13.

I would much prefer that we do away with segregation wings and protective custody wings in our prisons for anyone who is not simply awaiting trial. Let Prison Justice have at it!


And what happens if we later discover the accused was innocent after all?

I will not be shedding any tears for John Muhammad (or whatever he calls himself) but I remain firmly opposed to the death penalty. Not for the sake of some low life, murdering scumbag - there are evil people out there who make me want bury a hatchet into their skull. Such strong emotions, however, is why we must restrain ourselves and act rationally lest we compound a crime by harming another innocent. The death penalty cannot be reversed if we later discover a false conviction has taken place. It is bad enough to discover we have been jailing an innocent for twenty years (as in the Capozzi case) but at least we can let them go and given them back what's left of their life. You can't give back anything to the dead.



kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 7:43:56 AM)

Lets be practical... it is very expensive to house... feed... provide livers and such...and protect others from murders...for life. Some kill again within the walls of prison...some are paroled and kill again. Yet all we do is complain about taxes.

I am all for providing the above for most…if there is even a small chance they could be innocent. BUT there are those that there is no doubt…like this asshole in the news.

If I were a relative I would refuse to pay taxes that would go to the welfare of this murder. Killing to protect ourselves is not barbaric… any more than locking someone in a cage for life. Which would you like?

We kill to eat…we kill to protect our love ones…we kill for the right to bare arms…we kill to stop abortions…we kill when we pollute the air…we kill when we smoke around others…we kill when we drink too much…we kill when we step on a spider.

Hell we are killers get …realize that and get off your high horses…you are killers too.

To not be a killer is to not live.

Butch



slvemike4u -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 8:10:41 AM)

Butch it actually costs more to enforce a death sentence than it does to enforce a life sentence...wierd but true....google it if you like but what with the appeal process and all the cost of execution is actually quite prohibitive.



Marc2b -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 8:44:39 AM)

quote:

Lets be practical... it is very expensive to house... feed... provide livers and such...and protect others from murders...for life. Some kill again within the walls of prison...some are paroled and kill again. Yet all we do is complain about taxes.

I am all for providing the above for most…if there is even a small chance they could be innocent. BUT there are those that there is no doubt…like this asshole in the news.

If I were a relative I would refuse to pay taxes that would go to the welfare of this murder. Killing to protect ourselves is not barbaric… any more than locking someone in a cage for life. Which would you like?

We kill to eat…we kill to protect our love ones…we kill for the right to bare arms…we kill to stop abortions…we kill when we pollute the air…we kill when we smoke around others…we kill when we drink too much…we kill when we step on a spider.

Hell we are killers get …realize that and get off your high horses…you are killers too.

To not be a killer is to not live.


Being practical is easy as long as you're not the falsely convicted innocent being strapped to the gurney (it's always easy to have high moral principles so long as the consequences don't affect you). Equating the death penalty to hunting, war, or stepping on a spider, makes no sense. Animals are not human beings and do not have the same rights (and they're tastey to boot) and war is a seperate area of law and values. It certainly makes no sense in the case of self-defense. The law mandates that you (or others) must be under direct and immediate threat to respond with deadly force. Isn't it interesting that the government doesn't allow us to engage in a pre-emptive attack (i'm pretty sure my neighbor plans to kill me so I'll kill him first) reserves that right to itself (we have to kill him so he doesn't kill again).

Bottom line: As I've said many times before, it is not about any concern for low-life, murdering, scumbags (my opposition to the death penalty is put to the test everytime I read about the evil sicko raping and murdering a little girl). It is about limiting the power that government has over us and about what kind of society we want to be.




DomKen -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 10:18:01 AM)

I'm not trying to get snarky but want an actual answer, in the past, before it was known that an innocent man had definitely executed, death penalty supporters always argued that the system was flawed but self correcting and that the safeguards in place prevented executing innocents which strongly implied that their support for capital punishment hinged on the system not executing the innocent. Now that it is undeniable that an innocent man has been put to death why do those same people continue to support the death penalty?



Marc2b -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 11:17:08 AM)

quote:

I'm not trying to get snarky but want an actual answer, in the past, before it was known that an innocent man had definitely executed, death penalty supporters always argued that the system was flawed but self correcting and that the safeguards in place prevented executing innocents which strongly implied that their support for capital punishment hinged on the system not executing the innocent. Now that it is undeniable that an innocent man has been put to death why do those same people continue to support the death penalty?


Beats me. My guess, though, would be:

A) they are allowing emotion to overrule reason (an all to common failing amongst us humans) or

B) they don't want to admit they are wrong (another all to common failing amongst us humans) or

C) both



kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 2:36:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Butch it actually costs more to enforce a death sentence than it does to enforce a life sentence...wierd but true....google it if you like but what with the appeal process and all the cost of execution is actually quite prohibitive.



Now tell me...would there be a reason to allow an automatic appeal for this killer at Fort Hood? Is there any reason at all to doubt his guilt? To me in this kind of case the day after conviction he would be in front of a military firing squad.

I am really a gentle person…not uncivilized…not barbaric…but I do believe some people deserve to die.

Butch




kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 2:42:05 PM)

Yes we are animals...with no more rights on this earth then a puppy.

I am tired of saying it and I'm sure you are tired of hearing it but...there are cases where there is NO doubt of guilt... Now if you want to say you are against killing for humane reasons I will respect you...But if you say you are against capital punishment because it may kill innocents I won't. Because there can be stringent nation wide rules and regulations that will prevent innocents from being executed.

Butch



GoddessImaginos -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 2:43:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Butch it actually costs more to enforce a death sentence than it does to enforce a life sentence...wierd but true....google it if you like but what with the appeal process and all the cost of execution is actually quite prohibitive.



Now tell me...would there be a reason to allow an automatic appeal for this killer at Fort Hood? Is there any reason at all to doubt his guilt? To me in this kind of case the day after conviction he would be in front of a military firing squad.

I am really a gentle person…not uncivilized…not barbaric…but I do believe some people deserve to die.

Butch




[sm=agree.gif]



slvemike4u -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 3:06:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Butch it actually costs more to enforce a death sentence than it does to enforce a life sentence...wierd but true....google it if you like but what with the appeal process and all the cost of execution is actually quite prohibitive.



Now tell me...would there be a reason to allow an automatic appeal for this killer at Fort Hood? Is there any reason at all to doubt his guilt? To me in this kind of case the day after conviction he would be in front of a military firing squad.

I am really a gentle person…not uncivilized…not barbaric…but I do believe some people deserve to die.

Butch


So we should enact a two teir Nation wide death statute...one in which we are absolutely positively sure(execute immediately) and the other where we sort of,kind of...almost definitley have the right guy(where the automatic,as in prior to execution,appeal prcocess kicks in)Sounds workable to me.[:D]



kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 3:25:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u


So we should enact a two teir Nation wide death statute...one in which we are absolutely positively sure(execute immediately) and the other where we sort of,kind of...almost definitley have the right guy(where the automatic,as in prior to execution,appeal prcocess kicks in)Sounds workable to me.[:D]


Not two tier...one set of standards for Capital punishment. If you match it goodbye... And it would be easily workable. I think these standards would vastly reduce capital punishment...as they should.

Butch



Marc2b -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 3:54:44 PM)

quote:

Yes we are animals...with no more rights on this earth then a puppy.


In the biological/evolutionary sense, yes we are animals. You won't get any argument from me about that. I'm firmly on the side of the evolutionists about how we came to be (which doesn't mean I don't believe in a Creator - but that's a whole 'nother topic). In the legal sense, however, we are seperate from the animals and yes we are above them. Animals do not have rights, human beings do. The notion that a puppy can be the legal eqivalent of a human being is frightening in it's implication. Not for how it elevates the puppy, but for how it denigrates the human.

Before the flaming begins: this does not mean I believe it is okay to treat animals with wanton cruelty or with neglect and indifference - but that too, is a whole 'nother topic.

quote:

I am tired of saying it and I'm sure you are tired of hearing it but...there are cases where there is NO doubt of guilt... Now if you want to say you are against killing for humane reasons I will respect you...But if you say you are against capital punishment because it may kill innocents I won't. Because there can be stringent nation wide rules and regulations that will prevent innocents from being executed.


Then I guess you're not going to respect me. There are plenty of evil scumbags in the world I would love to put down - the world would be a better place without them. Just having that feeling alone makes me think it is necessary to examine and question it. I choose to set it aside in favor of what I think rather than what I feel, and what I think is this:

While there may be some cases in which there can be no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, of the guilt of the accused (caught on tape, lots of witnesses, caught in the act, whatever) that doesn't mean there will be such unwavering doubt in all cases or even the majority of cases. No matter how stringent you make the rules, the possibility of error - not to mention abuse of power - is real. Feelings about certain individuals be damned, I cannot sanction that. Maybe it sucks that a few obvoiusly guilty evil scumbags get to keep breathing air but that is the price we pay (which does not mean such individuals need not, or will not, pay a heavy price).

I recall an episode of Law and Order I've seen more than once (a first year episode I believe). One of the detectives wanted to be taken off a murder case because he - a Catholic - didn't approve of the victim's - a kinkster - lifestyle. The Captain refused and reminded him that: "It's not about the people involved in the crime, it's about the crime." I agree with that statement and would expand it to: It's not about who's rights are being violated, it about the fact that rights are being violated.







kittinSol -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 4:03:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Now tell me...would there be a reason to allow an automatic appeal for this killer at Fort Hood?



Yes. It is called due process. Look it up: it's part and parcel of a free society. Without due process, you're basically living in the Middle Ages. Due process applies to everybody, (even to those whom you, personally, deem unworthy of it), otherwise it has no reason to be.



DomKen -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 4:20:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Not two tier...one set of standards for Capital punishment. If you match it goodbye... And it would be easily workable.

No. It would be a nightmarish mess just like todays standard. Any standard where the decision to seek the death penalty is subjective will be abused and no objective standard is possible.



kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 4:32:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Now tell me...would there be a reason to allow an automatic appeal for this killer at Fort Hood?



Yes. It is called due process. Look it up: it's part and parcel of a free society. Without due process, you're basically living in the Middle Ages. Due process applies to everybody, (even to those whom you, personally, deem unworthy of it), otherwise it has no reason to be.


Hi kittinSol

I want due process...a fair impartial trial with witnesses testifying and all other evidence considered. When the just verdict is delivered I want the punishment administered in as an expedient manner as possible.

I do think the safeguards in the appeal process should be considered but in some cases such as the killer at Fort Hood where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt then it would be a waste of money and would be cruel to the defendant to extend his fear and false hope.

Butch



kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 4:38:15 PM)

Perhaps respect was the wrong word... I should have said strongly disagree with. I do understand your points...I comes down to can we come up with a set of standards that could be trusted to condemn the worst of the worst. You think not... but I think we can. In the past I have listed the standards I thought were cut and dry so I will not here...but they would exclude 90 percent of convicted murders. The remaining 10 percent...like the Hood murderer would be dead.

Butch



kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 4:39:30 PM)

Why allow rules that are subjective?... In fact I would demand rules that were not.

Butch



philosophy -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 5:42:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Why allow rules that are subjective?... In fact I would demand rules that were not.

Butch



...because the act of committing a crime is always subjective?

The same act (killing someone) can be murder or manslaughter according to the subjective reality of the enactor.

The problem you are running into Kdsub is the same one the old Athenians ran into centuries ago. i take it you're familiar with the origin of the word 'draconian'?



kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 6:06:56 PM)

Hi phil

Just me perhaps but I don't see premeditated murder as subjective. You either deliberately plan with a clear mind and kill someone… which is not subjective…or you kill without forethought which can be subjective.

There was nothing subjective in the man that walked down a subway Isle shooting people in the head… then was captured on the spot.

There was nothing subjective about the Fort Hood killer shooting unarmed men and women in the head… Then shot and captured by police at the scene in front of multiple witnesses.

There would be nothing Draconian in executing this type of murderer.

Butch



dcnovice -> RE: The death penalty (11/11/2009 6:10:59 PM)

quote:

Lets be practical... it is very expensive to house... feed... provide livers and such...and protect others from murders...for life. Some kill again within the walls of prison...some are paroled and kill again. Yet all we do is complain about taxes.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125