Innocence Lost

[Sayonara]

That's not an ad hominem, even if you are excessively liberal beyond all reason with your definition of the term.

[Rakasha]

That's not an ad hominem[/i'], even if you are excessively liberal beyond all reason with your definition of the term.

 

That's a rather harsh thing to say. Are you willing to claim a coincidence ? I mean, right after I questioned his logic, he insinuated in an unrelated post that I am an hypocrite, an extremist, a baby killer, a supporter of serial killers and a an uncomprehensible person of contradicted nature.

 

Man, I think it is reasonable to say that it was indeed in the nature of an A.H.

 

Moreso:

 

He quoted out of context my not exactly serious comment about puncturing a baby's head. In context, it was a simply some bad humor paired with my statement that, in some moral question, one must put aside some of his feelings. Simply because something is not necessary immoral because it is disturbing when confronted in person. Being in favor of death row, he is fully aware of what I mean. Yet he (needlessly) quoted this joke comment that obviously mislead any reader to conclude that I have no feelings.

 

Also, he presented me as being completely sure of myself in the case of a borderline situation concerning abortion (partial abortion during natural birth). Yet I stated, in another thread, that such a case was blured and indeed borderline moral to me by default. No, there's no denying that he purposedly and falsely portraited me as an extremist.

 

True, he did not put in my name. He simply put in my formal introduction line on this thread. He could have, you know, not quoted me since it makes me completely recognizable. Plus, censorship imply that something is bad. It's like he shot a video, blured my face and talked about my twisted nature. Definitively negative. Not that anonymity is negative, but faking it sure is.

 

Meh, not that I'm making a huge deal of it. There's is'nt much more to say about this. zzz

 

I'll respond to your post later this afternoon Rakasha.

 

It's cool, pal, nobody's pants are on fire. But I am guilty of badly starting this discussion so I have a recomendation : let's not get in a quote fight of epic proportion. We can keep it simple.

 

Here: I live in Canada and we do not apply the death penalty. Can you make a list of one sentenced reason about why we are wrong and why we should start killing some of our inmates ?

[Tetrahedrite]

"thou shall not kill"

Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17

[JaKiri]

"thou shall not kill"

Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17

 

Indeed.

[Tetrahedrite]

Has anyone considered that death may be too good for some of these criminals? I would prefer to see a violent criminal spend his/her whole life in gaol and then die, rather than being killed with no suffering.

[Tesseract]

"thou shall not kill"

Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17

 

Ezekiel 25

17 I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the LORD , when I take vengeance on them.' "

[JaKiri]

Revenge, and emotions in general, aren't a good basis for a system of governance.

[Rakasha]

Has anyone considered that death may be too good for some of these criminals? I would prefer to see a violent criminal spend his/her whole life in gaol and then die, rather than being killed with no suffering.

 

 

Well, I'm not sure if it is an important issue. I mean, suicide is'nt really denied to them. I believe it is their opinion that prevails on whether they would rather die.

 

Should jails incorporate a suicide booth ? hummm...

[Tesseract]

Revenge, and emotions in general, aren't a good basis for a system of governance.

neither is the bible

[john5746]

I find myself in the middle on this thing - if that is possible. To me, the main justification for capital punishment is economic. Sure, it makes the surviving victims feel better when a criminal is killed (in some cases), but that doesn't help society IMO. It is just plain irritating to have to pay to keep these people alive, not because we can't afford it, but because they don't deserve it. Do they deserve medical care? How much?

 

On the other hand, I find it strange that people don't want government messing with business, healthcare, education, etc. Government can't seem to do anything right, in fact, we need guns to protect ourselves from it. But, boy they can kill citizens all day long! You would think the argument would be to privatize this death penalty. Or even outsource it to China. I bet they kill people very cheap.

 

Seriously, to even consider the death penalty - I don't think EVERY first degree murderer should be killed. Scott Peterson would be a good case in point. He murdered his wife and child and is convicted. But, all evidence is circumstantial - I don't think you kill someone on this kind of evidence. No, this penalty should be used very rarely if at all.

[Tetrahedrite]

I find myself in the middle on this thing - if that is possible. To me' date=' the main justification for capital punishment is economic. Sure, it makes the surviving victims feel better when a criminal is killed (in some cases), but that doesn't help society IMO. It is just plain irritating to have to pay to keep these people alive, not because we can't afford it, but because they don't deserve it. Do they deserve medical care? How much?

[/quote']

It costs more to kill a person than keep them in gaol!!!

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=7&did=918

[john5746]

It costs more to kill a person than keep them in gaol!!!

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=7&did=918

 

Yes, I realize that and stated that earlier - that is why I am opposed to the death penalty. Not because of religion or morals, just plain economics.

[revprez]

"There might be an escape from prison" is an argument for improving the prison system's processes, not for state-sanctioned murder.

 

It is an argument for both insofar as "state-sanctioned murder" is a final solution for an incarceration design problem that may never be solved by other means.

 

Rev Prez

[Sayonara]

Post #52

Nevertheless, it was not an ad hominem. If you are going to accuse people of logical fallacies it would be a good idea to know what that fallacy actually is.

 

 

I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the LORD , when I take vengeance on them.

Which is entirely consistent with god (allegedly) constantly saying things like "don't judge people with a view to exacting vengeance on them - that's my job."

 

If you are going to make arguments from religion, you can't have it both ways.

 

 

Yes, I realize that and stated that earlier - that is why I am opposed to the death penalty. Not because of religion or morals, just plain economics.

I am of the opinion that economics should never be a factor in that decision. There is a difference between having a cost-effective justice system, and placing arbitrary monetary values on human life.

 

 

It is an argument for both insofar as "state-sanctioned murder" is a final solution for an incarceration design problem that may never be solved by other means.

Well, ignoring for the moment the false dilemma that is "incarceration or death", I disagree.

 

Killing someone just in case they [insert random act here] is in no way comparable to any other precautionary measure, as it cannot ever be rescinded and is assuming rights that society has deemed unacceptable on a per-individual basis.

 

If you wish to argue that people should be killed rather than jailed because it will stop them escaping, go right ahead. But be warned that (a) it is by its very nature an extremist position, and (b) it will be torn to shreds.

 

As a starter for ten, you might want to have a think about the fact that death row exists.

[atinymonkey]

If you're talking about vigilante executions, YES, all unlawful.

I was not.

 

If you're talking about judge/jury sanctioned executions' date=' NO, all lawful.

Yes, I favor execution, I'm like a sheep that follows the 60% of Americans that also favor executions. [/quote']

Lawful is not the point. Using due process still puts innocent people in the gas chamber. The American legal system is too crude, as O J Simpson and countless other cases proved, for the results to be categorized as accurate in all cases.

 

Labelling criminals as an ethnic group is a dangerously thin line to walk, because then putting people in jail starts to become a form of ethnic cleansing when you do that.

That was my point really, the definition always seems to be them and us. Criminals are labeled and processed, rather than being looked at as individuals.

[JaKiri]

Government can't seem to do anything right, in fact, we need guns to protect ourselves from it.

 

Methinks Europe is a good counterexample to your 'citizens need guns' thang.

[atinymonkey]

Europe is fictional, like Atlantis and Finland. What matters is the Americans view on America, not this pinko talk about the rights of an individual .

[blike]

You equate prison with the death penalty; however, the freedom of the state is a right provided by the state. Life is not. To put it another way; does the state define what you can do or what you can't?

In my case the state defines both. Nonetheless, by having citizenship in a society one succumbs to their social justice system, whether they agree with it or not. By existing in our society, people submit their fundamental rights (such as the right to life) to the state. In return, the state promises to defend those rights to the fullest against criminals and against enemies. And thus, a social contract is born. The state, which defines the freedom to live as the law of God and nature, shows its citizens that there is nothing as sacred as human life by implementing capital punishment. If a state is to call itself a truly just state, in life and in death, then no time spent in jail and no amount of money can ever balance the taking of a human life. Capital punishment speaks to the victims of murder as well as society by declaring that the loss of a human life is the most reprehensible and vile thing on this planet, and that the state, through a jury of your peers, will seek retribution for your loss. This is the agreement you enter into by entering the United States of America. The society of this country has a social contract with the state that says "life is sacred. Nothing ever shall impenge on the right to live except society itself, acting in response to a wrongful death through a jury of our peers."

[atinymonkey]

But that's simply saying that the state can do as it wishes, and side steps the moral obligation and surrounding issues by placing the decision on the Govenment.

 

Besides which, the United States of America only administers the death penalty in a number of states, showing a clear discrepancy in the governments value for rights given to it's citizens.

 

The comment 'The state, which defines the freedom to live as the law of God and nature, shows its citizens that there is nothing as sacred as human life by implementing capital punishment' make no sense. There is no balance between respecting life on one hand above all other things, and completly disregarding life on the other. It also doesn't remotely tally with the 'Law of God' which expressly forbids the taking of another persons life.

[Sayonara]

Still not getting how taking a human life is supposed to illustrate that the loss of a human life is the most reprehensible and vile thing on this planet.

 

I agree that it is, but I'm still not seeing how killing yet someone else makes it any clearer, or helps stop murder. I mean, the victim's family (if there are any) already know that killings are not very nice.

[JaKiri]

"Resolved, that the inhabitants of this Province are unalienably entitled to those essential rights ["founded in the law of God and of Nature"] in common with all men: and that no law of society can, consistent with the law of God and nature, divest them of those rights."

 

We can quote contradictory things from pre C20 american politics all day long.

[Sayonara]

Something else to think about right now is that we're only discussing why certain states can execute people, not how it is right that they do.

[blike]

But that's simply saying that the state can do as it wishes, and side steps the moral obligation and surrounding issues by placing the decision on the Govenment.

What moral issues? The right to life? You submit this to the government just as you submit your right to freedom and the persuit of happiness, which are also basic human rights.

 

Besides which, the United States of America only administers the death penalty in a number of states, showing a clear discrepancy in the governments value for rights given to it's citizens.

It is suspended in certain states because of the ambiguity with which it is executed and a small but significant number of those exhonerated post-mortem, as well as constitutionality issues. I completely agree with this. The supreme court must again rule whether or not the death penalty is constitutional (they will likely rule in favor). There also must be federally enforced guidelines (i.e. when to use it, what sort of proof must be present, etc.)

 

This is the beauty of our state system. States have the freedom, within the bounds of the federal government, to do what is best for it's own people. If a state does not feel justice is being properly executed in the manner in which they are implementing capital punishment, then they are free to stop using it.

 

The federal government makes provisions for the use of capital punishment. The supreme law of the land states that the death penalty is moral.

 

It also doesn't remotely tally with the 'Law of God' which expressly forbids the taking of another persons life.

No, the "Law of God" forbids murder. It does not forbid capital punishment. Somebody quoted exodus ealier which I found quite humerous. "Thou shalt not kill".

 

Exodus 2112: He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

 

Deuteronomy 19:11-12: But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.

 

There is no balance between respecting life on one hand above all other things, and completly disregarding life on the other.

The only one completely disregarding life is the murderer (both his own and his victims). As I said before, the purpose of the justice system is to execute justice. If a system truely regards life as invaluable, then it must act in accordance with that belief by acting justly.

 

Furthermore, your sentence could just as easily read: There is no balance between respecting the right to freedom on one hand above all other things, and completly disregarding the right to freedom of another.

[blike]

"Resolved' date=' that the inhabitants of this Province are unalienably entitled to those essential rights ["founded in the law of God and of Nature"'] in common with all men: and that no law of society can, consistent with the law of God and nature, divest them of those rights."

 

We can quote contradictory things from pre C20 american politics all day long.

I don't think this is speaking to capital punishment. The writers lived in a society in which capital punishment was routine. Do you think they would write this and then turn around and implement capital punishment if they felt the two were contradictory?

[Douglas]

I was not.

All trial by jury executions have been lawful.

 

Lawful is not the point. Using due process still puts innocent people in the gas chamber. The American legal system is too crude, as O J Simpson and countless other cases proved, for the results to be categorized as accurate in all cases.

Lawful IS the point, you brought it up.

To my knowledge, there have been NO proven cases of wrongful executions, there are several cases of suspected wrongful executions.

 

 

Criminals are labeled and processed, rather than being looked at as individuals.

Where did you get this from?

If anything, killers label and process their victims, rather than look at them as indivuals.