Innocence Lost

[Sayonara]

Lawful IS the point' date=' you brought it up.

To my knowledge, there have been NO proven cases of wrongful executions, there are several cases of suspected wrongful executions.[/quote']

I think his point is that something being "not wrongful" in legal terms does not automatically make it morally right or preferable. To claim otherwise would be naive.

 

 

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

That's not relevant.

[JaKiri]

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

 

Thomas Jefferson didn't oppose slavery, yet supported 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.

 

Anyway, going back to your origional point...

 

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.

 

Does the state have the right to torture suspects?

 

Do we have the right to intervene in cases such as state sponsored genocide? The people there were members of the state, and therefore submitted their fundamental rights to it.

 

Your statement proposes a state with no boundaries of morality; is that what you meant to do?

 

If anything' date=' killers label and process their victims, rather than look at them as indivuals.[/quote']

 

That's the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

[JaKiri]

That's not relevant.

 

It's not only irrelevent, it's also not particularly true. The only murder I can think of that the murdered's individuality isn't relevent is a robbery related one.

[Douglas]

I think his point is that something being "not wrongful" in legal terms does not automatically make it morally right or preferable. To claim otherwise would be naive.

"Morally" is subjective. Apparently the bible sees it as morally right, and the jury sees it as legally and perhaps morally right.

[JaKiri]

I wanted to be the first to post this. God it's great.

[Sayonara]

It's not only relevent, it's also not particularly true. The only murder I can think of that the murdered's individuality isn't relevent is a robbery related one.

I take it you meant "It's not only irrelevant", based on your prior post?

 

Perhaps Douglas thinks only murderers get the death penalty, in which case he can be forgiven for taking that view.

 

 

"Morally" is subjective. Apparently the bible sees it as morally right, and the jury sees it as legally and perhaps morally right.

What has the bible got to do with a universal definition of morality? Are the courts a Christian institution?

 

What the jury sees as legal is, as I have pointed out in the very post you are replying to (and you are simply repeating the error), not necessarily the right thing to do. I know it's difficult to divine the correct course of action - that's my POINT.

 

 

The law exists to defend the rights that have been afforded by society to citizens. It is not a means of enforcing adherence to random religious beliefs, nor is it a means of exacting revenge.

 

Defence of the rights of individuals, or groups of individuals, should always seek to have the minimum necessary impact (i.e. - not excessive) on the rights of the defendent; otherwise the system is inherently hypocritical. That is why incarceration is preferable to the extreme measure that is execution.

[JaKiri]

I take it you meant "It's not only irrelevant", based on your prior post?

 

Yah.

 

Perhaps Douglas thinks only murderers get the death penalty, in which case he can be forgiven for taking that view.

 

Since when was murder irrespective of the individuality of the murdered? Most murder, especially domestic, is based entirely around the individuality of the murdered.

[Sayonara]

Well yes, that too.

[Rakasha]

Nevertheless, it was not an ad hominem.

 

Just curious, are you arguing that post 43 was'nt an Ad Hominem because:

-It was not clear that it attacked me personally.

-It was not clear that it attacked me personally to justify that I was wrong.

 

I guess that it is the later. Then, what are the odds that he happened to put me down and ignore me at the same time ? If you somehow consider that there is no relation between his dismissal of my arguments and his personnal attack on me, then I am guilty

 

Concerning social contracts (adressed by Blike's post number 68):

 

It seems to me that social contracts only covers ¨agree to the rules of society and you will have the benefits of society¨. It does'nt incorporate ¨violate the rules and you will be killed¨. Nor does it cover ¨we must broadcast messages about the value of life to show we care¨.

[Douglas]

What has the bible got to do with a universal definition of morality? Are the courts a Christian institution?

We're a nation founded by Judaio Christians. Our 200+ year old constitution reflects Judaio Christian beliefs.

Thus, the majority of Americans believe that executions are morally acceptable.

[blike]

Then, what are the odds that he happened to put me down and ignore me at the same time ? If you somehow consider that there is no relation between his dismissal of my arguments and his personnal attack on me, then I am guilty

I will attempt to clarify.

 

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.

First, I did not mention your name explicitely in the stated post. I did this to avoid any resemblence of a personal attack against you. Although now that you mention the blurred face thing, it does seem a bit...useless. You said it though, and whether or not you were being sarcastic with "puncture the little guys head" you said that by default PBA is moral. Second, the post was unrelated to our discussion but was related to another member's post. I did imply that your ideas are hypocritical, or at least dichotomous. This, however, is directly addressing the arguments you are presenting. I was not passing judgement on you or judging your character, because we all have conflicting ideas whether we know it or not. It seems that you have taken offense with at least some portion of what I have said, but you have not offered clarification.

 

The statement I made was based on 3 assumptions.

 

1) You are completely pro-abortion, even in the case of PBA, which you stated here and here. If this assumption is wrong, please state so.

 

2) You are completely against capital punishment on all accounts which you clearly stated here. If this assumption is wrong, please state so.

 

3) You make your decisions based on what you feel is morally correct [i.e. ethical] and/or just. If this assumption is wrong, please state so.

 

It follows from 1, 2, and 3 that you feel it is ethical, morally correct, or justified to murder (abort, kill, execute, whatever fancies you) a half-born baby, but you do not feel that it is justifiable or ethical to murder a serial killer.

 

I suspect you will have an issue with 3, and that is fine. However, don't contest 3 and then tell me you don't support capital punishment because it's not morally correct or ethical. I simply asked how one could approach this in their mind.

 

I have not ignored your posts. I am addressing them in order of their posting. I skipped over JaKiri's yesterday, and so I responded to them today.

[AL]

At the end of the day im in favour of execution.If it so happens a few innocent people are mistakenly killed so be it.To eliminate these murderers from the gene pool can only benefit mankind.

I didn't realize murderous tendencies were genetic. Tell me, what about murderers who already had children before they were put on death row? Should we take their kids out? We don't want them moyda genes in our pool.

 

Capital punishment has no place in a civilised society. Ever. End of arguement.

 

But somehow America manages to make it worse by executing people who were under the age of 18 when they killed. This puts America on a par with those beacons of civil liberties Saudi Arabi, Pakistan, Iran and China.

I agree with your general premise here, but America isn't as bad as some of these four. China puts people to death for shoplifting. Iran puts young girls to death for being rape victims. That's right, the victim gets the death penalty for "tempting" the rapist.

 

As far as the topic of this thread, I oppose the death penalty. I am unconvinced of its ability to deter or of its moral justness. This is not to say I oppose killing in dire scenarios such as police use of force on an armed suspect -- there's a clear unequivocal difference between that and killing someone who no longer poses a threat. Also, in rare instances where the convict wishes to die for his crimes, I'd be OK with obliging, but that's more a right to die issue than a death penalty one.

[Rakasha]

I have the feeling that the death penalty is, in some way, a vestige of ancient governments. When the government is not representative of the population, such as in a dictature, it must enforce it's grasp of power by some kind of means. In most case, the governing body will claim that it came to power by natural rights and that it is immoral to doubt it's legitimity. Thus the government claim to be a moral entity. In that case, to keep it status it must show that anybody violating it's law is immoral. Result: criminals are punished.

 

But in a modern democracy, the government is'nt claiming moral superiority. It's concern is social cohesion by representation. It's the social contract kind of government, you hold your end of the contract and you reap the benefits. Progressive jail time is a good way to ensure respect for the law. It's does not mean that the government revendicate morality. However, death penalty does simply because it is not needed. We still call ¨justice¨ the law system concerning crimes but I guess it's just an old habit.

 

I will attempt to clarify

You did not. To demonstrate that it was not an Ad Hominem ( a personal attack to discredit me) you must prove either that is was not a personal attack, either that it was not meant to discredit me.

 

If you are trying to refute the second, I'd give you little luck. What are the odds that I am mentionned, right after my post, out of 3,400 members, as an example of somebody totally twisted and stuff, in an post that is unrelated. And I mentioned the fake anonimity bit, you needlessly quoted what I said on the same thread, thus you were not trying to hide my identity.

 

Let's chill and be pal and forget this.

[atinymonkey]

Just a few quick points.

 

China puts people to death for shoplifting.

 

I am not aware of this. amnesty has no record of this occuring. Where did you hear this, have you a source?

 

I did find a report on the use of the death penalty against child offenders, which puts USA at the top of the list:-

 

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles/countries.html

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT500012004

 

Iran puts young girls to death for being rape victims. That's right, the victim gets the death penalty for "tempting" the rapist.

 

This is apocryphal. It does not happen. It's Anti religious dogma.

 

the current concerns in Iran are listed here: -

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130032003?open&of=ENG-IRN

[Sayonara]

Just curious' date=' are you arguing that post 43 was'nt an Ad Hominem because:

-It was not clear that it attacked me personally.

-It was not clear that it attacked me personally to justify that I was wrong.[/quote']

Because he did not attack you personally - he described your arguments.

 

As you well know.

 

 

We're a nation founded by Judaio Christians. Our 200+ year old constitution reflects Judaio Christian beliefs.

Thus' date=' the majority of Americans believe that executions are morally acceptable.[/quote']

And you have already stated that morality is subjective, so if you truly believe that the courts are the place for unilateral enforcement of the majority's religious beliefs (which is a scary thought it itself), then you are saying that sentences against non-Christians are religious persecution, and that you're okay with that.

[Sayonara]

You did not. To demonstrate that it was not an Ad Hominem ( a personal attack to discredit me) you must prove either that is was not a personal attack, either that it was not meant to discredit me.

If Blike had said "Rakasha's points are worthless because he stabs babies in the head", that would have been an ad hominem.

 

You can't wave away a request for clarification of things you have said just by going on the offensive with random accusations.

[JaKiri]

Our 200+ year old constitution reflects Judaio Christian beliefs.

 

Your 200 year old constitution was written by a liberal in the european tradition who thought that religion was tyranny over the minds of men.

[Rakasha]

If Blike had said "Rakasha's points are worthless because he stabs babies in the head", that would have been an ad hominem[/i'].

 

If his post was an answer to my arguments, then it was indeed targetting the arguments by targetting me personally. You are arguing that his personal attack was'nt clearly a response to what I said earlier. Let's have a simplified look :

 

Rak: Dude, I think your arguments are wrong.

Blk: RAKASHA SUX.

Rak: What ?

Blk: Oh, It was a totally unrelated answer, a huge coincidence really. It's purpose was'nt to put aside your arguments, even if I did purposely lie about you and even if there are thousands of members to quote.

 

That is why I claimed an Ad Hominem. Again, if you can say that his post was'nt obviously related to mine then I am wrong. End of the story.

[Sayonara]

If his post was an answer to my arguments' date=' then it was indeed targetting the arguments by targetting me personally. You are arguing that his personal attack was'nt clearly a response to what I said earlier. Let's have a simplified look :

 

Rak: Dude, I think your arguments are wrong.

Blk: RAKASHA SUX.

Rak: What ?

Blk: Oh, It was a totally unrelated answer, a huge coincidence really. It's purpose was'nt to put aside your arguments, even if I did purposely lie about you and even if there are thousands of members to quote.

 

That is why I claimed an Ad Hominem. Again, if you can say that his post was'nt obviously related to mine then I am wrong. End of the story.[/quote']

You are making stuff up in your head.

 

Blike's post simply stated that he saw a dichotomy between two of your views that he could not understand.

 

a) Even if it was an attack, as opposed to what we call a 'comment', it would be on the views and not a person,

 

b) If anything, he is professing an inability to interpret your posts, which could be seen as a shortcoming on his part and not yours,

 

c) An ad hominem is specifically a criticism of or reference to unfavourable and characteristic past behaviour that is not related to the discussion, the purpose of which is to damage the credibility of an opponent.

 

As Blike pointed out many posts ago, he made no judgements about either your position or your character, so the 'conversation' in your post above is just complete fiction.

 

Now I suggest you give up with the smoke screen, and get on with the discussion. Having an argument with one admin where you post bare-faced lies about what the other admin wrote is not a good plan.

[atinymonkey]

What is a bare faced lie, anyway? Are there lies that are better when told from behind a mask?

[AL]

Just a few quick points.

 

 

 

I am not aware of this. amnesty has no record of this occuring. Where did you hear this' date=' have you a source?

 

I did find a report on the use of the death penalty against child offenders, which puts USA at the top of the list:-

 

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles/countries.html

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT500012004[/quote']

I recall reading somewhere that China had some sort of criminal strikes law where if you repeated a crime several times, you'd get the death penalty, even if it was as minor as shoplifting. I can't find the source at this time, but here's a somewhat relevant article:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/06/china.executions/index.html

Here's a good excerpt from it:

In an effort to curb economic crimes before China joins the World Trade Organization, authorities in the prosperous southern province of Guangdong, next to Hong Kong, have executed people for fraud, forging currency and "disrupting the stock market," Amnesty has reported.

In the U.S. we only execute people for murder one or treason. Not that this is a good thing, but at least we certainly wouldn't execute Martha Stewart.

 

 

This is apocryphal. It does not happen. It's Anti religious dogma.

 

the current concerns in Iran are listed here: -

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130032003?open&of=ENG-IRN

Here is the story:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=137

It's changed multiple times since I first heard it. The first time I heard it, she was a rape victim who was hung for "tempting" the rapist. This story here says she was hung for her "sharp tongue" (she talked back to a high cleric). That's a little different, but it's still a very, very bad reason to execute a 16 year old girl.

 

Regarding the US putting to death child offenders, you're right. I find it morally reprehensible, but I wouldn't know how to begin contrasting that with executing non-violent offenders or disprespectful young girls.

[john5746]

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' date=' and placing arbitrary monetary values on human life.

[/quote']

 

On further thought, I find capital punishment morally acceptable, that is why I then can think of it on an economic basis. If it is possible to have a video tape of the person committing the atrocity, I am almost positive I could kill them myself.

[atinymonkey]

I recall reading somewhere that China had some sort of criminal strikes law where if you repeated a crime several times' date=' you'd get the death penalty, even if it was as minor as shoplifting. I can't find the source at this time, but here's a somewhat relevant article:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/06/china.executions/index.html

Here's a good excerpt from it:[/quote']

I see, not really shoplifting. Fraud and forging is a bit of a minor offence though.

 

In the U.S. we only execute people for murder one or treason. Not that this is a good thing, but at least we certainly wouldn't execute Martha Stewart.

Well, also for espionage, drug trafficking, involvement in murders, involvement in planned murders, offering services as an assassin, kidnapping during a bank robberty and manslaughter (property/transport destruction resulting in death).

 

I think you could include terrorisum, but there is no actual trial in court before execution.

 

Here is the story:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=137

It's changed multiple times since I first heard it. The first time I heard it, she was a rape victim who was hung for "tempting" the rapist. This story here says she was hung for her "sharp tongue" (she talked back to a high cleric). That's a little different, but it's still a very, very bad reason to execute a 16 year old girl. :

Interesting, the story you linked to was the same issue that Amnesty reported, a 16 year old girl in Neka. The point to note here is that the Amnesty website does not mention rape as the charge and names the girl as Ateqeh Rajabi.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles/countries.html

 

Your link seems to name the girl Ateqeh Sahaleh (note the incorrect surname) strongly implyes rape was the offence she was hung for. In actual fact, the same website goes on to admit the offence was multiple prostitution and drug related charges. I don't think that a website that's sole purpose is to tell the world Iran is evil is the best news source. Especially as they can't get facts in order, or even get the name of the victim correct.

 

It all smells of dogma and propoganda.

 

Regarding the US putting to death child offenders, you're right. I find it morally reprehensible, but I wouldn't know how to begin contrasting that with executing non-violent offenders or disprespectful young girls.

I haven't really looked at the child offenders, as I'd find it hard to differenciate a crime that a 17 year old committed from one an 18 year old did.

 

However, as I said, the girl was on trial for multiple prostitution and drug related charges. The drug charges could well have resulted in the death penalty in the US. Still, it's a harsh decision, and one I don't defend.

[Sayonara]

What is a bare faced lie, anyway? Are there lies that are better when told from behind a mask?

The lie would not be better, but easier.

 

I believe the phrase comes from the idea that only the most deliberate liar can tell a lie without betraying it on their face, or averting their eyes. On reflection it's possibly too harsh a phrase in this particular instance.

[Sayonara]

If it is possible to have a video tape of the person committing the atrocity, I am almost positive I could kill them myself.

Which is why we have law - reason free from passion.