Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[Keeper]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cmd.Hentar:
Well, why the American was not persecute for the A-bomb ? And dont say that its just a powerful bomb, American launch A-bomb on Non-Strategic city, with only civil, only to prove they'd a superior weapon.

Killing civil, intentionally, IS a war crime.

</font>

I humbly submit the military status of the two "non-strategic" cities in question:

Hiroshima: Industrial center and sea port, produced machinery and machine goods.

Nagasaki: Ship building and steel making center.

An accepted maxim in warfare: destroy your enemy's ability to continue fighting.

These were not civilian targets chosen for the sheer cruelty of killing civilians. They did have strategic value, and the results of their destruction ended a protracted war with a determined and implacable enemy in a fashion which most likely saved thousands of lives on both sides. The Japanese fought with the valor of their ancient Samurai heritage for every single square inch of every island in the Pacific, and they'd have redoubled their resolve in defense of their homeland, which was soon to be under siege. Do you think the civilian toll on Kyushu or Honshu would have been less in such a protracted battle?

The use of the atom bomb was horrific, and had long term political repercussions. But to classify it in the same breath with wanton genocide, as the Nazi regime toward the Jews? I think not, my friend.


------------------
Man is to man a god when he recognizes his duty.

[This message has been edited by Keeper (edited 07-26-2001).]

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Keeper:
Nagasaki: Ship building and steel making center.
</font>

The fact that Nagasaki was also the production centre for all those altered torpedos used in the shallow waters of pearl harbour would have had no inflection on this?

If not - then it was sheer coincidence.

If military intelligence knew this, then that fact might well have decided WHICH port was targetted.

As to the Holocaust, it appears I might be wrong, in which case, I stand corrected, it doesn't change my viewpoint, but if I am wrong I wont use that arguement. I'll skip to Thailand where you face a firing squad of automated M60's for drug smuggling (even if you are unaware that you are a mule, its the same fate, stupidit is not a defence).

Now you cant claim that THIS is a valid use of a death sentence, or a nice way to go... but there it is, in use by a western supported democratic power...

Nice.



------------------
DanG.

"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."

http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk

[Liquidator Queeg]

Let's cut to the chase guys. Atomic weapons were dropped on Japan for two reasons and two reasons only:

1) To prevent the US from having to fight any longer in the Pacific theatre.

2) And to scare the friggin' pants of the Russians.

Any talk of "strategic targets" is ultimately beside the point, IMHO. If we were talking about conventional bombing sorties, sure they may have been. But a strategic target for atom bombs? Gimme a break. Talk about overkill.

That's almost as ridiculous as limited tactical nuclear warfare.

Steve

P.S. Sorry to go off topic, but I thought I'd bring that up for a little perspective.

[This message has been edited by Steven A Cook (edited 07-26-2001).]

[REG]

Guys, we are veering away from the topic of this thread, use of capital punishment as a form of sentencing criminal of the more serious crimes (felonies).

As to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they were regrettable but the missions did stop the war between the US and Imperial Japan. And when that was done, the US can turn most of their war effort to the European theater and reinforce the US troops and Allied troops against Nazi Germany. Had it not happen, the war would continues and further lives would have been loss for the Allies.

We can look back at history and analyze what should have been the better course of actions. But the event have already been played out and written, and we can hope that we may not have to face this decision again in the future.

Sometimes the right thing to do is not always the most favorable or most popular option. That is something a starship captain can look forward to deep in space.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by REG:
As to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they were regrettable but the missions did stop the war between the US and Imperial Japan. And when that was done, the US can turn most of their war effort to the European theater and reinforce the US troops and Allied troops against Nazi Germany. Had it not happen, the war would continues and further lives would have been loss for the Allies.
</font>

I am sorry to remain off topic here, perhaps this deserves a new thread?

The Atomic Bombs dropped on Japan were dropped AFTER the war in europe was finished... So freeing up troops for the European front against NAZI Germany isn't a correct assessment.



------------------
DanG.

"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."

http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk

[REG]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Gurden:
I am sorry to remain off topic here, perhaps this deserves a new thread?

The Atomic Bombs dropped on Japan were dropped AFTER the war in europe was finished... So freeing up troops for the European front against NAZI Germany isn't a correct assessment.</font>

Okay, I might have been wrong. Perhaps we should not have used the A-Bombs, just continue to fight ... I don't know ... 6 more months and several more US fatalities and we would have ensured a victory anyway.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[First of Two]

More like several hundred thousand more casualties. Up intil the nukes were used, the Japanese government was pushing an 'every citizen must resist' policy whereby all people were to be conscripted and used as living bombs, carrying explosives, and dying while taking as many invading lives as they could.

Back to the death penalty: It isn't really a deterrant. That much is true. On the other hand, it's the only punishment that's 100% effective on the criminal.

It needs to be more fairly applied. It should be used mostly in cases where recommission is likely, where the crime was particularly violent or sadistic, where more than one person was killed, or where children were abused. Also, only when guilt is not based on entirely circumstantial evidence. (In other words, DNA evidence should be a MUST.)

We should not execute the mentally handicapped, but we should lock those who committ these crimes away where we'll be safe from them.

The insane, if they resisted or ignored treatment (stopped taking their pills, stopped going to their shrink, knew they were ill but did nothing), but not if they hadn't been diagnosed.

[Keeper]

1) To prevent the US from having to fight any longer in the Pacific theatre.

That's correct. Your point? And the legitimacy of designating them strategic targets is defense from the accusations of attacking a purely civilian target, made earlier.

Overkill? Compared to what? Projected losses? Tell me then, as it is officially Monday morning and the grid iron is cold, what do YOU do? Taking into account all the intricacies of the moment and avoiding the pitfalls of revisionist history, have a seat in Mr. Truman's chair for a moment. We're all gamers here; we enjoy sitting in the big center seat and making decisions of life and death for our crew, perhaps the entire "Federation" . Call it an exercise in role playing.

What do you do, Mr. Cook?

------------------
Man is to man a god when he recognizes his duty.

[This message has been edited by Keeper (edited 07-26-2001).]

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cmd.Hentar:
Well, why the American was not persecute for the A-bomb ? And dont say that its just a powerful bomb, American launch A-bomb on Non-Strategic city, with only civil, only to prove they'd a superior weapon.

Killing civil, intentionally, IS a war crime.

</font>

In a world war the civilian populalation is a stratiegic asset. Those civilians work in factories, produce children that become soldiers, and may become soldiers themselves.

The Japanese did not see their own civilians as non-combattants. There were plans in effect, and regular practice, to arm civilians with bamboo spears. Since each nation defines who it's combattants are, I would say that Japan defined it's civilian population as combattants.

It's shakey, but an invasion of Japan (the alternative) would have been worse for both sides.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Gurden:

As to the Holocaust, it appears I might be wrong, in which case, I stand corrected, it doesn't change my viewpoint, but if I am wrong I wont use that arguement. I'll skip to Thailand where you face a firing squad of automated M60's for drug smuggling (even if you are unaware that you are a mule, its the same fate, stupidit is not a defence).

Now you cant claim that THIS is a valid use of a death sentence, or a nice way to go... but there it is, in use by a western supported democratic power...

Nice.

</font>

Again, the argument is against the system, not ahainst the punishment itself.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by REG:
Guys, we are veering away from the topic of this thread, use of capital punishment as a form of sentencing criminal of the more serious crimes (felonies).

As to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they were regrettable but the missions did stop the war between the US and Imperial Japan. And when that was done, the US can turn most of their war effort to the European theater and reinforce the US troops and Allied troops against Nazi Germany. Had it not happen, the war would continues and further lives would have been loss for the Allies.

</font>

Germany surrendered before the A bomb was even tested.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by calguard66:
Again, the argument is against the system, not ahainst the punishment itself.

</font>

OK, thank you for making my arguement, or to put another, far simpler way.

WHAT makes your system better and more enlightened than theirs? You keep saying that my examples are the system not the actions, I say that you need to define how a government that is willing to kill its citizens even for serious crimes can claim to be so 'enlightened'.

Over on this side, we gave up executions over 40 years ago, and strong proof has recently arisen that the last woman to be executed was innocent and that the last man to be executed was mentally handicapped...

So mistakes are made, it happens.

Someone said that the small number of mistakes are an acceptable loss. I say ANY innocent loss of life is unacceptable.

I may not have the answers to the way out, but the common agreement between both the anti and Pro arguements is that the solution is not ideal.

I say that this doesn't give us the right to play god. Judge by peers, fine. But I dont feel that we have the Right to take life... Two wrongs dont make a right.

------------------
DanG.

"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."

http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk

[Phantom]

I would never say that dropping the Bomb was a bad idea, it did end the War with Japan, but I sometimes think that using on of the uninhabited islands off Japan first might have been a better idea, show Japan what could happen if they didn't surrender. Probably wounldn't have worked, but...Just a thought. Too many good men from both our countries died in that theater to question the use of anything.

Sorry, Reg back to the topic at hand.



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

[Keeper]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by First of Two:
"ANY innocent loss of life is unacceptable."

I agree. Which is why we should only execute people who a) admit guilt or b) are proved to be guilty by hard physical evidence [like a videotape of them committing the crime, or DNA evidence]. We should no execute people who are found circumstantially guilty.

</font>

I agree completely, and we don't execute on circumstantial evidence. There must be a preponderance of the evidence, it must be as sure as our legal system can be, before a sentence of death is pronounced. I think that many people in this dicussion are of the impression that execution in the US Legal System is an everyday affair. It is not.

As per several other arguments presented so far, I would propose the notion that some people have simply turned in their "human union card", with Dahmer a prime example from above. He was not rehabilitive, gentlemen, although he was also not executed by the State. His fellow prisoners took care of that of their own accord. Apparently they sanctioned capital punishement...

------------------
Man is to man a god when he recognizes his duty.

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Gurden:

OK, thank you for making my arguement, or to put another, far simpler way.

WHAT makes your system better and more enlightened than theirs? You keep saying that my examples are the system not the actions, I say that you need to define how a government that is willing to kill its citizens even for serious crimes can claim to be so 'enlightened'.

Over on this side, we gave up executions over 40 years ago, and strong proof has recently arisen that the last woman to be executed was innocent and that the last man to be executed was mentally handicapped...

So mistakes are made, it happens.

Someone said that the small number of mistakes are an acceptable loss. I say ANY innocent loss of life is unacceptable.

I may not have the answers to the way out, but the common agreement between both the anti and Pro arguements is that the solution is not ideal.

I say that this doesn't give us the right to play god. Judge by peers, fine. But I dont feel that we have the Right to take life... Two wrongs dont make a right.

</font>

If any loss of innocent life is unacceptable, then the state will be paralized an unable to do anything, ever. It can never go to war... innocents might be killed. It's agents can never defend themselves or their people... innocents might be killed.

I fail to see how a government that is unable to kill in order to defend itself or it's citizens (subjects, in your case I believe) can be considered anything at all.

The UK has some of the stricktest firearms laws on the planet... to the point where it's own Olympic pistol team must practice in another country. It also has the highest rate, per capita, of firearms-related crimes in Europe... and it's going up. That bit of enlightenment didn't seem to work very well.

Every example given has been of one where the system that distributes the punishment has been at fault. My earlier example of the police officer shooting people in the street is an example of a bad system, Thailand, China and the fUSSR are other examples. However, just because that particular punishment is used in these poor systems doesn't mean the punishment is faulty... the system that distributes it is faulty.

All these governments also use other methods of punishment, from fines to incarceration. IF death is a bad punishment because these poor systems use it... THEN these other punishments must be bad as well, because they are ALSO used by these poor systems.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain