|
|
scott peterson to die by lethal injection (Page 3)
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by koogz:
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.
Intentionally klling someone is not always murder. You don't seem to consider the context. Is every soldier fighting in a war a murderer in your view? They, by the very nature of war, kill plenty of innocent people, as well as soldiers forcibly drafted and made to fight. I doubt you would consider them murderers. The same is true for the state that executes a murderer.
|
blythe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by paully dub:
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?
Murder? Excuting a murderer isn't murder.
It protects society be ensuring that that person will never murder again. Even life in prison doesn't ensure that. Think about the "lesser" offenders who have to serve time with murderers. I'm sure it's more of a danger for them, and they deserve the chance to serve their time without worrying about being killed.
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
To those who support capital punishment: Given historical statistics, what percentage of wrongful convictions would you find acceptable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by DBursey:
To those who support capital punishment: Given historical statistics, what percentage of wrongful convictions would you find acceptable?
8.3%
(representing one of 12 jurors)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Paris, NY, Rome, etc
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Murder? Excuting a murderer isn't murder.
It protects society be ensuring that that person will never murder again. Even life in prison doesn't ensure that. Think about the "lesser" offenders who have to serve time with murderers. I'm sure it's more of a danger for them, and they deserve the chance to serve their time without worrying about being killed.
Aye, murder is a rather subjective term anyway. Shouldn't have used it. But anyway while I think most people can agree that certain extreme cases might justify a death penalty, most cases are not as cut and dry. People who kill other people SHOULD be stopped from ever having the chance to do it again - including other prisoners.
I always thought killing another human should be a last resort, kill or be killed type of action. Otherwise, the society that I'd want to live in would ALWAYS try and find another solution. And this is in spite of having worked for a court in the Bronx, where I saw more footage of violent crime scenes and dead bodies than anyone would ever care to.
I just don't have faith in the system to do the right thing in EVERY instance, and thus it's very certain that innocents will be executed in the process. I don't think that is ever justifiable.
|
Adopt-A-Yankee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Floreeda
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by 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?
wasn't Lacy like, 8 months pregnant? isn't it illegal to get an abortion that late anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Floreeda
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by MacNStein:
Murder? Excuting a murderer isn't murder.
It protects society be ensuring that that person will never murder again. Even life in prison doesn't ensure that. Think about the "lesser" offenders who have to serve time with murderers. I'm sure it's more of a danger for them, and they deserve the chance to serve their time without worrying about being killed.
so we're supposed to kill the "murderers" (they might be innocent, who knows) to save the other people in jail? correct me if i'm wrong, cause i probably am, but aren't most "lesser" offenders in a different jail then murders? aren't the prison guards supposed to keep the prisoners out of danger, or do they just stand around until someone tries to escape or something?
btw, shouldn't putting someone in jail for life be protecting society anyway? can't i say the same excuse when i decide to murder someone? what if i murdered a murderer or a rapist, i'm protecting society right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by fireside:
wasn't Lacy like, 8 months pregnant? isn't it illegal to get an abortion that late anyway?
no, it's never too late, silly.
What if she was 8 weeks pregnant? Should Scott still be sentenced for killing the unborn child?
What if Scott wanted the child and Lacey planned to abort it? Should Scott still be sentenced for killing the unborn child? I mean, she was gonna pay somebody else to end it's life, anyways, right?
What if Lacey had an abortion. And later wanted the doctor to be charged with murder. After all, he killed her child...in a premeditated, planned way at that. And did it for reasons of greed and personal gain. Just like Scott did.
I mean, it's still a child in the eyes of the law - even unborn. Obviously, since they convicted a man of killing an unborn child.
And that opens up a huge can of worms for the pro-choice crowd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by fireside:
so we're supposed to kill the "murderers" (they might be innocent, who knows) to save the other people in jail? correct me if i'm wrong, cause i probably am, but aren't most "lesser" offenders in a different jail then murders? aren't the prison guards supposed to keep the prisoners out of danger, or do they just stand around until someone tries to escape or something?
btw, shouldn't putting someone in jail for life be protecting society anyway? can't i say the same excuse when i decide to murder someone? what if i murdered a murderer or a rapist, i'm protecting society right?
No. I know people who are spending several years in state prison for lesser offenses (grand theft auto, shoplifting, extortion, etc.) and they're being kept in the same prison and cell block as convicted murderers. Also, the guards can only do so much, if one of those animals truly wants you dead, you're dead.
Murdering a murderer or rapist? It's not our place to serve as judge, jury, and executioner. We have the rule of law, and given all the circumstances, it does a very good job. Vigilantism is unacceptable.
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by blythe:
Intentionally klling someone is not always murder. You don't seem to consider the context. Is every soldier fighting in a war a murderer in your view? They, by the very nature of war, kill plenty of innocent people, as well as soldiers forcibly drafted and made to fight. I doubt you would consider them murderers. The same is true for the state that executes a murderer.
I do consider war. This is in the realm of "Self-defense". One is defeding the lives of others. Don't you people read what I write before commenting?
The same is not true in my humble oppinion to the state. This person is under guard and in custody. There is a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NOT America!
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
These people are Americans. Don't expect anything meaningful or... uh... normalcy...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
no, it's never too late, silly.
Yes it is, there is a cutoff time.
What if she was 8 weeks pregnant? Should Scott still be sentenced for killing the unborn child?
Yes.
What if Scott wanted the child and Lacey planned to abort it? Should Scott still be sentenced for killing the unborn child? I mean, she was gonna pay somebody else to end it's life, anyways, right?
If she planned to abort it I would still say yes. He had no medical training on a procedure, and he did it prematurely when she could have changed her mind.
What if Lacey had an abortion. And later wanted the doctor to be charged with murder. After all, he killed her child...in a premeditated, planned way at that. And did it for reasons of greed and personal gain. Just like Scott did.
Um, no the doctor was hired to perform the procedure. It is rather presumptuous of you to think ALL doctors only do their work for greed and personal gain now isn't it.
I mean, it's still a child in the eyes of the law - even unborn. Obviously, since they convicted a man of killing an unborn child.
Of course it was a child had it been brought to term, wasn't a monkey. What are you trying to get at?
And that opens up a huge can of worms for the pro-choice crowd.
No you just like to pretend it does.
What if we had a crystal ball the child was going to die anyway before birth, would you charge him with the murder of it?
I can come up with silly questions too.
What if you were going to have sex with someone, yet the day before they raped you. Would the guy be charged with rape if it was known you were steadily having sex and were planning to the next night?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: sleep
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
8.3%
(representing one of 12 jurors)
You should hope your neighbor never ends up dead with a missing fetus. And holy ****, what if the fetus turns up in your garbage can?
They raid you computer and search for "abortion" and "spliffdaddy" on MacNN. That would look bad. So what if you get death. We get revenge.
8.3%
I would prefer to have 99 guilty people rot before I would want 1 innocent person to die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|