Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[mactavish]

First of Two said, "Who are THEY? They, who kill and rape, THEY have the right to decide, but those of us who don't do those things do NOT? Madness!"

No, they don't have the right. People do things all of the time that they don't have the right to do.

The government as an entity is neither wise nor enlightened enough to grasp the fact that killing is wrong, no matter who does it. Killing in war, while distasteful, is (in some cases) a necessary evil. Killing a killer, rapist, child molester, or what have you is not a necessary evil.

Life imprisonment (according to some) is like a stay at the Hilton. Three square meals a day, cable television, fully-stocked workout area... gang violence, assault, complete lack of privacy, anal rape... boy, you're right! That does sound like a lot of fun!

Incarceration is not the perfect solution, but it is a viable alternative to state-sanctioned homicide.

mactavish out.

[Evan van Eyk]

There are several of you have this nice examples of weed, and body cells, etc. But I thin you forgot something. We are humans. body cells and the like do not have a moral - we do. We also have reason. Of course I also occasionally wish somebody dead, when I hear about a crime in news - but I am always happy when reason comes back on-line and tells me it is wrong.

You all say, society has to kill them, because they would harm the society. That's nonsense! There are methods to make sure nobody escapes.

Second you say life-imprisonment is like a visit in hilton. Nonsense again. First it's no secret, that especially in US prisons the prsisoners are treated inhumanly ( no offence ). And you forgot one thing - they lost their freedom. And that sometimes for the rest of their live, that is punishment enough. Imagine you would be kept in a small room for 25 years.


And why do you not give them the chance to change themsevles?
But maybe its a whole world perspective. I believe in a better world with peace and the like ( maybe its naiv, but I think its a worthy goal, one can try to achieve ). And this includes mercy and forgiving. I know its all theory, because I do not know anybody who became victim of captial crime, but at least I hope this would not change my mind, because its a principle I believe in.
And human rights cannot be alieniated by any means, because the fact that one is a criminal cannot take the status of being a human.
And I do not believe that you feel better when you know the murder of whomever was killed. That still leaves the pain. But if you manage to forgive than you will have peace.

but after all I think this debate is fruitless, as everybody has his point of view and will certainly not change it
( again no offence, as I am included )


------------------
"I am a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread." - Cpt. Kirk, Star Trek VI


www.farrealms.de

[Evan van Eyk]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by First of Two:


the protections that living in society provides. They create their own inequality.
</font>

But society has not the right to grant or take human rights. It has the duty to give them, because they belong to evry human being, in every country, in every condition, of any religion and no matter what it did. Its a fact. Else they should not be called human rights but - good man rights, or healthy's rights...




------------------
"I am a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread." - Cpt. Kirk, Star Trek VI


www.farrealms.de

[darkwing duck1]

The law may grant equal rights to all, but I REFUSE to grant equal moral status to all...Ted Bundy is not morally equivilant to Mother Teresa, for example...

------------------
Deo Vindice!

[Evan van Eyk]

So all those who are not like Mother Theresa should be killed? I do not get your point. All have the same rights, you cannot make a difference in persons, because they belong to a human from birth on. Human rights are a natural law, like gravity or what do I know.

------------------
"I am a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread." - Cpt. Kirk, Star Trek VI


www.farrealms.de

[darkwing duck1]

What I don't understand is your continued insistance that a "person" (loosely defined) who chooses to committ a capital crime deserves some sort of consideration. By committing a captial crime, they have FORFITED their right to continued existance on this planet! How can it be right to tell vicitims of a horrible crime like rape (or the next of kin of a murder victim) that the animal who so greviously and irreperably ruined their lives is entitled to contine to draw breath, let alone have access to good food, housing, medical care, etc. That is not justice;that is an even bigger crime!

------------------
Deo Vindice!

[Diamond]

Ha ha.

Darkwing, now you're raving. You just said that NOT killing someone (who you think deserves it) is a bigger crime than the original killing.

So since not killing that murderer is a worse crime than the murder itself (which you argue merits capital punishment), I take it those who failed to kill the murderer should also face capital punishment? Oh, and if we fail to kill the people who failed to kill those people it must be an even worse crime!

We're so soft on crime! Those who don't kill the people who failed to kill those who did kill are being let off unpunished!

Listen to what you just said. And get a grip.

[First of Two]

If the "Right to Live" were a universal 'natural' law... then nature would recognize it universally.

Now, since 99.99999% of the universe is immediately fatal to human life, and most of the rest is hostile toward it (plop a human down at a random point on Earth, the 'garden spot' for humanity, and there's a 75% chance he'll drown), since no other known life form from the tiger down to the ebola virus recognizes your 'natural right' to live, one can quite easily deduce that your premise is in error.

The 'right to live' is clearly NOT "natural," but is, in effect, a rule agreed upon by the majority of society.

Since it is society which created the right, it is society which can deny it.

[Dan Stack]

It seems incorrect to blanketly portray victims - there have been family members who have been against capital punishment for those who murdered their loved ones. I suspect they are in a minority, but they have been vocal nonetheless.

(That said, I do not concede it is the victim who has the right to determine punishment.)

[Diamond]

First of Two, your logic is monstrously fallatious. That is to say, wrong. What you have done is called the "straw man argument" - misrepresenting the other side's position to make it easier to refute. No one said that the right to life was a natural scientific law akin to the law of gravity.

By your absurd logic, one don't have the right to not be beaten up by anyone on the street stronger than you. After all, one can't stop them, and we only had that right as long as the bully creates it, and they can deny it at any time.

Did the jews of Germany circa 1944 not have the right to life? After all, society went ahead and denied it. No. Obviously, their rights were infringed unjustly.

One can quite easily deduce the premise is in error if one monstrously distorts the other one's point, and makes ridiculously irrelevant examples. Clearly, if you drown someone by plopping them down on a random point in the globe, you would have injustly infringed on their right to life.

Example: "the bank's walls opened to my explosives, so clearly there is no so-called 'natural'law preventing me from stealing your money." Such an argument would be clearly spurious.

[darkwing duck1]

Diamond: I suspect you know quite well what I was saying...reducto ad absurdum is a poor way to argue, chummer.

There appear to be a number of "bleeeding hearts" around this topic. I strongly suspect that they would change their tunes in a nanosecond if they were locked in the same room with, say, Charles Manson or one of his ilk...at any rate, I tire of this topic...

------------------
Deo Vindice!

[Diamond]

Well Darkwing, I'll admit I was pulling your leg a bit. But the point is still valid: it is obviously not a worse crime to use punishments other than capital ones. It's just hard to respond to a ridiculous statment in a totally serious way.

[Dan Stack]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by darkwing duck1:
There appear to be a number of "bleeeding hearts" around this topic. I strongly suspect that they would change their tunes in a nanosecond if they were locked in the same room with, say, Charles Manson or one of his ilk...at any rate, I tire of this topic...

</font>

Locked in a room with Manson or his ilk I would die quickly, probably trying to take him with me. But killing in self-defense or in war is different from taking a life of someone you have absolute power over.

I do not believe you know me well enough to categorize me as a "bleeding heart". I accept intelligent people can disagree but I do not believe labels such as that are appropriate.

[Phantom]

Since everyone has strong feelings on this subject I do have to ask, like the above but changed a bit, how would you feel if a member of your family or a close friend was murdered? Would you not change you tune then? If not then you are better people then I am.

------------------
In the Praetors Name!

[Dan Stack]

If a family member were killed I'd want to kill the SOB myself. But it would be for revenge, to pay the bastard back for what he'd done.

That still wouldn't make it right.