popsjumper 2 #151 May 31, 2012 Quote Nor is executing a convicted criminal murder. But you seem to think it is. Well, yes. There IS that pesky qualifier of 'lawful' in there. Laws trump morals, eh?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #152 May 31, 2012 Quote Quote Nor is executing a convicted criminal murder. But you seem to think it is. Well, yes. There IS that pesky qualifier of 'lawful' in there. Laws trump morals, eh? Do you think it is moral to keep someone captive (imprisoned) for the rest of his life, with no possibility of release? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #153 May 31, 2012 QuoteDo you think it is moral to keep someone captive (imprisoned) for the rest of his life, with no possibility of release? Yes. My moral values allow for that in some instances. My moral values draw the line before legal murder. Nice how I worked that emotionalism into it by using the word 'murder', eh?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #154 May 31, 2012 Quote Nice how I worked that emotionalism into it by using the word 'murder', eh? Very nice. If your intent is to avoid having a rational discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dontlikemustard 0 #155 May 31, 2012 Quote>If you build a jail in your house and keep someone in it against his will, >that is called kidnapping. And if a government builds a jail on their land and keeps someone there against their will - it is also kidnapping. (If your claim that governmental actions are equivalent to private action is valid, that is.) >Placing a convicted criminal behind bars is not kidnapping. Nor is executing a convicted criminal murder. But you seem to think it is. So which is it? Must the government behave better than a kidnapper, and refuse to hold people against their will? Or is it OK to "descend to their level?" Is it only true for execution, but nothing else? Bill, There are thousands of different ways to land yourself in jail. It just so happens that kidnapping is the most "similar" one to actually being in jail. Of course, we can go off on a tangent and argue that kidnapping and putting someone in jail are different, and then we can just run in circles all day. But that is just one crime amongst the many. It is true that I don't look at an executioner as a murderer. But I do see it as a repetition of the crime itself, and that is where we differ, again. I am sure you agree with me that, by allowing the death penalty, you are, justifying killing. With that logic, could it be legal to rape a convicted rapist? legally steal from a thief? We will never do those things because we are better than that, 'cept when it comes to killing. Killing a person because that person killed someone is justified. Lets just give it a different name i.e. "capital punishment", lets make sure to use alcohol and sterilize the needle so he doesn't get sick in the process, anything to make us feel better. In the end? what have we done? We a taken that persons life, just like he did. Nothing more, nothing less. We have done the exact same thing we despised him for doing. ---- As for those of you who say that it is necessary to kill a murderer because they are "cancers" to society, and its the only way to be 100% sure they will never walk free again. Life without parole, no chance of pardon + implant a gps tracking chip in case they escape. Totally doable, way cheaper than a death sentence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #156 May 31, 2012 AGAIN..... It's only expensive because of YEARS of legal claims... Every thing from the death penalty is cruel and painful to his mother made him wear pink underwear once to school... We ( pro-penalty ) are only using the death penalty for the most gruesome of murders with 100% no way the fucker did not due it... So their is no reason to play the legal games... Most lawyers never even try to say they did not do it... Just don't give him the death penalty.... The Casey Anthony trail is a very good case of a very good defense in a murder... you may not like it , but the system worked just as it should... Killler.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 640 #157 May 31, 2012 "100% no way the fucker did not due it." Now that's just funny right there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #158 May 31, 2012 Quote"100% no way the fucker did not due it." Now that's just funny right there. What is funny about it.... Go read the case that started the thread.... 100% no way the guy didn't do it... killler.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 640 #159 May 31, 2012 Yet when you stated "We ( pro-penalty ) are only using the death penalty for the most gruesome of murders with 100% no way the fucker did not due it...", you made no reference to the OP case mentioned...just a general statement regarding executions. Which is completely inaccurate and one of many reasons we need to stop killing people for killing people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #160 May 31, 2012 There are very few crimes that the " DEATH PENALTY " is even given as a optional sentence for a jury to use... killler.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 640 #161 May 31, 2012 Unless you're one of the approximately 3200 currently awaiting death in the 33 states that use it, I suppose you could think that. When compared to the 140 people that were given a death sentence and have since been exonerated since 1973, you might have a different perspective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #162 May 31, 2012 Quote Killing a convicted criminal using the most humane method possible is not murder. If I go to my local prison and euthanize a convicted murderer without his consent it counts as pre-meditated murder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killler 2 #163 May 31, 2012 Quote Opponents of the death penalty like to point to mistakes and make a rule from the exceptions. I understand this. I think it is reprehensible in the extreme that people can be wrongfully convicted and executed. However, there are just certain people that have clearly voided their right to life and I will sleep better once they are dead. Sorry if this offends you. Using the exception to support the rule: there has been a trial lately where two men invaded a house, raped the wife and 11 year old daughter, beat the husband with a bat, set fire to the house, etc. Their argument? The man didn't defend his family well enough (loosely paraphrased). It is much worse in greater detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders Confession, text messages, video tape, DNA, eye witness (husband), picutres of the daughter's rape, etc. were all very conclusive on the events. So...were the juries wrong in recommending the death penalty? Are we ready to keep these two in prison at an exhorbitant cost for decades? Parole? Can they be rehabilitated? Want them to date your daughter when they get out? I'm sorry. While there are cases that indicate we need to be very careful in the use of this punishment and the system can always be improved, there are also cases that convince me that some people need to be destroyed just as a surgeon would not hesitate to destroy cancer cells. No good can come of keeping them alive. If not the death penalty for these two...what? As long as they breath, they can get out. The Lockerbie assassin is living well in Libya. Manson comes up for parole routinely. The list is long. This is the case " WE " are talking about and cases like it.... We're not talking about some run of the mill murder.... And your the guy who has no trouble if they are raped and killed in prison killler.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #164 May 31, 2012 Quote Quote Nice how I worked that emotionalism into it by using the word 'murder', eh? Very nice. If your intent is to avoid having a rational discussion. Smile, Shotgun. It was humor.Speaking of discussion, Do you have anything in response to my morals as you asked for?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #165 May 31, 2012 QuoteWe ( pro-penalty ) are only using the death penalty for the most gruesome of murders with 100% no way the fucker did not due it... I certainly hope that you don't believe that is reality. You raise some good points but this is NOT one of them.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #166 May 31, 2012 Quote Quote Killing a convicted criminal using the most humane method possible is not murder. If I go to my local prison and euthanize a convicted murderer without his consent it counts as pre-meditated murder. Good point! Well, still there is that pesky word 'legal' involved. We can freely commit pre-meditated murder if it is legal. Asinine, if you ask me.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #167 May 31, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Killing a convicted criminal using the most humane method possible is not murder. If I go to my local prison and euthanize a convicted murderer without his consent it counts as pre-meditated murder. Good point! Well, still there is that pesky word 'legal' involved. We can freely commit pre-meditated murder if it is legal. Asinine, if you ask me. Intentional or not, this is a word game and not fair debate. Murder is not something committed by the state. You are using the term (possibly unintentionally) to return to the emotional argument. Everyone consents that murder is wrong. We are not discussing murder. We are discussing execution due to an individual's conviction for heinous crimes against others. mur·der (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #168 May 31, 2012 QuoteOpponents of the death penalty like to point to mistakes and make a rule from the exceptions. I understand this. I think it is reprehensible in the extreme that people can be wrongfully convicted and executed. However, there are just certain people that have clearly voided their right to life and I will sleep better once they are dead. Sorry if this offends you. Using the exception to support the rule: there has been a trial lately where two men invaded a house, raped the wife and 11 year old daughter, beat the husband with a bat, set fire to the house, etc. Their argument? The man didn't defend his family well enough (loosely paraphrased). It is much worse in greater detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders Confession, text messages, video tape, DNA, eye witness (husband), picutres of the daughter's rape, etc. were all very conclusive on the events. So...were the juries wrong in recommending the death penalty? Are we ready to keep these two in prison at an exhorbitant cost for decades? Parole? Can they be rehabilitated? Want them to date your daughter when they get out? I'm sorry. While there are cases that indicate we need to be very careful in the use of this punishment and the system can always be improved, there are also cases that convince me that some people need to be destroyed just as a surgeon would not hesitate to destroy cancer cells. No good can come of keeping them alive. If not the death penalty for these two...what? As long as they breath, they can get out. The Lockerbie assassin is living well in Libya. Manson comes up for parole routinely. The list is long. From this I gather that you are arguing for three major points: 1. Unconditional guilt Can you guarantee that all death penalty decisions will be based on unconditional guilt? Nope. Currently we cannot. 2. Cost of maintenance Sorry to hear that morality is being sacrificed for monetary concerns. IMO, morality doesn't come with a price factor. 3. Possible release Yep. Currently that's true. Blame that on the legal system. That CAN be fixed. Pointless to use examples like Manson. AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, his current sentence does not include 'no possibility of parole' so yes, he could be released at any of his parole hearings. None of those pro-death penalty arguments override the arguments against state-sponsored killing.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 640 #169 May 31, 2012 A 2010 poll by Lake Research Partners found that a clear majority of voters (61%) would choose a punishment other than the death penalty for murder. Source: Death Penalty Information Center Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #170 May 31, 2012 Quoteword game Quoteemotional argument The argument "Capital punishment is murder" is not necessarily an emotional argument, and is in fact defensible without playing word games. I'm undecided, btw, if I consider the American variant to be murder, and if it is, it's a very understandable type of murder. Btw, I'm emotionally often in favour of capital punishment, but ethically/rationally against it. QuoteWe are discussing execution due to an individual's conviction for heinous crimes against others. Are we? I thought we're discussing the death penalty, which includes for example the state sanctioned murder excuse me, killing of rape-victims excuse me, promiscuous sluts in Iran and witches in Saudi Arabia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #171 May 31, 2012 QuoteQuoteOpponents of the death penalty like to point to mistakes and make a rule from the exceptions. I understand this. I think it is reprehensible in the extreme that people can be wrongfully convicted and executed. However, there are just certain people that have clearly voided their right to life and I will sleep better once they are dead. Sorry if this offends you. Using the exception to support the rule: there has been a trial lately where two men invaded a house, raped the wife and 11 year old daughter, beat the husband with a bat, set fire to the house, etc. Their argument? The man didn't defend his family well enough (loosely paraphrased). It is much worse in greater detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders Confession, text messages, video tape, DNA, eye witness (husband), picutres of the daughter's rape, etc. were all very conclusive on the events. So...were the juries wrong in recommending the death penalty? Are we ready to keep these two in prison at an exhorbitant cost for decades? Parole? Can they be rehabilitated? Want them to date your daughter when they get out? I'm sorry. While there are cases that indicate we need to be very careful in the use of this punishment and the system can always be improved, there are also cases that convince me that some people need to be destroyed just as a surgeon would not hesitate to destroy cancer cells. No good can come of keeping them alive. If not the death penalty for these two...what? As long as they breath, they can get out. The Lockerbie assassin is living well in Libya. Manson comes up for parole routinely. The list is long. From this I gather that you are arguing for three major points: 1. Unconditional guilt Can you guarantee that all death penalty decisions will be based on unconditional guilt? Nope. Currently we cannot. 2. Cost of maintenance Sorry to hear that morality is being sacrificed for monetary concerns. IMO, morality doesn't come with a price factor. 3. Possible release Yep. Currently that's true. Blame that on the legal system. That CAN be fixed. Pointless to use examples like Manson. AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong, his current sentence does not include 'no possibility of parole' so yes, he could be released at any of his parole hearings. None of those pro-death penalty arguments override the arguments against state-sponsored killing. OK. I'm going to guess that your previous word game was intentional. 1. I never said anything about unconditional guilt. That was your re-wording. I said there are cases like the ones cited where guilt is unquestioned. Please explain to me how you have some reasonable argument how these guys texted, took pictures of the rape on their cell phones, confessed, got caught on camera getting gas, etc. and yet managed to be innocent of this crime. 2. I mentioned the cost of maintenance as a passing thought. I am much more concerned with what happens to future victims when these guys get out. You admit that is a possibility. I have searched for some indication of how probable it is without success. But we know it happens. 3. I agree this is a problem with the legal system. I am not convinced it can be fixed. However, I asked for a reasonable solution TODAY for the instant case. From your conclusion, I am thinking you are ok with the potential for these two animals to be released in the world and commit more attrocities. You find that preferable to execution. Since it is your guilt we are trying to assuage, can we send them to your house if they are released? I would accept your argument a little better if I could have some guarantee that when/if they are released, you will bear the consequences of your choices rather than me and mine.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 640 #172 May 31, 2012 Dude. You gotta stop letting convicted murderers outta prison. It IS that simple. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #173 May 31, 2012 QuoteQuoteword game Quoteemotional argument The argument "Capital punishment is murder" is not necessarily an emotional argument, and is in fact defensible without playing word games. I'm undecided, btw, if I consider the American variant to be murder, and if it is, it's a very understandable type of murder. Btw, I'm emotionally often in favour of capital punishment, but ethically/rationally against it. QuoteWe are discussing execution due to an individual's conviction for heinous crimes against others. Are we? I thought we're discussing the death penalty, which includes for example the state sanctioned murder excuse me, killing of rape-victims excuse me, promiscuous sluts in Iran and witches in Saudi Arabia. I provided the first definition that came up when I looked it up on google. I didn't cherry pick. Based on that definition, you cannot confuse murder and the death penalty. I'll accept your point on the state execution of people not convicted of heinous crimes (although I personally place rape under that heading). I had in mind that we would confine the discussion to the example I presented. It was in the US. It was rape, torture, murder, burglary, assault and a host of other things in one continuous crime. My point, as presented, was that (in my mind) this case was a clear time to use the death penalty. If it is, then there are cases where the death penalty is justified. I hardly made a case that it is always justified as you have just introduced. So, in the case of these two animals...having confessed and testified that they planned and conducted a burglary, double rape, beating, torture and murder...having taken pictures on their cell phones of the rape of a young girl...having argued in court that it wasn't their fault because the husband didn't protect his family well enough...you argue that the death penalty is not justified because other countries use the death penalty for lesser crimes. I'm not buying it.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #174 May 31, 2012 QuoteDude. You gotta stop letting convicted murderers outta prison. It IS that simple. Dude. I swear I have never done so. I just can't get others to stop. It is THAT simple.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 640 #175 May 31, 2012 When we execute an innocent, it's state sponsored murder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
