Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

**Dan Gurden** · 07-26-2001, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by calguard66:
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.

You almost got me there, I almost reponded to your subject change.

But you forgot to answer the question that Justifies your countries right to treat even human scum like animals (as has been compared by someone else)

The question in hand is not European fiurearms crime (which is a very, very small percentage in comparrison, but also another thread I usually avoid), but Executions.

So tell me why? Anyone? Why is it OK for the USA to kill criminals, and say other countries are less enlightened who do too. Meanwhile here in the UK we dont and are STILL feeling the repurcussions of the last man and Woman executed in this country?

------------------
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** · 07-26-2001, 04:11 PM

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.

Thank you, my ponit exactly!

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

**Phantom** · 07-26-2001, 04:12 PM

Sorry, I mean my "point".

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

**Liquidator Queeg** · 07-26-2001, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Keeper:
Overkill? Compared to what? Projected losses? ... What do you do, Mr. Cook?

No no no, you misunderstood me. I meant that if the only reason atomic bombs were dropped was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "strategic targets" it was overkill. There's no practical military necessity to use weapons of that power to destroy industrial facilities in a city, or even two cities. It can be accomplished with conventional weaponry (i.e. bombs).

I am quite well aware of the fact that had the US tried to invade full-out and take Japan itself, even if it were possible, they would have sufferred a horrendous number of casualties.

Hence the a-bombs. Though the a-bombs also sent a residual message to Russia: "Don't even think about messing with us or with Western Europe!" It was, after all, literally a race to Berlin between the US (and Allies) and the Russians.

I hope I cleared that misunderstanding up.

"What would you do, Mr. Cook?"

That's a completely unfair question. I don't think anyone could possibly know how they'd act in that situation. I do know that I'm damn thankfull that I'll never have to make the choice to use atomic (or nuclear) weapons.

Steve

P.S. My last off-topic post, I promise!

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

**The Tatterdemalion King** · 07-26-2001, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by First of Two:
"ANY innocent loss of life is unacceptable."

What do you mean by innocent? By what standard are you judging this alleged innocence?

I suppose another question to ask (if it hasen't already been asked) is whether death is the worst punishment. I mean, if some people want to kill themselves, then can it really be justice?

What is justice, anyway? Is it making the punishment fit the crime? How does it differ from vengeance?

**calguard66** · 07-26-2001, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Dan Gurden:
You almost got me there, I almost reponded to your subject change.

But you forgot to answer the question that Justifies your countries right to treat even human scum like animals (as has been compared by someone else)

The question in hand is not European fiurearms crime (which is a very, very small percentage in comparrison, but also another thread I usually avoid), but Executions.

So tell me why? Anyone? Why is it OK for the USA to kill criminals, and say other countries are less enlightened who do too. Meanwhile here in the UK we dont and are STILL feeling the repurcussions of the last man and Woman executed in this country?

I treat doorknobs like doorknobs, grass like grass, and animals like animals. The thing that separates humans from animals is not biological or physical... just because you walk upright doesn't make you human.

Someone who has committed a crime worthy of the death penalty has already taken from humanity more than they will ever replace. I see no point in allowing them to continue to take from a position of relative safety and comfort.

I gave the example of the firearms ban as an example of something "everyone's doing/ agrees with/ thinks is great" that is really stupid. Make firearms illegal, then the criminals that don't obey any other laws will obey this one and not have guns.

The "enlightenment" (your word, not mine) comes from the "due process"... the system that distributes and decides the punishment. The US system is fundamentally sound. I see no rational way to compare it to any of the others that have been mentioned, except that the US and these other nations use some of the same punishments. It's like saying a surgeon and a gang member are the same because they both cut people... WHY they do the cutting is what matters.

If the most serious penalty in both the US and China were life in prison, would they be the same? Why is it the punishment that matters, rather than the system that implements it?

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

Keeper · 07-26-2001, 04:43 PM

So tell me why? Anyone? Why is it OK for the USA to kill criminals, and say other countries are less enlightened who do too. Meanwhile here in the UK we dont and are STILL feeling the repurcussions of the last man and Woman executed in this country?

[/B][/QUOTE]

Not certain when this became less of a debate about ideas and more about Nationalism and the mandate of right based on where we live...I feel strongly we should avoid UK this and USA that.

As to execution and the right of the state to sentence criminals to death, it has been and will continue to be the argument that some criminals are simply not able to be helped. The legal apparatus in place must then be as flawless as its flawed creators can make it, in order to justly do its task, a task with such dire consequences.

To answer Mr. Gurden's question directly, though, despite my promise to avoid nationalistic debate, the argument of the US with other countries (and I find the notion that we dilineate on the basis of "enlightenment" a little insulting) remains, as been indicated on this thread numerous time, a problem with system, not result. The tragedy of the UK SYSTEM which you seem to morally belabor was that innocents may have been put to death, not that death was a plausible punishment. With these other nations named in above posts, the main concern is that there is no legal organ in place to protect the rights of the accused, not that execution occurred. Under US and UK law, one must be proven guilty, not innocent, an extremely important difference over many other SYSTEMS.

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

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

**Liquidator Queeg** · 07-26-2001, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by calguard66:
I gave the example of the firearms ban as an example of something "everyone's doing/ agrees with/ thinks is great" that is really stupid. Make firearms illegal, then the criminals that don't obey any other laws will obey this one and not have guns.

If the most serious penalty in both the US and China were life in prison, would they be the same? Why is it the punishment that matters, rather than the system that implements it?

Look, let's just give this argument up. It's going nowhere. [Big surprise!

]

Some of us see where you are coming from, but don't agree (state-sanctioned executions are OK). You see where we are coming from but don't agree (state-sanctioned executions are not OK).

Let's all just agree to disagree and have a big group hug.

Steve

**Dan Stack** · 07-26-2001, 04:52 PM

While I myself am against capital punishment, I do believe Keeper made a excellent point - the system of law in the United States, much of Europe, and many other places provides critical rights to the accused, rights which one does not find in many of the other countries where capital punishment is permitted. (I am not saying that the system in the US is perfect and am still against capital punishment, but I personally feel the US system of justice does provide the protection to the accused that one would not find in, for example, China or the old USSR).

**The Tatterdemalion King** · 07-26-2001, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by calguard66:
I treat doorknobs like doorknobs, grass like grass, and animals like animals. The thing that separates humans from animals is not biological or physical... just because you walk upright doesn't make you human.

Someone who has committed a crime worthy of the death penalty has already taken from humanity more than they will ever replace. I see no point in allowing them to continue to take from a position of relative safety and comfort.

I have a few problems with this formula: let's say person A, a relatively god person throughout all his life [adding to humanity in much abundance] kills someone [subtracting from humanity]. If his total is still in the positive, why kill him?
Let's say person B doesn't kill anyone, or do anything spectacularly bad, but is a generally bad person, subtracting from humanity, in his lifetime, the same amount as A subtracted in his one bad action. Should B be killed?
Let's say person A kills person B: Surely person A didn't subtract that much from humanity, so why should he be killed?

Originally posted by calguard66:
I gave the example of the firearms ban as an example of something "everyone's doing/ agrees with/ thinks is great" that is really stupid. Make firearms illegal, then the criminals that don't obey any other laws will obey this one and not have guns.

The "enlightenment" (your word, not mine) comes from the "due process"... the system that distributes and decides the punishment. The US system is fundamentally sound. I see no rational way to compare it to any of the others that have been mentioned, except that the US and these other nations use some of the same punishments. It's like saying a surgeon and a gang member are the same because they both cut people... WHY they do the cutting is what matters.

If the most serious penalty in both the US and China were life in prison, would they be the same? Why is it the punishment that matters, rather than the system that implements it?

A "system", unlike a person, consists of the actions it takes, and not of the people who motivate it.

The Boethian Chris Huth

P.S. "enlightenment" means nothing. It is a buzzword, long sucked dry of any meaning it once had.

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

**calguard66** · 07-26-2001, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by C. Huth:
I have a few problems with this formula: let's say person A, a relatively god person throughout all his life [adding to humanity in much abundance] kills someone [subtracting from humanity]. If his total is still in the positive, why kill him?
Let's say person B doesn't kill anyone, or do anything spectacularly bad, but is a generally bad person, subtracting from humanity, in his lifetime, the same amount as A subtracted in his one bad action. Should B be killed?
Let's say person A kills person B: Surely person A didn't subtract that much from humanity, so why should he be killed?

Originally posted by calguard66:
I gave the example of the firearms ban as an example of something "everyone's doing/ agrees with/ thinks is great" that is really stupid. Make firearms illegal, then the criminals that don't obey any other laws will obey this one and not have guns.

The "enlightenment" (your word, not mine) comes from the "due process"... the system that distributes and decides the punishment. The US system is fundamentally sound. I see no rational way to compare it to any of the others that have been mentioned, except that the US and these other nations use some of the same punishments. It's like saying a surgeon and a gang member are the same because they both cut people... WHY they do the cutting is what matters.

If the most serious penalty in both the US and China were life in prison, would they be the same? Why is it the punishment that matters, rather than the system that implements it?


A "system", unlike a person, consists of the actions it takes, and not of the people who motivate it.

The Boethian Chris Huth

P.S. "enlightenment" means nothing. It is a buzzword, long sucked dry of any meaning it once had.

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

1. I've never said that EVERY murderer or whatever should be put to death, merely that death is a valid punishment for some crimes.

2. So you're saying: if the US and China both put people in prison, they are the same... and the system of justice and process that actually puts them there is irrelevant?

3. As I stated "enlightenment" wasn't my word. The US is hardly enlightened... I can't think of a government that is.

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

**calguard66** · 07-26-2001, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Steven A Cook:

Let's all just agree to disagree and have a big group hug.

Steve

AAAKkkk! Now there's an inhumane punishment...

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

Keeper · 07-26-2001, 05:23 PM

I find that when you like and respect everyone present in an argument and you still disagree, even after as protracted a discussion as this has become, it's time to shake hands and go for the "group hug". To quote Chief Joseph, "I will fight no more, forever".

At least on this point

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

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

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

**reimero** · 07-26-2001, 07:26 PM

I'll just say this: I am opposed to the death penalty. I've never had a friend or family member murdered or anything and I appreciate how hard it is on someone whose loved one is brutally killed. What I am, however, is a voter and a candidate for jury duty. If I were a juror on a capital case, and it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and the defendent were unremorseful, I still could not look him in the eye and tell him that I individually, as one of 12 of his peers, have decided, with the other 11, that he deserves to die for what he did and that, in fact, he is going to die.

It is one thing to support the death penalty in principle, it is another entirely to actively promote it. If you support the death penalty, you should, by all rights, be willing to serve as the executioner. That's not something I can do. I can't intentionally take another person's life no matter how heinous his crime was; nor can I make the decision that will allow others to take his life. And if I can't bring myself to do it, I have no business supporting it.

**qerlin** · 07-26-2001, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by KlingonZ:
Phatom and qerlin, you are both wrong! In a Judicial firing squad there are six rifles and ONE is leaded with a blank. The rifles are positioned in a vice like device so there is no aiming on the part of the shooter. If you have any remource you can imagine that you fired the blank. Five 30 caliber rifle rounds hitting a person in the 10 ring in about 1/8 of a second would be about as painless as you can get.

And you may ask who pulls the trigger in the US states that still use the firing squad. Police Officers from the state submit there names and they are picked in a private rafel, there names are never released. all selected get to keep the rifle they use as there only payment.

I have had to take one life in the performance of my duties during the LA Riots. Did not like it! But it was him or me. Would I do it again. Without hesitation.

Maybe they do things differently where you're from. NM and in the military it's still in the regs that EVERYONE has a round. (Of course, we don't execute anyone in the military anymore...that might cut down on the drug dealing in the barracks.)

Thread: Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions