davjohns 1 #201 June 1, 2012 QuoteQuote...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. If I were to take this part of your post seriously, I'd say, "Yes. send 'em on over. The state won't have to execute them when they show up in my house uninvited with evil intentions and acts." I can protect myself from them. I can't protect myself from the state sneaking up and snagging me for something I didn't do and then killing me. I'm going to have to think about this. You do not trust a judge and jury with the aid of a team of investigators and attorneys to come to the right conclusion. Indeed, you reject a case with overwhelming physical evidence and confessions. But we should trust you to make a decision and execute someone on the spot. At first glance, that seems paradoxical to me. I have no problem with deadly force in self defense. It just seems at odds with your position on capital punishment. I'll get back to you on this.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
SkyDekker 1,145 #202 June 1, 2012 QuoteIt still doesn't count as murder under any definition I can find, Really? You posted it yourself: "3. To put an end to; destroy: " So when the State executes an inocent man, they have put and end to his life, or one could say, they have destroyed his life. According to your own posted definitions, that is murder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #203 June 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteIt still doesn't count as murder under any definition I can find, Really? You posted it yourself: "3. To put an end to; destroy: " So when the State executes an inocent man, they have put and end to his life, or one could say, they have destroyed his life. According to your own posted definitions, that is murder. I think it was pretty clear that definition related to non-living things. It even gave an example of 'murdered their chances'. The ones dealing with people had the issue of unlawful within the definition. Really, I had hoped to engage in legitimate debate on a real topic before our society. I guess that was my mistake. Too many people on this forum seem determined to just argue and fly off on pointless tangents. Argument is not debate. Tangents are rarely helpful to reaching mutual ground. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I feel like I'm trying to teach a pig to sing. Wasting my time and annoying the pig. I'm giving up. Please continue with your regularly scheduled school-yard taunts and bickering.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 #204 June 1, 2012 Quote I really don't think we are communicating here. You are right. We are not. QuoteI think I have made it plain that am absolutely not OK with innocent people being executed. Yes, you did. QuoteI have used extreme descriptives for this travesty of justice. I'm not sure what you mean by 'travesty of justice' in the case you put forth. Help me out here. QuoteI presented this case as a potential point of agreement that there are cases where we can collectively accept that capital punishment can be warranted and carried out with no fear of wrongfully executing the innocent. And we simply disagree. As I have said before, Nope. Not in this case. Not in any case do I support state-sponsored executions at any level of goobermint. QuoteIf we could agree that there are cases, then we could go about determining under what extreme circumstances we could allow it. Quote Which is exactly what we have today. You are proposing a process that already exists....and it fails in that innocent people are being incarcerated and even executed. QuoteI think this is an extreme case that reasonable people should be able to agree on. Well, there you go. As per your use and inclusion of the word 'reasonable', you imply that those who disagree are unreasonable. Not so. QuoteI think most of the people arguing against it are doing so not based on the merits of this case, but on the idea that the government cannot be trusted, or captial punishment has been misused before or some other extraneous issue. Not true on the reason for arguing against on the merits of this case. My opinion applies to this case and, in fact, ALL cases. True on the idea that the goobermint cannot be trusted to get it right in all cases. I take exception to your idea that any other opinion is 'extraneous'. I don't see any case of misuse of capital punishment as being extraneous. QuoteYou are among them. Yep. QuoteI don't hold it against you. Quote You may or may not at your leisure. As I, at my leisure, may or may not hold it against you for being willing to accept collateral damage with respect to executing innocent people. QuoteIt just makes it hard to debate the matter. You seem rather emotional in your responses and it makes it very hard to communicate ideas. Two things: 1. There is no debate. 2. You idea has been communicated. My idea has been communicated. We disagree. I expect you to be able to accept that. Yes, it is an emotional issue. There's not a lot of science and/or fact-based reasoning for either side of the issue other than the fact that innocent people have been executed by the state and that convicts released from prison, death penalty or not, have committed more crimes QuoteFor instance; the comment about sending them to your house was to bring home the idea that someone could very well die for your convictions. And somebody HAS already died for yours. Your commentary about committing more crimes after being released is a red-herring. Convicts do it all the time. (maybe I'm using the term 'red-herring' improperly here.) QuoteAs for me, I always ask myself if I would be willing to throw the switch and bear the guilt if I later found out the person was not guilty. And, I gather from your comments that you would not have a problem dealing with the guilt to the extent that it would make you re-evaluate your position and that's fine. If you are willing to live with it, OK. That's YOUR position....it's just not mine. QuoteI don't decide that capital punishment is alright while distancing myself personally from the effects. I consider that morally repugnant. That was my point. And I would agree with that...it would be repugnant. Your point is taken and accepted.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 #205 June 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote...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. If I were to take this part of your post seriously, I'd say, "Yes. send 'em on over. The state won't have to execute them when they show up in my house uninvited with evil intentions and acts." I can protect myself from them. I can't protect myself from the state sneaking up and snagging me for something I didn't do and then killing me. I'm going to have to think about this. You do not trust a judge and jury with the aid of a team of investigators and attorneys to come to the right conclusion. Indeed, you reject a case with overwhelming physical evidence and confessions. But we should trust you to make a decision and execute someone on the spot. At first glance, that seems paradoxical to me. I have no problem with deadly force in self defense. It just seems at odds with your position on capital punishment. I'll get back to you on this. That's what it's about. I don't see the problem with it being at odds with my views on state-sponsored capital punishment unless you are reading more into it than is there. Deadly force in self defense is not related to state-sponsored execution.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 #206 June 1, 2012 Quote... but I feel like I'm trying to teach a pig to sing. Wasting my time and annoying the pig. I'm giving up. Please continue with your regularly scheduled school-yard taunts and bickering. See? You are not debating. You are not discussing. You are trying to teach. And it's not working. No sense in getting upset about it. Can you not accept that others have different opinions than yours? This last post of yours sounds like you are throwing a temper tantrum because you cannot get people to agree with your 'teachings'.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 Southern_Man 0 #207 June 1, 2012 Quote SouthernMan: I have to agree with this. I think you are basically agreeing that in this case (and we could probably find others) the facts are so surely established and the crimes so heinous that we could justify the death penalty. It seems to me you are still objecting because you don't like the potential slippery slope that creates. I agree. There is a slippery slope. But if we could agree that it is possible that cases exist where the potential for error is virtually eliminated, I think we then progress to constructing the theoretical prerequisites for imposing the sentence of death. I think you and I agree that the bar must be placed higher than it has been in the past to prevent mistakes. We may or may not disagree on where the bar should be. But the first step is to accept that captial punishment has it's place in the sentencing structure. Now, if you maintain that all killing is unjust under any circumstances, I don't think we can ever agree. Uncompromising absolutes like that are rarely practicable in the real world. I have not argued that the death penalty is good. I think it is regrettable in the extreme and should greatly sadden any human being that it becomes necessary. I also think it sometimes becomes necessary. I have been on juries, been a court martial officer where I weighed the evidence and determined punishment, and have administered many cases of non-judicial punishment. Every case was emotionally draining. I did not approach any of the cases with flippancy or pithy edicts or thoughts of moral imperatives. I took every case on its own merits and anguished over the just outcome. I look at the death penalty the same way. It should be rare and clearly mandated by the individual's verifiable conduct. I would never do it on eye witness testimony alone or any case where the evidence was less than absolutely compelling. I presented this case because nobody seems to question the evidence. The convicted both confessed and continue to own their actions. I think we should surely try to find where society could do better to prevent animals like this from developing and, when done, destroy the cancer with solemnity and regret. Well, I am not philosophically opposed to the death penalty in a system that could be free from error as I do not think it is an injustice to put people to death who have committed heinous crimes. I do believe though that is not the system that we have currently. We have one that is deeply flawed. Defendants do not have proper resources and do not receive adequate counsel. Innocent defendenats are railroaded and sentenced to death. This is not an acceptable system to me. Add to that, our current system of death penalty cases already costs far too much and takes far too long. This is because of the procedural safeguards which are built into place, and yet are still inadequate. Correcting the flaws in our current system can appear to happen, to me, in one of two ways. First, we can add more resources and safeguards so that innocent people are not put to death. That just does not appear to be a very viable solution to me, though, since the death penalty already costs way more than life in prison and the average time before execution is so long. The other way would be to make the system cost less and act faster (which some people in this thread have advocated). Unforunately that eliminates a large portion of the safeguards which prevent (of lower the number of people) execution of the innocent. That is not really an acceptable outcome to me either."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next Page 9 of 9 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
popsjumper 2 #205 June 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote...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. If I were to take this part of your post seriously, I'd say, "Yes. send 'em on over. The state won't have to execute them when they show up in my house uninvited with evil intentions and acts." I can protect myself from them. I can't protect myself from the state sneaking up and snagging me for something I didn't do and then killing me. I'm going to have to think about this. You do not trust a judge and jury with the aid of a team of investigators and attorneys to come to the right conclusion. Indeed, you reject a case with overwhelming physical evidence and confessions. But we should trust you to make a decision and execute someone on the spot. At first glance, that seems paradoxical to me. I have no problem with deadly force in self defense. It just seems at odds with your position on capital punishment. I'll get back to you on this. That's what it's about. I don't see the problem with it being at odds with my views on state-sponsored capital punishment unless you are reading more into it than is there. Deadly force in self defense is not related to state-sponsored execution.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 #206 June 1, 2012 Quote... but I feel like I'm trying to teach a pig to sing. Wasting my time and annoying the pig. I'm giving up. Please continue with your regularly scheduled school-yard taunts and bickering. See? You are not debating. You are not discussing. You are trying to teach. And it's not working. No sense in getting upset about it. Can you not accept that others have different opinions than yours? This last post of yours sounds like you are throwing a temper tantrum because you cannot get people to agree with your 'teachings'.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
Southern_Man 0 #207 June 1, 2012 Quote SouthernMan: I have to agree with this. I think you are basically agreeing that in this case (and we could probably find others) the facts are so surely established and the crimes so heinous that we could justify the death penalty. It seems to me you are still objecting because you don't like the potential slippery slope that creates. I agree. There is a slippery slope. But if we could agree that it is possible that cases exist where the potential for error is virtually eliminated, I think we then progress to constructing the theoretical prerequisites for imposing the sentence of death. I think you and I agree that the bar must be placed higher than it has been in the past to prevent mistakes. We may or may not disagree on where the bar should be. But the first step is to accept that captial punishment has it's place in the sentencing structure. Now, if you maintain that all killing is unjust under any circumstances, I don't think we can ever agree. Uncompromising absolutes like that are rarely practicable in the real world. I have not argued that the death penalty is good. I think it is regrettable in the extreme and should greatly sadden any human being that it becomes necessary. I also think it sometimes becomes necessary. I have been on juries, been a court martial officer where I weighed the evidence and determined punishment, and have administered many cases of non-judicial punishment. Every case was emotionally draining. I did not approach any of the cases with flippancy or pithy edicts or thoughts of moral imperatives. I took every case on its own merits and anguished over the just outcome. I look at the death penalty the same way. It should be rare and clearly mandated by the individual's verifiable conduct. I would never do it on eye witness testimony alone or any case where the evidence was less than absolutely compelling. I presented this case because nobody seems to question the evidence. The convicted both confessed and continue to own their actions. I think we should surely try to find where society could do better to prevent animals like this from developing and, when done, destroy the cancer with solemnity and regret. Well, I am not philosophically opposed to the death penalty in a system that could be free from error as I do not think it is an injustice to put people to death who have committed heinous crimes. I do believe though that is not the system that we have currently. We have one that is deeply flawed. Defendants do not have proper resources and do not receive adequate counsel. Innocent defendenats are railroaded and sentenced to death. This is not an acceptable system to me. Add to that, our current system of death penalty cases already costs far too much and takes far too long. This is because of the procedural safeguards which are built into place, and yet are still inadequate. Correcting the flaws in our current system can appear to happen, to me, in one of two ways. First, we can add more resources and safeguards so that innocent people are not put to death. That just does not appear to be a very viable solution to me, though, since the death penalty already costs way more than life in prison and the average time before execution is so long. The other way would be to make the system cost less and act faster (which some people in this thread have advocated). Unforunately that eliminates a large portion of the safeguards which prevent (of lower the number of people) execution of the innocent. That is not really an acceptable outcome to me either."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
