It is currently Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:53 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Why a convicted murderer shouldn't die.....
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:35 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Posts: 5316
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA
In his own words.. All he did was murder some old lady who might have seen him steal a boat.....or something.

Included among the reasons.....he was oxygen deprived. He sucked his thumb as a child. Good enough reasons I suppose. Surely this man should be returned to society without punishment. He could start a new profession as a comedy writer, maybe run for president.

Couldn't be much worse than a few who are still running.... :lol:

_________________
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:57 am
Posts: 530
Location: US
While he is most definitely a sick individual, I still can't bring myself to say that he deserves death. I understand the need for retribution (not being sarcastic - I honestly do), but it's a line even on retributive grounds that I don't think the government should be allowed to cross.

I can understand - if you steal $50, then you owe $50. If you steal somebody's car, you must give their car back, but this doesn't always work. If you cut off someone's arm, should the government really cut your arm off? If you rape, murder, and dismember an individual, are you then to be raped, murdered, and dismembered by the government? It seems that there are some things that even a government (or an agency acting on behalf of "justice") should not be able to do, and something as heinous as depriving somebody of the one thing that everybody on Earth shares - life - seems to be such an action.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:51 am
Posts: 464
Location: Sweden, Stockholm
State sponsored murders. Hm sounds little like Germany in '30s to me. Now, this guy is sick but capital punishment is sick in it's self too.
Especially since in your justice system there's more then one case of ppl being sentenced to death just to be released later since they have been innocent... So what's your point ?

State murder is just plain wrong along with torture and such.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 5085
Location: UK
Quote:
I can understand - if you steal $50, then you owe $50. If you steal somebody's car, you must give their car back


actually if you steal $50 you owe more than $50. Not only should there be some kind of restitution, but also a fine/penalty for breaking the law, and also to compensate society/businesses for having to employ policemen/security guards.

basically criminals are free riders on the economic system who impose costs on everyone else. it's similar to how uninsured drivers cause premiums to rise for everyone, even safe, law-abiding drivers.

_________________
JFK:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean...someone who looks ahead, who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,who cares about the welfare of the people, who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad...then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:41 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
Isn't it incredible to see all the simpletons spout their logic? People who actually can think for themselves say far for intelligent things:

1. A quick death is too good for him.

2. Let him rot in jail.

3. Even a terminal bone cancen patient gets it, end this misery and pain now.

I have a friend who's a cop. From what he's seen he said if he got a life sentence for anything he wishes he could opt for death instead. Prison is just way too ugly.

But as always, some people just refuse to think and continue to spout whatever they hear.

Texas CP is a joke. Their murder rate is higher than many states that don't have any CP. Of course noticing that stat requires thinking. Duh.

And the whining continues. Same OP, same style.

And besides, treason isn't even a crime under GWB.

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Los Angeles, California
By all means, if someone is convicted of first degree murder, put them in prison and throw away the key.

If you believe that part of the problem in society is the desensitization to violence and death, then surely you would agree the justice system itself stay out of the business of killing.

If you believe that the government already wastes too much of your money, then you might be shocked how much the death penalty costs:
Quote:
A Duke University study found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million PER execution OVER the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life

Quote:
Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000"

Quote:
Texas death penalty cases cost more than non-capital cases:
That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.

Quote:
The Times concluded that Californians and federal taxpayers have paid more than a quarter of a billion dollars for each of the state's 11 executions, and that it costs $90,000 more a year to house one inmate on death row, where each person has a private cell and extra guards, than in general prison population. This additional cost per prisoner adds up to $57.5 million in annual spending.

So depending on the studies, one death penalty costs $1,500,000 to $2,500,000 MORE than the cost of life imprisonment.

Ask yourself if you want that money wasted on a backward process which is irreversible and has never been proven to bring "closure" to anyone but the murder? Ask yourself if you would prefer that money be used to put more officers on the street or to find other ways to improve the judicial system?

Life in prison is not only cheaper than the death penalty, it's also reversible in cases of wrongly convicted criminals (forced confessions, evidence planting, crooked cops, incorrect eyewitness identification...)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:17 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
Hey LAThierry,
Now you're confusing BF with facts.

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:52 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Killing is wrong; even if the State does it.

And obviously, it did not prevent this person from killing in the first place. So, what purpose(s) does executing them fulfill?

Another question you need to ask yourself: is the conviction ALWAYS fair? Because obviously, an execution is not reversible. A person who has been wrongly convicted can always be let out of prison.

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:14 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
See here you're asking not only BF to think, you're asking him how to he actually deal with all the cases DNA has proven the prosecution wrong.

Perhaps what the real question is why a liberal like you needs to seek the truth to the end while the conservative needs only the appearance of justice?

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:26 pm
Posts: 322
Location: Netherlands
How the hell is a life imprisonment cheaper then death penalty? o_O
1 bullet/rope/whatever vs 40-60 years of living off my money. Seems odd that supporting his life is cheaper then just ending it.

Anyway, if killing him is more expensive, life imprisonment it is.

_________________
Main rig: P180, Q6600 @ 2,9GHz with TRUE, 2GB RAM, 8800GT with Accelero S1 + ziptied Nexus fan. Total fans: 4, all Nexus Real Silent @ 5v
2nd rig: Lian Li A05b, P4 2,5Ghz with Andy, 2GB RAM, 7600GS Passive. Total fans: 2, both Nexus Real Silent @ 7v


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:28 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Posts: 5316
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA
Sure....like I said, let the guy go free. Life in prison would be cruel and unusual. And what did he do.....some old lady, beat her up and slit her throat. Didn't even use a gun. Big deal.

Hell OJ slit two throats....and went free. See what an outstanding citizen he's been since then.

A wood scaffold and a rope costs way too much. We could use the money to pay for the cable TV in the prisons. And the poor guy sucked his thumb when he was a kid....obviously a sign of impending insanity. Did you listen to him? Obviously a truthful, outstanding citizen. If we let him go free....maybe he could vote in the next election.

Everybody on death row is a Democrat....so I've heard anyway.

Oh....this is mostly sarcasm, digidonny. :lol:

_________________
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:51 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
aristide1 wrote:
See here you're asking not only BF to think, you're asking him how to he actually deal with all the cases DNA has proven the prosecution wrong.

Perhaps what the real question is why a liberal like you needs to seek the truth to the end while the conservative needs only the appearance of justice?
The goal is the best possible justice not absolute justice (which is impossible.) Some mistakes will be made, and that's reality.

We've already gotten into the positives and negatives of the death penalty in another loong thread. Everyone who disagrees with you is apparently unthinking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Los Angeles, California
Seraphyn, it may be counter intuitive but the math is easy once you realize the cost of the death penalty is mostly due to the trial costs as opposed to the cost of just "killing him."

In effect, you're paying for the time of the court, including judge(s), lawyers on both side, paralegals, court reporting, security for the length of the trial and guaranteed appeal(s), not to mention that during that time, the murderer is already incarcerated. It adds up so fast that it ends up, on average, being 3 times the cost of putting someone in a cell for the rest of their life, even including cost of security and food.

Now, if there's one thing we should all agree to hate is lawyers getting more money, right?

BlueFront wrote:
Sure....like I said, let the guy go free

BlueFront, it's one thing to have strong opinions but here I'm wondering if you lack reading comprehension. The very article you linked to makes it clear that the guy has already been found GUILTY, and that the trial in question is the sentencing phase. No one is talking about letting the murderer go free, ONLY you. The murderer himself isn't asking to be let go, ONLY you. An exaggeration like that is beyond sarcasm, I don't know what you're trying to say or prove...

Trip wrote:
The goal is the best possible justice not absolute justice (which is impossible.) Some mistakes will be made, and that's reality

Justice isn't served when some innocent person ends up in prison while the real criminal might still free. We shouldn't throw our hands in the air and accept mistakes made. Even if perfection is not achievable, we should always to strive for better, more accurate results, no matter the topic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:46 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
LAThierry wrote:
BlueFront, it's one thing to have strong opinions but here I'm wondering if you lack reading comprehension. The very article you linked to makes it clear that the guy has already been found GUILTY, and that the trial in question is the sentencing phase. No one is talking about letting the murderer go free, ONLY you. The murderer himself isn't asking to be let go, ONLY you. An exaggeration like that is beyond sarcasm, I don't know what you're trying to say or prove....

To ask BF to acknowledge facts would be to ask him to stray from the sheeple example he so dearly clings to. First and foremost he always needs to be the center of attention and clinging to sheeple logic has proven most effective for him, hasn't it?

You need to realize the lack of "reading comprehension" is purely intentional.

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:26 pm
Posts: 322
Location: Netherlands
LAThierry wrote:
Seraphyn, it may be counter intuitive but the math is easy once you realize the cost of the death penalty is mostly due to the trial costs as opposed to the cost of just "killing him."

In effect, you're paying for the time of the court, including judge(s), lawyers on both side, paralegals, court reporting, security for the length of the trial and guaranteed appeal(s), not to mention that during that time, the murderer is already incarcerated. It adds up so fast that it ends up, on average, being 3 times the cost of putting someone in a cell for the rest of their life, even including cost of security and food.


And people who don't get the death penalty don't appeal? I would assume everyone has the opportunity of the same amount of appeals at the same courts. Same goes for all those other costs. The justice system, after all, should be equal to all.

Personally, I'm only in favor of death penalties if they're cheaper then keeping someone locked up for the rest of his life, seems odd to do it when it is in fact more expensive (thus wasting 'our' money).

Quote:
Now, if there's one thing we should all agree to hate is lawyers getting more money, right?


Definitely :P

_________________
Main rig: P180, Q6600 @ 2,9GHz with TRUE, 2GB RAM, 8800GT with Accelero S1 + ziptied Nexus fan. Total fans: 4, all Nexus Real Silent @ 5v
2nd rig: Lian Li A05b, P4 2,5Ghz with Andy, 2GB RAM, 7600GS Passive. Total fans: 2, both Nexus Real Silent @ 7v


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:45 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Posts: 5316
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA
LAThierry...pretty easy to figure, using the Liberal logic of some of these posts. Since human life boils down to money....it costs too much to put him to death, and it also costs way to much to keep him in jail, just let him go free. Consider his punishment the minor embarrassment he's suffered.

Punishments of any sort never prevent crime...right? The old ladies life can't be brought back....right? Freedom for the guy would save the state any more expense. Everybody benefits...right?

Well.....except the old lady of course. But she's dead, violently murdered. Somehow I can't seem to forget that. I know others here already have.

_________________
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:01 am
Posts: 299
Location: Vancouver Wa USA
Wow, looks like I must be the person with the least reservations to using the death penalty here.

A few posts back, Neil states that killing is wrong. While I agree with his right to believe that, I disagree. There are different catagories of killing. Murder is wrong, but killing in self defense can be justified (individually and as a nation), and obviously not universally agreed to, also death penalty for severe crimes can be justified.

I think that we need to do the best that we can to protect society. As Neil says, we are human and convictions may not be 100% accurate, but that does not mean give up and do nothing.

If you take a small area, and pile in millions of creatures, be they ants or bees or humans, then there needs to be rules of interaction, and some sorts of rights recognized. If you get a defective individual that is severely violating the rights or safety of others, then for the good of the community, the defective one may need to be put out of the community.

If the crime is not addressed, then the rules become less clear and more individuals start acting in a selfish manner and also start violating the rights of others, and the community falls apart.

Turning on the daily news and seeing all of the murders and shootings and stupid tweakers stealing metal from bridges and digging up phone lines to sell the copper for their drugs, and I wonder how much more our "civilization" has left.

Waa, he deserves a second, third, xxx chance. Maybe, that is an opinion that I do not subscribe to. If the individual has done the community more harm than good, then the community has every right to put that person out.

We have a problem in that humans have spread and cover most of the earth. There is no where to put them out on their own, so we can not copy some animal species. We may have to face some tough decisions. To protect society, we may have the choice of warehousing an individual in a small cube and take care of them for years, or face up to the fact that we do not want them back in society, and can put them to death. I completely don't get why we want to pay to warehouse these individuals away from society.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:15 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
Bluefront wrote:
LAThierry...pretty easy to figure, using the Liberal logic of some of these posts. Since human life boils down to money....it costs too much to put him to death, and it also costs way to much to keep him in jail, just let him go free. Consider his punishment the minor embarrassment he's suffered.

Newsflash - Scooter Libby wasn't pardoned by a liberal.

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 5085
Location: UK
Quote:
Punishments of any sort never prevent crime...right? The old ladies life can't be brought back....right? Freedom for the guy would save the state any more expense. Everybody benefits...right?


You're caricaturing the arguments of the people who disagree with you (in fact I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything even vaguely approximating to the words you have put in their mouths). That's fine, I recognise the technique and use it myself from time to time. However both you and I know it is intellectually dishonest at best and just plain lazy at worst. how about actually engaging with the arguments that are put to you, rather than making up some straw men so you can shoot them down with gay abandon.

_________________
JFK:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean...someone who looks ahead, who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,who cares about the welfare of the people, who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad...then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Los Angeles, California
BlueFront wrote:
pretty easy to figure, using the Liberal logic of some of these posts. Since human life boils down to money....it costs too much to put him to death, and it also costs way to much to keep him in jail, just let him go free. Consider his punishment the minor embarrassment he's suffered

Maybe it makes you feel better to place the adjective "liberal" in front of everything you disagree with, but you use "liberal" ad nauseum to the point of forgetting what it means.

Is it really "liberal" to throw away the key and place a criminal in life imprisonment, which according to some is harsher than death, without the possibility of parole?

And is it really "liberal" to want to save tax payers' money at the same time?

In a way, the convicted murderer saying stupid stuff to persuade the judge to give him life imprisonment instead of death sounded a lot like BlueFront saying some stupid stuff and throwing in a healthy dose of the word "liberal". In the end, it doesn't matter because neither argument will stick.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:34 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
LAThierry wrote:
BlueFront wrote:
pretty easy to figure, using the Liberal logic of some of these posts. Since human life boils down to money....it costs too much to put him to death, and it also costs way to much to keep him in jail, just let him go free. Consider his punishment the minor embarrassment he's suffered

Maybe it makes you feel better to place the adjective "liberal" in front of everything you disagree with, but you use "liberal" ad nauseum to the point of forgetting what it means.

Is it really "liberal" to throw away the key and place a criminal in life imprisonment, which according to some is harsher than death, without the possibility of parole?

And is it really "liberal" to want to save tax payers' money at the same time?

In a way, the convicted murderer saying stupid stuff to persuade the judge to give him life imprisonment instead of death sounded a lot like BlueFront saying some stupid stuff and throwing in a healthy dose of the word "liberal". In the end, it doesn't matter because neither argument will stick.

Sound logic, just a refreshing change of pace.

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:46 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
jaganath wrote:
Quote:
Punishments of any sort never prevent crime...right? The old ladies life can't be brought back....right? Freedom for the guy would save the state any more expense. Everybody benefits...right?


You're caricaturing the arguments of the people who disagree with you (in fact I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything even vaguely approximating to the words you have put in their mouths). That's fine, I recognise the technique and use it myself from time to time. However both you and I know it is intellectually dishonest at best and just plain lazy at worst. how about actually engaging with the arguments that are put to you, rather than making up some straw men so you can shoot them down with gay abandon.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:58 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
I decided to see if I could verify what PJ ORourke said according to BF over here
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... ourke.html
But BFs quote is not there.

What is there is something BF should remember:
Quote:
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.


It should be noted that PJ is listed as a "comedian". While that seems OK for quotation for him, other people would be made of if they quoted Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. But since when have double standards ever bothered him?

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:12 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Posts: 5316
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA
Heh....I figured the "bleeding-hearts" out there would have trouble with this one.

Can't attempt to shift the blame to a gun.
Can't play the "race" card.
Can't say he's too young to die.
Can't blame the murder on poverty/unemployment.
Can't use the "he may be innocent" ploy.
Can't use the self-defense argument.

So what's left for a defense?

His actions prove him insane. (he may be trying to set up this defense while the case is being reviewed, considering his ridiculous statements).

The punishments don't stop crime defense. (countered by they might if the punishments were harsh enough)

Or the classic bleeding-heart defense. It's cruel for the state to execute murderers. ( maybe it is, maybe not. But it's legal in that state, and the jury and judge saw fit to sentence him to death).

So you don't like the bleeding-heart Liberal label? Start having sympathy for the victim and his family....rather than the convicted murderer.

_________________
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:30 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Hello,

You still are not reading.

Quote:
Killing is wrong; even if the State does it.

And obviously, it did not prevent this person from killing in the first place. So, what purpose(s) does executing them fulfill?

Another question you need to ask yourself: is the conviction ALWAYS fair? Because obviously, an execution is not reversible. A person who has been wrongly convicted can always be let out of prison.

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:03 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Posts: 5316
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA
Neil.....it's obvious killing is "right" under certain circumstances. Self-defense is one, finding yourself involved in a war is another. IMO....suicide is another, if you feel you cannot bear the pain any longer. Mercy killing ( a badly injured creature for instance) is sometimes justified.

So yeah, I see what you're getting at. You think the life of a murderer is more valuable than his death under a legal execution. I disagree.

As to "he may be innocent".....the man admitted his guilt, and he wasn't being tortured. What more proof do you need?

_________________
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
Bluefront wrote:
Neil.....it's obvious killing is "right" under certain circumstances. Self-defense is one, finding yourself involved in a war is another. IMO....suicide is another, if you feel you cannot bear the pain any longer. Mercy killing ( a badly injured creature for instance) is sometimes justified.

So yeah, I see what you're getting at. You think the life of a murderer is more valuable than his death under a legal execution. I disagree.

As to "he may be innocent".....the man admitted his guilt, and he wasn't being tortured. What more proof do you need?

Your the one doing the shifting. Everyone is talking about process, while you keep addressing the single case. That alone doesn't make the overall process for everyone correct.

You also ignore the fact that a lot of crazies who clearly didn't do it admit to crimes. The police ignore them after they rule them out. What would you do with them, with your "conservative" views?

I understand now while parrots are so loved. They repeat whatever they hear, there is no independent thought involved.

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:57 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Hello Carl,

Bluefront wrote:
Neil.....it's obvious killing is "right" under certain circumstances. Self-defense is one, finding yourself involved in a war is another. IMO....suicide is another, if you feel you cannot bear the pain any longer. Mercy killing ( a badly injured creature for instance) is sometimes justified.


Self defense by killing a person is pretty extreme, and I would think that such a case would have to be decided in court. I am not able to say that in all cases, it is okay to kill to defend yourself -- because one's judgment is distorted in a stressful situation, and overreaction is too easy.

War -- in a declared war such as WWII is possibly the only time I would not be a pacifist. But in just about all other wars I can think of, especially or current wars, killing -- and therefore war itself is completely wrong-headed and counterproductive; actually reducing our security.

As for euthanasia, I agree with you -- this is an important option that should be allowed, with the proper controls of course.

Bluefront wrote:
So yeah, I see what you're getting at. You think the life of a murderer is more valuable than his death under a legal execution. I disagree.

As to "he may be innocent".....the man admitted his guilt, and he wasn't being tortured. What more proof do you need?


A good, well written law must work in all situations. So, what is obvious in one situation may not be so easy to judge in another. You say this person admitted his guilt -- do we know the full circumstances of his admission? Was it coerced in any way, or is he suicidal and thinks this is an easier way to end his life?

The main point I'm trying to make is that there have been numerous mistakes made in convicting some people. Not just technicalities -- real and substantial errors, and some of these have shown that a person was innocent of the murder that they have already been executed for!

In these cases, the existing laws and the justice system have utterly failed. And when we fail at this level, the entire capitol punishment sentence should not be allowed. As I wrote before: you can exonerate a living person, if new evidence or mistakes are discovered.

There are other very strong reasons why I think capitol punishment is wrong: it doesn't deter crime, as is often claimed. It costs more money, and it has a high cost for the poor souls who have to carry out the execution. And it can't "teach" the murderer a lesson -- they get killed. OTOH, if they are forced to reconsider their actions for all the remaining days of their lives, they may choose to repent -- and even if they don't, why should we give them an easy out? I want them to suffer the guilt of what they have done.

Lastly, it seem that revenge is the only reason we execute people. Revenge is a ugly thing, and we should not lower ourselves. Nothing will bring the victim(s) back to life, and revenge is a false satisfaction.

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:05 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm
Posts: 5316
Location: St Louis (county) Missouri USA
So Niel....you want to spare the murderer his execution so he can "repent" while in prison, thus saving his soul. Something like that.....

This is a Christian way of looking at things, not of course shared by everyone, with no place in our judicial system. And you no doubt are sincere in your own belief...... but it is not shared by the State of Florida, nor the jury and judge who found him guilty and sentenced him to die.

The automatic review will no doubt confirm the verdict, and after ten years or so, he might die. I'd speed up the process.....90 days max. Plenty of time to "repent". Cost-effective.....

_________________
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:16 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 7:05 am
Posts: 618
Location: State College, PA
I have to agree with Neil - given the number of wrongful convictions in any criminal justice system, how can you really justify killing as a punishment, aside from any moral argument along the lines of "thou shalt not kill".

The fact that capital punishment doesn't act as a deterent (the US and China kill more criminals than everyone else put together, but still have stunningly high murder rates) makes CP come across as some Old Testament vengefulness.

And this has nothing to do with some poor old granny being murdered, so stop playing the populist line - it devalues your argument. No one's forgetting that someone was murdered and it's irrelevant to the argument whether it was Granny Smith or some hobo that no one liked, the principles are the same. Would you be banging your drum if it was some homeless guy that smelled of piss or a 20yr old Mexican illegal immigrant that was murdered by this guy?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group