Without the Death Penalty....?

[Norsefire]

No. It's just that is is wrong to lower yourself to the same level as murderers.

This may not be a direct response to me, but I'll remark on it anyway; I agree with you, it is wrong to lower yourself to the level of murderers.

Good thing execution isn't murder, then.

Yes, the state has a "right" to imprison or kill people. The question is whether it is moral to do so - a point you obviously missed.

It is moral to both execute and imprison for life, for they are both the same in essence with only your next point having any merit.

As to "taking away somebody's life", one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty, that your ignore (as usual) is that innocent people get convicted of crimes they haven't committed. If the state kills them, there's no correcting that wrong.

I don't ignore it; I already said that is no reason to go easy on criminals.

There are ways and means around that; we could, for instance, give all people on death row a period wherein we monitor their progress; if, after this certain period, they are calm and earnest in improving themselves, their sentence can be commuted and they can be rehabilitated. If they are not improved, they can be executed.

If the convicted are innocent, then they will never face execution for they will certainly be earnest to get out; only the actual psychopaths will be executed.

Problem solved. A society must be merciful to those that want mercy, and ruthless on those that don't deserve it.

And society does, those criminals are imprisoned.

Why bother with that? Executing them, or giving them for scientific experimentation...these things are much more efficient and, in the case of the latter, the criminals might do some good yet.

That's because the majority of the people in the States are poorly educated and uncivilized. Most decent countries abolished the death penalty years ago.

Being soft doesn't make a country 'decent'.

Decent countries are tough on crime; like Japan and the United States, which both employ and enjoy support for the death penalty.

Uncivilized countries that give in to criminals.......why should we follow their example?

I didn't just make up the concept of justice. It's been around for a year or two at least.

Let's define justice first.

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

And as to life in prison, is it also wrong to lower yourself to the same level as a kidnapper holding a hostage for the rest of their lives?

The state does not hold prisoners hostage. They serve their time, then they are released. The worst ones may get a life sentence, but they aren't being held hostage. There is no ransom demand.

The people of a state or nation determine "moral or not moral"...

No they don't. I've explained this to you previously. I guess you're getting old and you forgot. Never mind.

... and according to numerous polls (you believe in polls even as I do not) the American people believe its okay to execute vicious murderers and rapists.

So what?

In the USA, the people haven't been permitted to vote on the issue (except in a few states?) ...our activist judges in the states that don't have capital punishment have taken the law into their own hands to make that determination - which is against everything that the law stands for! Judges shouldn't make the law, they should uphold it!!

Unless the US is radically different to Australia, I do not believe that judges make law on capital punishment. It is legislated.

So what are you saying? ...that human life is, somehow, sacred and/or valuable above and beyond that of simply being another animal on Earth?

The right to life is a fundamental human right. Call it "sacred" if that makes you happy.

See? Why is that man's life so valuable to you, James?

Because I would want the same respect given to my life.

You believe in evolution, so you must believe that humans are simply a small step above the apes. So....?

You misunderstand evolution. No animal is "above" any other, so no, I don't believe humans are a "step above" the apes. Given your faulty understanding, probably whatever argument you're trying to make regarding evolution is false.

If the state executes the wrong man, well, okay, it was a mistake, they could apologize to the family and perhaps give them a couple of dollars in restitution.

That will hardly make it up to the man himself, will it?

And, James, if the state puts someone in prison for the crime, instead of executing them, the state can't "correct" that mistake either. The man has spent however-many-years as a kidnap victim. Ain't no correcting that either.

If a life sentence is corrected to time served (let's say 6 months before the error is discovered) + compensation, I'd say that's a correction. Wouldn't you?

 

[Syzygys]

So what?

His point was, if the majority agrees that a certain thing is a good thing, than by definition, it is a moral thing, because morals are set by the majority's opinion, like it or not.

The right to life is a fundamental human right. Call it "sacred" if that makes you happy.

Hate to break it to you, but there are no fundamental human rights. But if there was, the murder victims certainly didn't have it....To take it further, if you believe in human rights, equality should be one, and there is obviously no equality between murderer and murder victims (according to you)<<<<contradicting yourself...

Let me ask a general question to the anti-DP people:

How come that seemingly intelligent people can't come up with decent arguments or logical thinking when it comes to DP? They act like it is a religion and defend their position with the same orthodoxy just like a believer would do, never acknowledging when the pro-DP has a good point.

Well, on the other hand, nevermind...

 

[Baron Max]

The state does not hold prisoners hostage. They serve their time, then they are released. The worst ones may get a life sentence, but they aren't being held hostage. ...

You're right, James, I used the wrong term. Glad to see that you latched onto that simple mistake, ignoring any and all of the obvious points I was making. I call your type of response "dishonest".

But you're against the death penalty because it's immoral, right? But is it moral to hold someone in a small cage for the rest of their lives? How is that moral when execution is not?

The right to life is a fundamental human right.

What's that mean? Where did it come from?

Is there a fundamental right not to be locked into a cage and denied freedom for umpty-eleven years or for the rest of their lives?

If a life sentence is corrected to time served + compensation, I'd say that's a correction. Wouldn't you?

But from your position on morality, is it moral in the first place for the state to sentence a person to live in a small cage for life (or whatever time is selected)? You deem it immoral to take a person's life, you call it a "fundamental right to life", yet you're perfectly willing to take away his freedom, to lock him in a cage, where he has almost no real life? Is there no "fundamental right not to be locked into a cage for life"? Geez, James, seems to me that's far more cruel and immoral than executing him.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

The state does not hold prisoners hostage. They serve their time, then they are released. The worst ones may get a life sentence, but they aren't being held hostage. There is no ransom demand.

I didn't catch it the first time, James, but I see now that you're being your usual dishonest self in posting responses to the comments of others. Let's examine this a bit. I said: "... And as to life in prison, is it also wrong to lower yourself to the same level as a kidnapper holding a hostage for the rest of their lives? ..." See? Note the words "...same level as....", I didn't say exactly the same as.

So, as is your usual tact when confronted with a difficult question or comment, you used dishonesty to deflect the real issue in the question or comment.

Now .......let's explore this issue a little more closely, okay?

The right to life is a fundamental human right.

You're a big one on the fundamental rights of humans, James, and you cite it often in response to issues like this death penalty issue. But, James, freedom is also considered a "fundamental human right" according to the UN. And yet you seem perfectly willing to deny a criminal that fundamental right without so much as a blink of an eye. If the state can deny one human right, why can't it deny the other.

And as to the issue of human rights, James, how is it that a state can punish the violations of a basic human right by ...yeah, get this, ...by taking away another person's basic human rights?

If a life sentence is corrected to time served (let's say 6 months before the error is discovered) + compensation, I'd say that's a correction. Wouldn't you?

Does the UN declaration suggest that punishment for violation of human rights is the denial of the basic human rights of another individual? Is that part of the UN declaration?

And if human rights can be so easily taken away, then perhaps they aren't nearly so "fundamental" as you keep trying to say or imply. And perhaps they're more like I've been saying ....that human rights are gained for a people through the power of the gun! And, equally important, they can be taken away through the power of the gun.

Baron Max

 

[parmalee]

for those of you who are in favor of the death penalty: are you satisfied with the judicial systems in your respective countries? is it appropriate that those who are on death row have committed overtly violent crimes, while the hundreds or thousands who commit crimes by proxy, which result in the deaths of hundreds or thousands, consistently evade such "punishments"? is it plausible that, given the strikingly disproportionate representation of individuals of certain socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds on death row, such individuals are far more apt to commit such heinous offenses; or might this be reflective of judicial bias--both with respect to who is more likely to commit these crimes and the nature of crimes which are considered to be greater offenses?

 

[John99]

Commiting crimes 'by proxy' is hard to prove and the incidence of wrongful prosecution is high. That saaid, people do get cpnvicted as conspirators.

 

[Baron Max]

for those of you who are in favor of ....(snip)... to be greater offenses?

Is there something wrong with you that you can't type up simple posts with simple questions or comments? Why are all of your posts ramblimg, non-sensical, jumbling word puzzles?

Do you have some horrible brain disease or something? I've never read any post by you that didn't just ramble and jump all around and ultimately end up as a jumbled mess of words.

Baron Max

 

[parmalee]

Is there something wrong with you that you can't type up simple posts with simple questions or comments? Why are all of your posts ramblimg, non-sensical, jumbling word puzzles?

Do you have some horrible brain disease or something? I've never read any post by you that didn't just ramble and jump all around and ultimately end up as a jumbled mess of words.

Baron Max

is reading really all that hard for you, Max? shall we take a poll? does anyone else here have any difficulty understanding the preceding post?

shall i go through all of your posts and provide dozens of examples in which you have either been called out for not understanding the post to which you are responding? or for completely misconstruing what was written?

 

[parmalee]

Commiting crimes 'by proxy' is hard to prove and the incidence of wrongful prosecution is high. That saaid, people do get cpnvicted as conspirators.

that was kind of my point--but at the same time, even when a person is convicted for crimes "by proxy," the penalty is invariably far less severe.

 

[Baron Max]

is reading really all that hard for you, Max? shall we take a poll? does anyone else here have any difficulty understanding the preceding post?

Well, look at your post! No capital letters at the beginnings of sentences. Poorly worded English structure for sentences. Run-on sentences and thoughts. Poor punctuation. Rambling thoughts right in the middle of another thought. No paragraphs for distinct thoughts/ideas.

I've noticed several others have had difficulties with your posts, so it's not just me. Take some English grammar lessons, it would do you good.

Your English grammar sucks giant donkey dicks!

Baron Max

 

[parmalee]

Well, look at your post! No capital letters at the beginnings of sentences. Poorly worded English structure for sentences. Run-on sentences and thoughts. Poor punctuation. Rambling thoughts right in the middle of another thought. No paragraphs for distinct thoughts/ideas.

I've noticed several others have had difficulties with your posts, so it's not just me. Take some English grammar lessons, it would do you good.

Your English grammar sucks giant donkey dicks!

Baron Max

sure, and that is why i get paid well for proof-reading, editing, and fact-checking.

sorry, Max. your reading comprehension sucks.

oh, shall i punctuate as you do?????????????????????????

Your reading comprehension sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

don't bother responding, as soon as i locate the "ignore" feature, you will be on "ignore." you were entertaining for a while, but the inane ramblings of a lonely, old man become boring after a time.

 

[John99]

that was kind of my point--

Kind of? Didnt seem like it.

but at the same time, even when a person is convicted for crimes "by proxy," the penalty is invariably far less severe.

Not true.

 

[John99]

In fact the punishment can be more severe.

 

[parmalee]

Kind of? Didnt seem like it.

how so? how was i not alluding to wrongful and/or biased prosecution and unnoticed, or inadedquately prosecuted, crimes by proxy?

Not true.

really? so how many people who've committed such crimes by proxy are on death row?

 

[John99]

how so? how was i not alluding to wrongful and/or biased prosecution and unnoticed, or inadedquately prosecuted, crimes by proxy?

No one can be expected to know 'kind of'.

really? so how many people who've committed such crimes by proxy are on death row?

Have you ever heard of Charles Manson? Best to ask a law professor about others.

 

[Norsefire]

Baron Max:

The state does not hold prisoners hostage. They serve their time, then they are released. The worst ones may get a life sentence, but they aren't being held hostage. There is no ransom demand.

He meant that the state takes away their freedom; what gives the state the right to take away their freedom? If it is the law, then the law can also give the state the right to execute them for their crimes.

In other words, either the state has the right to punish or it doesn't. The distinction between life in prison and execution doesn't deserve any merit; it's superficial and meaningless. Both take away a person's life forever, and only your point on the reversibility of life in prison has any weight, and I have already addressed it. If execution is barbaric, then so is life in prison; if life in prison is not, then neither is execution.

No they don't. I've explained this to you previously. I guess you're getting old and you forgot. Never mind.

What alternative is there? What moral authority do you look to? God? I look to myself for moral authority; and of course you must do the same.

The right to life is a fundamental human right. Call it "sacred" if that makes you happy.

I agree with you; but in my opinion, that applies only to the just and deserving. The unjust don't deserve civility and respect; they deserve the ruthlessness that they give to others. They do not follow the golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. Or perhaps they do? Then, they murder others, they shall themselves lose their lives.

Because I would want the same respect given to my life.

Are you a murderer or a child rapist?

That will hardly make it up to the man himself, will it?

You ignored my response on how to correct these mistakes.

If a life sentence is corrected to time served (let's say 6 months before the error is discovered) + compensation, I'd say that's a correction. Wouldn't you?

No need to rule out the death penalty; there are ways and means around this.

 

[parmalee]

No one can be expected to know 'kind of'.

no. but most people can read.

Have you ever heard of Charles Manson? Best to ask a law professor about others.

charles manson killed hundreds or thousands of people? did you not understand what was intended by killing "by proxy"? one would think that the "less overt" part would have made it clear: i am talking about people whose actions result in the deaths of hundreds or thousands--they are typically white-collar sorts. and you are telling me that these people get more severe penalties?

 

[Syzygys]

Speaking of attempted murder, should the Shoebomber #2 get the DP? I say yes, just because he fucked it up, he still almost got an airliner down...

 

[James R]

Syzygys:

His point was, if the majority agrees that a certain thing is a good thing, than by definition, it is a moral thing, because morals are set by the majority's opinion, like it or not.

That is completely false - it's a plea to mob mentality. One thousand people shouting "Crucify him! Crucify him!" doesn't mean it is moral to crucify a person.

Hate to break it to you, but there are no fundamental human rights.

Sure there are. Check out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example.

To take it further, if you believe in human rights, equality should be one, and there is obviously no equality between murderer and murder victims (according to you)<<<<contradicting yourself...

Like Norsefire, you mistake equality before the law with all people being "the same". It's a basic error you're both making.

How come that seemingly intelligent people can't come up with decent arguments or logical thinking when it comes to DP?

What are you rambling on about? Just search for "death penalty" on google and in a couple of clicks you'll find excellent arguments against the death penalty. You make yourself look stupid when you're so obviously not aware of what you're arguing against.