[Dakar]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Just having fun with the Canucks.

You do realize that's why they keep sending people like Celine down here, don't you?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Well, we do have a few idiots (doesn't everyone?), but sorry; no socialists here (nor does China; they're communists.)

I guess world affairs isn't your strong suit.

No Socialists in Canada? Really? Hell, I've got a Communist that lives next door to me.... but YOU don't have ANY socialists up there? Amazing.

And no, China isn't communist. There aren't any real communist states/countries in the world.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Not half the fun as actually having a clue about that which you babble!

No, you don't, do you?

[blythe]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, he does. Maybe Ben will play him in the upcoming film...

That'd be great! Ben can't act to save his life either!

[chris v]

Originally posted by SouthPaW1227:
I support the death penalty FULLY, and if he's guilty I'd hope for it.

But I have such a hard time trusting our legal system now...it's the perfect setup. Man's wife dies w/ the baby inside, I mean before you hear ANYTHING ELSE you already want the husband to die, regardless of whether he did it or not. I haven't watched a minute of this so I have heard no reactions from either side, but I just don't trust our legal system. I hope they're right.

I don't support the death penalty precisely because I don't trust the legal system. Innocent people are being executed on death rows across America. No one can say for sure how many, but the sheer number of exonerations lately, coupled with all the evidence of prosecutorial malfeasance and shoddy defenses by over-worked, unconcerned court-appointed defense lawyers leads me to believe that the system is profoundly broken. I'm not willing to take the chance of one innocent death by execution-- that makes me an accomplice to murder.

There needs to be a moratorium now.

[blythe]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
The death penalty is murder, sanctioned by law.

By allowing it to exist we lower ourselves onto the level of the criminal we claim to have the moral right to punish.

This is like saying by locking up someone in jail, we lower ourselves to the level of a kidnapper, and therefore have no moral standing whatsoever.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Dakar:
You do realize that's why they keep sending people like Celine down here, don't you?

That song from Titanic wasn't too bad the first time I heard it... though, I have to admit that I did have strong homicidal feelings after being subjected to it for the 10,000th time.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by blythe:
This is like saying by locking up someone in jail, we lower ourselves to the level of a kidnapper, and therefore have no moral standing whatsoever.

I don't think kidnapping someone and murdering someone arew on equal levels, and should we choose to imprison someone or put them to death, I can only think of one of those which we can rectify should we find out judgement was in error.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
That song from Titanic wasn't too bad the first time I heard it... though, I have to admit that I did have strong homicidal feelings after being subjected to it for the 10,000th time.

I detested her Chrysler commercials. How dare she sully Roy Orbison's song. (The endless SNL skits of zero creative caliber didn't help my opinion of her much either.)

[DBursey]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No Socialists in Canada? Really? Hell, I've got a Communist that lives next door to me.... but YOU don't have ANY socialists up there? Amazing.

And no, China isn't communist. There aren't any real communist states/countries in the world.

I suppose you can label anyone anecdotally. I suspect one of my neighbors as being an existential humanist.

Oh, and about not having communists in China? The ruling communist party would have you arrested for so declaring!

Re-educating Macinstein:

Communist China

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by DBursey:
I suppose you can label anyone anecdotally. I suspect one of my neighbors as being an existential humanist.

Oh, and about not having communists in China? The ruling communist party would have you arrested for so declaring!

Re-educating Macinstein:

Communist China

They aren't communists. They can call themselves what they like, but that doesn't mean that's what they actuallly are. I suggest you actually read a book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...472948-6164844

[chris v]

Originally posted by blythe:
This is like saying by locking up someone in jail, we lower ourselves to the level of a kidnapper, and therefore have no moral standing whatsoever.

No, not exactly. How do you let a dead guy go when he's exonerated?

[blythe]

Originally posted by Dakar:
I don't think kidnapping someone and murdering someone arew on equal levels, and should we choose to imprison someone or put them to death, I can only think of one of those which we can rectify should we find out judgement was in error.

You missed the point. I was not trying to compare kidnapping to murder. I was simply attacking the logic that lawfully executing someone is the moral equivalent to unlawfully murdering someone. If that were the case, then imprisoning someone would also be immoral.

If one is imprisoned and found to be not guilty, how can you rectify the situation other than releasing him. You can't give those years in prison back, and the person can't sue the government for restitution. The same is the case if someone dies naturally in prison and is found to be not guilty. Rectifying the situation is not possible either. In a fallible world, mistakes will occur, but that is not a reason to suspend justice. Do all you can to correct the mistake instead. We already have a system that allows for 10-20 years of appeal.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by blythe:
You missed the point. I was not trying to compare kidnapping to murder.

Actually you are:

Originally posted by blythe:
I was simply attacking the logic that lawfully executing someone is the moral equivalent to unlawfully murdering someone. If that were the case, then imprisoning someone would also be immoral.

You're saying that our imprisoning somone is no better than putting someone to death. I disagree, wholeheartedly.

Originally posted by blythe:
If one is imprisoned and found to be not guilty, how can you rectify the situation other than releasing him. You can't give those years in prison back, and the person can't sue the government for restitution. The same is the case if someone dies naturally in prison and is found to be not guilty. Rectifying the situation is not possible either. In a fallible world, mistakes will occur, but that is not a reason to suspend justice. Do all you can to correct the mistake instead. We already have a system that allows for 10-20 years of appeal.

Is death a greater justice than imprisonment? Do you feel that the loss of one innocent life is worth it if it includes the justified execution of x amount of convicted?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Actually you are:

You're saying that our imprisoning somone is no better than putting someone to death. I disagree, wholeheartedly.

Is death a greater justice than imprisonment? Do you feel that the loss of one innocent life is worth it if it includes the justified execution of x amount of convicted?

that's not the point. The reason for execution is to protect the living, to protect even the ones who are serving time for lesser offenses. Once a person has murdered someone in cold blood, they'll do it again given the opportunity.

Sure, we can put a murderer away for the rest of their life in solitary, but that sure won't rehab them. It'll just make them as crazy as a sh*thouse rat. Once that happens, what's the point?

[koogz]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
that's not the point. The reason for execution is to protect the living, to protect even the ones who are serving time for lesser offenses. Once a person has murdered someone in cold blood, they'll do it again given the opportunity.

Sure, we can put a murderer away for the rest of their life in solitary, but that sure won't rehab them. It'll just make them as crazy as a ****-house rat. Once that happens, what's the point?

I'm going to go against the death penalty in this case and I'm also against life in prison as described so graphically above.

What is the alternative? Servitude. Some sort of method of having these people deliver back to society a portion of the life they extinguished and thereby have stolen the rest of us the opportunity to be touched by the person's life who is now gone.

Think about it. It is tragic. Isn't it tragic enough when natural causes take life from us? How many here have been touched by death? I know I have been more than enough, and I have no blood lust for more than is naturally taken.

Any thoughts on how this guy can give back to society, and redeem his soul?
I don't believe killing him would do it. Life in prison won't do anything for society.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
that's not the point. The reason for execution is to protect the living, to protect even the ones who are serving time for lesser offenses. Once a person has murdered someone in cold blood, they'll do it again given the opportunity.

Your reasoning here is, "We don't do a good job of protecting lesser criminals from the more dangerous ones, so we should eliminate the latter." I think that's a bit strong.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sure, we can put a murderer away for the rest of their life in solitary, but that sure won't rehab them. It'll just make them as crazy as a sh*thouse rat.Once that happens, what's the point?

To protect the innocent, of course.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
The death penalty is murder, sanctioned by law.

By allowing it to exist we lower ourselves onto the level of the criminal we claim to have the moral right to punish. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Life imprisonment without parole I can understand - some people need to be kept away from society for good.

Post of the thread. Kudos. Capital punishment is barbaric - the only purpose that it seems to serve is to satify some sort of primitive vindictiveness. I don't think that I need to remind you, Mastrap, that a lot of people here (US) think with their "guts" rather than their brains.

[Skip Breakfast]

Why does it cost more to bury a criminal than a soldier?

[DBursey]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
They aren't communists. They can call themselves what they like, but that doesn't mean that's what they actuallly are. I suggest you actually read a book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...472948-6164844

I've read from quite a few sources on the subject of China over the years. Sadly enough, I can but dream of reading for pleasure these days. Thanks all the same, dude. It is the thought that counts in my book.

Capital reform and market liberalization aside, the regime in Beijing is as totalitarian as they come, and in practically any political aspect is as communist as any recent historical model we have.

BTW, I linked your own government's definition of China's political stripe. How highly do you regard its credibility on the subject?

That, my friend, is my final shot on the net over this sino-say-so side-thread session. Oh,and I don't favour capital punishment. The state shouldn't be in the business of putting citizens to death.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Finally another murderer since OJ for Americans to obsess over.

Better turn on your TV, hard copy is on!

[Spliffdaddy]

The state isn't putting citizens to death. Citizens are putting other citizens to death.

Looks like it would be a good idea to show some remorse if you're found guilty - else you'll raise the ire of the 12 citizens entrusted with your life.

[itai195]

Originally posted by blythe:
You missed the point. I was not trying to compare kidnapping to murder. I was simply attacking the logic that lawfully executing someone is the moral equivalent to unlawfully murdering someone. If that were the case, then imprisoning someone would also be immoral.

Actually I think this logic is kind of obtuse. We all agree that our government has the right to take away our freedoms if we break the law. You consent to that merely by being a citizen. That doesn't mean one can't believe that murder is almost universally immoral. They are two completely different topics. I feel that rape is universally immoral, but would you suggest that government sanctioned rape is okay using the same logic? Of course not, because the argument is ludicrous.

Anyway, regardless of how one feels about the morality of capital punishment, my main concern in this case is that I'm not even totally convinced that he's guilty. In that kind of situation, he shouldn't get the death penalty. Nevermind that the death penalty is ineffective and unfairly applied throughout this country, for which ample evidence exists. Given this situation, how can anyone support capital punishment? I hope that even those who believe the state has a moral right to execute criminals also believe in applying that penalty fairly.

[DBursey]

The state isn't putting citizens to death. Citizens are putting other citizens to death.

Does the executioner not act on behalf and behest of the state?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by DBursey:
I've read from quite a few sources on the subject of China over the years. Sadly enough, I can but dream of reading for pleasure these days. Thanks all the same, dude. It is the thought that counts in my book.

Capital reform and market liberalization aside, the regime in Beijing is as totalitarian as they come, and in practically any political aspect is as communist as any recent historical model we have.

BTW, I linked your own government's definition of China's political stripe. How highly do you regard its credibility on the subject?

That, my friend, is my final shot on the net over this sino-say-so side-thread session. Oh,and I don't favour capital punishment. The state shouldn't be in the business of putting citizens to death.

Real communism isn't totalitarian. Read and find out what actual communism is, really.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Your reasoning here is, "We don't do a good job of protecting lesser criminals from the more dangerous ones, so we should eliminate the latter." I think that's a bit strong.

To protect the innocent, of course.

Captital Punishment does that quite well.

And yes, "lesser" criminals deserve protection too. They're paying for their non-lethal crimes, and will likely be reintroduced to society. Despite what many think, they do have the right to serve their time with some degree of protection.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Captital Punishment does that quite well.

With exception to the whole being able to reverse it thing.

Originally posted by MacNStein:
And yes, "lesser" criminals deserve protection too. They're paying for their non-lethal crimes, and will likely be reintroduced to society. Despite what many think, they do have the right to serve their time with some degree of protection.

I don't think I offerred any opposition to that in my previous post.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Does the executioner not act on behalf and behest of the state?

Just as the state acts on behalf of its citizens.

There wouldn't be any shortage of volunteer executioners - but for some reason we choose to keep a few professionals on the government payroll.

I think you've struck on an excellent idea, though. The state should issue 'executioner licenses' wherever hunting licenses are sold. That way they wouldn't need to pay for professional executioners. It could save the taxpayers millions of dollars, I bet. And even generate revenue from the permit & licensing fees.

[blythe]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Real communism isn't totalitarian. Read and find out what actual communism is, really.

This is technically true. But in large societies where people cannot opt to leave the commune, increased coersion and limitation of liberties are necessarily applied to dissenting individuals. It would necessarily have to be so, otherwise the dissenting individuals would regain the means of production through their dissenting activities and lord it over the masses, thereby defeating the communist ideal. Decreases in any liberties places you closer on the spectrum to totalitarianism. In actuality, societies desiring to achieve the communist ideal have slid towards totalitarianism. They could never achieve the ideal of communism due to the necessity to crush dissent.

[blythe]

Originally posted by itai195:
Actually I think this logic is kind of obtuse. We all agree that our government has the right to take away our freedoms if we break the law. You consent to that merely by being a citizen. That doesn't mean one can't believe that murder is almost universally immoral. They are two completely different topics. I feel that rape is universally immoral, but would you suggest that government sanctioned rape is okay using the same logic? Of course not, because the argument is ludicrous.

Anyway, regardless of how one feels about the morality of capital punishment, my main concern in this case is that I'm not even totally convinced that he's guilty. In that kind of situation, he shouldn't get the death penalty. Nevermind that the death penalty is ineffective and unfairly applied throughout this country, for which ample evidence exists. Given this situation, how can anyone support capital punishment? I hope that even those who believe the state has a moral right to execute criminals also believe in applying that penalty fairly.

You assume that any intentional killing of a person is murder and morally repugnant, regardless of the context. I disagree. A murderer has forfeited his right to life, and judicially killing him is not murder.

[itai195]

Originally posted by blythe:
You assume that any intentional killing of a person is murder and morally repugnant, regardless of the context. I disagree. A murderer has forfeited his right to life, and judicially killing him is not murder.

It's one thing to disagree, but the illogical analogy to kidnapping was what I was referring to.

[blythe]

Originally posted by itai195:
It's one thing to disagree, but the illogical analogy to kidnapping was what I was referring to.

Premise 1: Execution of a murderer is murder, and therefore immoral.

Conclusion 1: If Premise 1 is true, then locking up a criminal is immoral as it is the same as kidnapping and keeping someone locked up against their will.

I don't make this conclusion because I reject Premise 1, as execution of a murderer is not murder. It is a justifiable and legal killing of someone who has forfeited his life by unlawfully killing another. However, if someone accepts Premise 1, then they must also accept the conclusion, which is ridiculous. If you are against the death penalty for a different reason than Premise 1, then my conclusion does not apply.

[koogz]

Originally posted by blythe:
Premise 1: Execution of a murderer is murder, and therefore immoral.

Conclusion 1: If Premise 1 is true, then locking up a criminal is immoral as it is the same as kidnapping and keeping someone locked up against their will.

I don't make this conclusion because I reject Premise 1, as execution of a murderer is not murder. It is a justifiable and legal killing of someone who has forfeited his life by unlawfully killing another. However, if someone accepts Premise 1, then they must also accept the conclusion, which is ridiculous. If you are against the death penalty for a different reason than Premise 1, then my conclusion does not apply.

How about this?

Killing a human being is wrong.

If one is defending themselves and kills their attacker, then the attacker brought this upon themself.. The threat exists, and therefore the defence is justified.

Executing someone in custody is murder. They are no longer a threat to another.
This is revenge, plain and simple, not justice.

What do you do? Put them away for life? Society is not served, nor is the loss of life that has occurred by this person's actions. They must be made to give something back to society, and imho redeem their souls.

[itai195]

Originally posted by blythe:
However, if someone accepts Premise 1, then they must also accept the conclusion, which is ridiculous. If you are against the death penalty for a different reason than Premise 1, then my conclusion does not apply.

A couple of us have already explained why that argument is bs, so if you're gonna continue with it then there's no sake in arguing.

[blythe]

Originally posted by itai195:
A couple of us have already explained why that argument is bs, so if you're gonna continue with it then there's no sake in arguing.

You've provided no such logical or objective refutation of my argument that I've seen.

[itai195]

Originally posted by blythe:
You've provided no such logical or objective refutation of my argument that I've seen.

Here's a simple breakdown:

1) Killing != Kidnapping
2) Circumstances in which killing is acceptable != Circumstances in which kidnapping is acceptable

You're making a false analogy. This argument is about what rights a government can lawfully take away from its citizens, not whether or not a government can take away any rights.

[koogz]

Originally posted by itai195:
Here's a simple breakdown:

1) Killing != Kidnapping
2) Circumstances in which killing is acceptable != Circumstances in which kidnapping is acceptable

You're making a false analogy. This argument is about what rights a government can lawfully take away from its citizens, not whether or not a government can take away any rights.

100% correct.

There is no analogy to kidnapping and imprisoning someone against their will.
When convicted of a crime, especially a capital crime such as murder, then one gives up their rights of freedom as they have taken the rights of another to live!

That being said, imprisoning one for life is not satisfying enough for me. This just secures society from this person but does nothing beyond that. I would like to see society better for the grande efffort of imprisoning someone.

This is where my beliefs in a higher being [God] come into play, sorry those of you who want the seperation of church and state, but how about a pardon on this issue for the sake of a murderer's soul and the betterment of society.

[itai195]

Originally posted by koogz:
When convicted of a crime, especially a capital crime such as murder, then one gives up their rights of freedom as they have taken the rights of another to live!

I agree, they give up their right of freedom. Where we disagree is I don't think they give up their right to live, or at least, I don't think we have the right to take away their lives. But regardless, my main beef with the death penalty is the fact that human systems are imperfect and make mistakes. How can we have an unjust execution on our conscience?

[koogz]

Originally posted by itai195:
I agree, they give up their right of freedom. Where we disagree is I don't think they give up their right to live, or at least, I don't think we have the right to take away their lives. But regardless, my main beef with the death penalty is the fact that human systems are imperfect and make mistakes. How can we have an unjust execution on our conscience?

Read some ofmy other posts. I'm a pro-lifer who is against the death penalty.
I think they should be kept alive but to serve society, not to rot in a jail cell. I'm for saving their souls in the process of serving society.

We are in complete agreement, probably except for the saving of his soul.

[itai195]

Originally posted by koogz:
Read some ofmy other posts. I'm a pro-lifer who is against the death penalty.
I think they should be kept alive but to serve society, not to rot in a jail cell. I'm for saving their souls in the process of serving society.

We are in complete agreement, probably except for the saving of his soul.

Ack nm, I confused you with the other guy

[blythe]

Originally posted by itai195:
Here's a simple breakdown:

1) Killing != Kidnapping
2) Circumstances in which killing is acceptable != Circumstances in which kidnapping is acceptable

You're making a false analogy. This argument is about what rights a government can lawfully take away from its citizens, not whether or not a government can take away any rights.

I've already repeated that I affirm #1. You have yet to explain satisfactorily why #2 is the case.

[blythe]

Originally posted by koogz:
100% correct.

There is no analogy to kidnapping and imprisoning someone against their will.
When convicted of a crime, especially a capital crime such as murder, then one gives up their rights of freedom as they have taken the rights of another to live!

Why? Why do they give up their freedom as opposed to their right to live? They've already taken away somone else's right to live. By what standard do you make this claim?

[CollinG3G4]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, he does. Maybe Ben will play him in the upcoming film... :

Val kilmer is the better choice.

[fireside]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sure, we can put a murderer away for the rest of their life in solitary, but that sure won't rehab them.

though killing someone is great rehabilitation isn't it?

[ambush]

Originally posted by blythe:
This is like saying by locking up someone in jail, we lower ourselves to the level of a kidnapper, and therefore have no moral standing whatsoever.

You (deliberately ?) forget the notion of law in your statement.

I find it unfortunate and misleading.

Are you a member of Bush's cabinet or just a hobbyist?

[jbartone]

California seldom execute people. He'll be around for good 20 years. I would have given him Life in prison, he wouldn't have lasted more than a month in the general prison population.

Burn in Hell, Scott.

[koogz]

Originally posted by blythe:
Why? Why do they give up their freedom as opposed to their right to live? They've already taken away somone else's right to live. By what standard do you make this claim?

It is wrong to murder, even a murderer. They give up their right to live, but who would be the one to take it? Is this the "defending society from a murderer argument?"
Thus, by killing them you are in fact defending a proven murderer and defending the person they in fact murdered.

The standard as stated. Murder is wrong, even if one is to murder a murderer.
There is a silver lining that can be had here.

Society is given back a person to do potential good.
A person's soul is saved.

I hope this makes my stance clearer.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by fireside:
though killing someone is great rehabilitation isn't it?

Nope, but it protects the rest of society.

[paully dub]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Nope, but it protects the rest of society.

How? By showing that the only way to protect society from a murderer is to murder that person, thus condoning killing yet another human?

Seems a bit simplistic to me.

Besides, is it just me, or does the US, with its death penalties, also happen to have a higher rate of violent crime than countries without?

Doesn't violence beget violence?

[jbartone]

San Quentin State Prison faces San Francisco Bay, where Scott murdered his wife and unborn son, correct?

Sweet justice.

[Spliffdaddy]

OK, let me see if I understand this....


It's murder if you kill an unborn child. Right?

EXCEPT - if you're the mother and you hired somebody to kill the child.

Soooo, if Lacey Peterson had an appointment for an abortion - it would be safe to assume she intended to kill the unborn child. Could we then charge another person with murder if the child was killed before the abortion took place?


If you kill a woman that was 2 weeks pregnant and test results prove it - is that a double-homicide?

At what point is a fetus a child? When the mother decides not to abort it?

What if Scott Peterson wanted the child and Lacey planned to abort it? And Scott killed her because of her choice? Who would the criminal be, then?