normiss 642
Recommended Posts
QuoteAnswer the question.
But just for you - unjust killing.
Your original question:
QuoteDo you support abortion as well, or only state sponsored murder?
With regard to abortion: My wife is an OB/GYN Physician. She has, at times, had to take measures which would kill the baby in order to save the life of the mother. Those circumstances are few and extreme. She has never nor would ever do anything to harm a baby in the womb unless there was a situation where either one or both were going to die otherwise. That's not to say she has or ever would perform an abortion in the sense that we're talking about. I'm talking about inducing labor with an underdeveloped fetus or performing a c-section under the same circumstances when the baby will not survive in order to save the mother. Bottom line, sometimes it is necessary so I support it under very limited circumstances but certainly not for any other reason besides the risk of death to the mother. Is that killing, “just?” No, not really. The baby did no wrong nor could it. However, sometimes we have no choice but between two bad ones in that scenario. What makes this very different from any other “choice of convenience” is that there are many alternatives.
With regard to your “state sponsored murder” comment: I am assuming from your previous comment that you agree with including “justice” in the definition (“unjust killing”). If that’s the case, then the definition does not describe what took place with putting a convicted murderer to death. The crime committed was so cruel and abhorred that the only way justice could be realized is by a most extreme method and outcome (even though “exact justice” would be much worse (e.g. eye for an eye)…we don’t do this because we are humane with a sense of mercy). We live in an imperfect world and our systems of government are also imperfect. We have to do the best with what we have (I think it’s the best in the world, by the way, despite its flaws). You could make the argument that there are alternatives (e.g. life imprisonment). I agree and would be alright with that. However, I’m also okay with the death penalty and see it as justified.
normiss 642
Ah. So it's ok to kill innocent adult citizens but innocent fetuses.
Got it.
To each their own on abortion in my mind, not my place to pass judgement on others and tell them how to live their lives. It's their body, their conscience, their life.
DP:
I would disagree knowing how faulty our "justice" system is.
I would however give in to the majority (if that is truly the case) with a stipend requiring irrefutable proof.
That's not what we have, and what we do have has repeatedly been proven to be faulty at the cost of innocent lives.
Which seems to be ok with a lot of people so long as it's not too close to home.
We also have a TON of people that believe the media when it's convenient.
What you see in the media is so far removed from what happens in a court of law that we generally know next to nothing of the LEGAL FACTS in the case. But we Americans sure love us some media hype generated guilt don't we!
Got it.
To each their own on abortion in my mind, not my place to pass judgement on others and tell them how to live their lives. It's their body, their conscience, their life.
DP:
I would disagree knowing how faulty our "justice" system is.
I would however give in to the majority (if that is truly the case) with a stipend requiring irrefutable proof.
That's not what we have, and what we do have has repeatedly been proven to be faulty at the cost of innocent lives.
Which seems to be ok with a lot of people so long as it's not too close to home.
We also have a TON of people that believe the media when it's convenient.
What you see in the media is so far removed from what happens in a court of law that we generally know next to nothing of the LEGAL FACTS in the case. But we Americans sure love us some media hype generated guilt don't we!
Butters 0
QuoteAh. So it's ok to kill innocent adult citizens but innocent fetuses.
Was the fetus found guilty in a court of law? No. Was the "innocent" person found guilty in a court of law? Yes. There is a difference.
QuoteI would however give in to the majority (if that is truly the case) with a stipend requiring irrefutable proof
I would agree that the death penalty should be reserved for cases with irrefutable proof due problems in the current system.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
QuoteAh. So it's ok to kill innocent adult citizens but innocent fetuses.
Got it.
So you’re saying that our system is set up to put “innocent adult citizens” do death?”
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteAh. So it's ok to kill innocent adult citizens but innocent fetuses.
Got it.
So you’re saying that our system is set up to put “innocent adult citizens” do death?”
And yet there are those of us who mistrust the government and are viewed as right-wing loonies.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
normiss 642
I'm not the one saying it's ok, I'm just paraphrasing someone else's opinion.
20% of eye witness positive identifications of suspects have proven to be wrong.
You willing to chance it? With ZERO physical evidence tying someone to a crime???
20% of eye witness positive identifications of suspects have proven to be wrong.
You willing to chance it? With ZERO physical evidence tying someone to a crime???
billvon 2,470
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I think execution IS murder.
That's fine. You can think that execution is murder, that abortion is murder, that collateral damage during wartime is murder, that letting sketchy people jump (and then seeing them bounce) is murder. Doesn't give any of it legal standing, since murder is well defined.
>Dead is dead. YOU kill him or the "STATE" kills him...I don't recognize a difference.
The law does.
That's fine. You can think that execution is murder, that abortion is murder, that collateral damage during wartime is murder, that letting sketchy people jump (and then seeing them bounce) is murder. Doesn't give any of it legal standing, since murder is well defined.
>Dead is dead. YOU kill him or the "STATE" kills him...I don't recognize a difference.
The law does.
Butters 0
QuoteI'm not the one saying it's ok, I'm just paraphrasing someone else's opinion.
20% of eye witness positive identifications of suspects have proven to be wrong.
You willing to chance it? With ZERO physical evidence tying someone to a crime???
Willing to chance it? No. In regards to eye witness, depends on the witness and circumstances. Overall, there should at least be SOME physical evidence ...
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
normiss 642
That's my issue with it as well.
Simply based on accusations makes for a very weak case IMO.
People lie.
Simply based on accusations makes for a very weak case IMO.
People lie.
Quote>Dead is dead. YOU kill him or the "STATE" kills him...I don't recognize a difference.
The law does.
Once again, Billvon steps up and paints the picture in a reasonable and unemotional way. Take emotions out of it, remove the feeling cap and put on a thinking cap and Bill's statement is the only answer.
Andy's "dead is dead" also leaves out certain things like self defense. Few people out there argue that killing someone in self defense is murder, and the law does not view it that way, either. There are circumstances where, under the law, a person is justified in killing another person.
However, Bill's post also raises the procedure of change. Bill is correct that the law views state-sponsored execution as legal. The law, however, can be changed. If enough of the polity view capital punishment as something that should be stopped, then the death penalty will become a thing of the past. Did Troy Davis's execution rile enough to get a bill or referendum passed banning capital punishment? If so, then Georgia won't have it anymore.
This is a political question.
By the way - mad props to Andy. I admire that he didn't write, "Execution is murder." He wrote, "I think execution is murder." It just makes him seem that much more reasonable.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteQuoteBetter one innocent man be executed than ten guilty men go free to continue their murdering ways.
Unless of course that innocent man is you or one of your loved ones. Well, then obviously those bleeding heart liberals have ruined the justice system.
Wouldn't it be easier to test people for murderous tendencies and elliminate them before they could even commit the crime?
What's your price to catch the truly guilty?
No, that would be stupid.
What's my price for catching the truly guilty? I'll answer that with a question of my own: How many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice by freeing murderers so that one innocent person is not executed by the state? 1? 2? 10?
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Quote
Also, there are alternatives between execution and going free. Being locked up for life for a crime you didn't commit is a tragedy, but at least there is always the hope of being exonerated. The standard of proof required to execute someone should be significantly higher than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" needed to convict.
Don
What would the higher standard be? There is not one currently defined in our judicial system. Beyond any doubts, reasonable or unreasonable?
I am in favor of the life without parole option, for the same reason you articulate. Too many people have been released through the work of The innocence project to have any confidence that the judicial system can always get it right. Life without parole gives the system some way to reverse their error.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
billvon 2,470
>Death is not justice. That's revenge.
I'd say it's a reliable way to prevent him from killing again. Life in prison does the same thing.
To me, once someone has been proven to have committed a heinous crime (intentionally and with forethought killing another, for example) they have forfeited their right to life. The question then becomes - what's the easiest way to make sure they don't do it again? That's not "revenge" that's simple management of a known and proven risk to society.
Execution accomplishes that. So does life in prison with no parole. Execution is a little more reliable.
Economically, life in prison is a little cheaper than execution when you account for the mandatory additional appeals and higher prosecutorial burdens. So that's an argument for life in prison; it costs taxpayers less.
And the final issue is that the above only applies if someone has truly been proven to be such a criminal. As several people have pointed out, we are never 100% certain. That doubt (2%? 5%? whatever it is) is a reasonable argument against capital punishment, so the results of such an error are more correctable.
I'd say it's a reliable way to prevent him from killing again. Life in prison does the same thing.
To me, once someone has been proven to have committed a heinous crime (intentionally and with forethought killing another, for example) they have forfeited their right to life. The question then becomes - what's the easiest way to make sure they don't do it again? That's not "revenge" that's simple management of a known and proven risk to society.
Execution accomplishes that. So does life in prison with no parole. Execution is a little more reliable.
Economically, life in prison is a little cheaper than execution when you account for the mandatory additional appeals and higher prosecutorial burdens. So that's an argument for life in prison; it costs taxpayers less.
And the final issue is that the above only applies if someone has truly been proven to be such a criminal. As several people have pointed out, we are never 100% certain. That doubt (2%? 5%? whatever it is) is a reasonable argument against capital punishment, so the results of such an error are more correctable.
Answer the question.
But just for you - unjust killing.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites