Formal Debate - the death penalty

[vslayer]

bush is a factor, but you have to remember that there is more to the evil american overlords than jsut bush, he has an entire party backing him, and that party is backed by 50%of yanks, so that just makes the death penalty issue even more fence sitting

 

[spuriousmonkey]

That begs the question if all those people that voted for a world leader that orders attrocities such as the unnecessary murdering of civilians also should receive the death penalty. If I am not mistaken you would also be guilty of murder under the american law system if you support someone to commit murder or don't stop him doing so.

 

[duendy]

yeah spyke, you're the 'someone' thats done it int ya?
and please dont direct my vitriol. i am quite capable of knowing when, and where, to direct it ta

having said that, do YOu not see the relevance of why i bring it up in this discussion, about the death penalty that BushCo loves?
if not, please explain to the ladies and gentlemen if you'd be soooo kind?

 

[Spyke]

Since you asked. And I'll use your own words -

If 'formal debate' means that one mustn't mention about the MULTIPLE murderous foulness of Mr preseedent, who keeps the death penalty fat with planty sacrifical victims, then formal debate can go and %$£* itself. i want no part in it.

Wanting no part of it means staying out of it, not mucking up someone else's thread with your own propaganda. It's like an anti-abortion critic demanding equal time on the microphone at an anti-war rally. If you want to condemn Bush, there is the 'One Thread To Rule Them All' where you can rail to your heart's content about Iraq without ruining this thread.

 

[§outh§tar]

Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder, because they have taken the life of another, have forfeited their own right to life. Furthermore, they believe, capital punishment is a just form of retribution, expressing and reinforcing the moral indignation not only of the victim's relatives but of law-abiding citizens in general.

[...]

Supporters of capital punishment also claim that it has a uniquely potent deterrent effect on potentially violent offenders for whom the threat of imprisonment is not a sufficient restraint.

[..]

Those who support capital punishment believe that it is possible to fashion laws and procedures that ensure that only those who are really deserving of death are executed.

And finally, our ultimate trump card, used way before us by the slave masters in their attempt to justify slavery.

The Greeks were a civilized society and they did it, so that means we can do it too!!!

Capital punishment for murder, treason, arson, and rape was widely employed in ancient Greece under the laws of Draco (fl. 7th century BC), though Plato argued that it should be used only for the incorrigible. The Romans also used it for a wide range of offenses, though citizens were exempted for a short time during the republic. It also has been sanctioned at one time or another by most of the world's major religions.Followers of Judaism and Christianity, for example, have claimed to find justification for capital punishment in the Old Testament passage “Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). Yet capital punishment has been prescribed for many crimes not involving loss of life, including adultery and blasphemy. The ancient legal principle Lex talionis (talion)—“an eye-for-an-eye, a tooth-for-a-tooth, a life-for-a-life”—which appears in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, was invoked in some societies to ensure that capital punishment was not disproportionately applied.

And so we have presented moral, utilitarian, practical, and historical arguments in favor.

[Note: The above does not necessarily reflect my views, only trying to stimulate something. //End backdoor cop-out]

 

[Asguard]

how can ANY risk of killing an inocent be concidered to be justifide? In a sociatly that values life how can we aford to take that risk? would you favor charging the judge who handed down a sentance of death to an inocent man with murder? how about the jury? or the prosicutor? After all that is what they have done, they have taken an inocent life in cold blood which is the definition of murder.

 

[Tiassa]

This is going ... well.

 

[§outh§tar]

how can ANY risk of killing an inocent be concidered to be justifide? In a sociatly that values life how can we aford to take that risk? would you favor charging the judge who handed down a sentance of death to an inocent man with murder? how about the jury? or the prosicutor? After all that is what they have done, they have taken an inocent life in cold blood which is the definition of murder.

Remember this truth:

No one has earned the right to live.

 

[duendy]

m

Since you asked. And I'll use your own words -



Wanting no part of it means staying out of it, not mucking up someone else's thread with your own propaganda. It's like an anti-abortion critic demanding equal time on the microphone at an anti-war rally. If you want to condemn Bush, there is the 'One Thread To Rule Them All' where you can rail to your heart's content about Iraq without ruining this thread.

But you avoided my question. i asked you to explain why it is you do not see the relevance of a State that sponoros and carries mass murder, and pollution of Nature isn't relevant to this discussion?
Why do you wanna get rid of this aspect. VERY important aspect i might say.