Capital Punishment

[numinus]

Just those who have already demonstrated a willingness to do it.

LMAO

Your preferred legal system, that which adheres to the principle of 'an eye for an eye', has been abandoned ages ago, fyi.

Maybe you should have that discussion with the family and friends of those who have lost someone to a killer that escaped or was released only to kill again. I am sure that they could point out the error of your thinking better than I since they have experienced, first hand, the terrible flaw in thinking that because you have a killer locked up that he or she no longer represents a danger to society.

Are you making an emotional appeal in a debate on law?

You are hoplessly lost, if you are.

Are you saying that the prisoners who were in prison for non capital offenses that have been killed by killers didn't have any right to live?

So, what's wrong with segregating murderers and rapists from the rest of the other convicts, hmmm?

How about the guards? Do you think that they signed up to be just another victim of a killer who should have been executed in the first place?

Uhmm, the guards exercised their freedom to choose this profession. They are trained and equipped for it.

What's your point, hmmm?

And can you promise with any credibility at all that the murderer will remain in his cell and thus not represent a threat to either those who are in prison for lesser crimes, his jailers or the society outside prison? The answer is no. The only way to assure that a killer doesn't do it again is to put him to death.

You sound like a utopian more than the classical liberal you claim to be.

The thing is, a more humane society is better achieved without capital punishment.

Nah, I am a bright guy. I need very little explanation. Spinning is the chore. It takes effort to distort the truth and have it appear to still be truth.

I wouldn't call someone who is incapable of learning, or even admit his error, bright.

Your self-defense argument has simply failed. Without it, your argument has no legs to stand on.

Show me a legal system or system of goverment that isn't inherently flawed.

There are flaws in form and there are flaws in substance.

When a legal system is demonstrated to contradict the very principles for which the state was constituted, such a flaw is an ERROR OF SUBSTANCE that no legal form can correct.

Since all systems are flawed, I would prefer to err on the side of common sense rather than sacrifice people who don't deserve to die to the inherent flaw in your logic.

When the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIVE is at stake, I do not think 'common sense' is a sufficient justification -- especially a common sense that is as prone to error as yours.

When a dog bites, you put him down whether you like it or not because from that moment on, he represents an immenent danger to you and everyone he may ever come into contact with and if you don't, then you are responsible for his actions from that moment on.

LOL.

Are you suggesting that convicts are dogs?

I'm embarassed, but only for you. Arguing that it is best to keep killers locked up forever at the expense of a society that they have nothing but loathing for.

'Expense' and 'loathing' are words that are not applicable in dispensing justice. Notice that a judge is not an elective post -- the logic being that in the dispensation of justice, a judge should not be beholden to an emotional constituency.

You have presented nothing in this argument but emotional appeals -- the same emotional appeals you have dismissed in the abortion thread.

 

[palerider]

Your preferred legal system, that which adheres to the principle of 'an eye for an eye', has been abandoned ages ago, fyi.

Odd. There are at least two executions scheduled in my state later this year. For an "abandoned" legal system, it still seems to be working fine.

Are you making an emotional appeal in a debate on law?

You are hoplessly lost, if you are.

Of course not. Merely pointing out that locking up killers is no assurance that they won't kill again. If there were a system that could absolutely guarantee that a convicted killer could never escape or be released to kill again, then I would agree that the death penalty could be dispensed with. The rights of those who have not murdered, however, take a higher precedence in my mind than those have.

So, what's wrong with segregating murderers and rapists from the rest of the other convicts, hmmm?

Capital punishment accomplishes that.

Uhmm, the guards exercised their freedom to choose this profession. They are trained and equipped for it.

And yet, they have been murdered by folks that should have rightly been executed.

You sound like a utopian more than the classical liberal you claim to be.

Utopian? Me? You are the one claiming that putting murderers to death is uncivilized. I am merely pointing out the fundamental flaw in your opposition to the death penalty. Neither you, our legal system, nor the penal system can offer any real assurance that a killer won't be released back into society to kill again or even contained within prison to the degree that he can't kill other prisoners or guards. Locking them up for a while and hoping they never kill again sounds far more utopian to me.

The thing is, a more humane society is better achieved without capital punishment.

Spoken like a genuine utopian.

I wouldn't call someone who is incapable of learning, or even admit his error, bright.

Me neither. I noticed that you had no answer to the fact that murderers do get released and murder again and escape and murder again, or simply murder in prison. The flaw in your thinking is glaring and yet, in utopian fashion, you ignore it and assume that somehow it will go a way if you just keep on thinking good thoughts.

Your self-defense argument has simply failed. Without it, your argument has no legs to stand on.

Novel. Claiming an argument that you have no real answer to a failure. Let me know when you can assure me that murderers will be contained without fail to never murder again until they die.

When a legal system is demonstrated to contradict the very principles for which the state was constituted, such a flaw is an ERROR OF SUBSTANCE that no legal form can correct.

Since neither you, nor the legal system has an appropriate answer to the flaw in form, there is no viable option to the death penalty.

Are you suggesting that convicts are dogs?

Worse. Dogs don't premedetate.

You have presented nothing in this argument but emotional appeals -- the same emotional appeals you have dismissed in the abortion thread.

Well, it is true that you have called them emotional appeals. You tend to call everything that you have no answer to an emotional appeal. Nasty habit and it really doesn't help your case. You work on some way to assure that no murderer is ever released only to kill again, or escapes to kill again, or kills within the prison and then we can talk further. Until that time however, your thinking is too mired in theory to have any real world applicability.

 

[numinus]

Odd. There are at least two executions scheduled in my state later this year. For an "abandoned" legal system, it still seems to be working fine.

That is because people like you wish to pretend that capital punishment is anything but an unfortunate abberation born from an obsolete legal system.

Of course not. Merely pointing out that locking up killers is no assurance that they won't kill again. If there were a system that could absolutely guarantee that a convicted killer could never escape or be released to kill again, then I would agree that the death penalty could be dispensed with. The rights of those who have not murdered, however, take a higher precedence in my mind than those have.

Making that assurance is not the end of civil society. Protecting the fundamental and natural rights of man with the common force is.

Capital punishment accomplishes that.

Good for you. Now you need only contend with the contradictions and illogic it presents.

And yet, they have been murdered by folks that should have rightly been executed.

And they should have 'rightly been executed' because......?

Merely saying it doesn't make it true, nor imbue it with some logical rigor.

Utopian? Me? You are the one claiming that putting murderers to death is uncivilized.

'Civilized' is the state of being in civil society. That means living under laws that are logical and consistent.

Utopia is a state without strife or discord -- a society where one asks for assurances that people will not murder other people.

Understand?

I am merely pointing out the fundamental flaw in your opposition to the death penalty. Neither you, our legal system, nor the penal system can offer any real assurance that a killer won't be released back into society to kill again or even contained within prison to the degree that he can't kill other prisoners or guards. Locking them up for a while and hoping they never kill again sounds far more utopian to me.

NO.

It is the logical requirement from a legal system that recognizes THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIVE.

If the state can require a woman not to terminate her pregnancy, or require a strict standard in the application of self-defense, then it can certainly require itself not to execute convicts.

Spoken like a genuine utopian.

Protocols in the universal declaration of human rights are already in place. Removing capital punishment is a requirement for membership in the eu.

These aren't steps towards utopia -- merely a more humane social order.

And if you really can't let go of that primal urge for revenge, then take pride in the distinction that you have somalia and saudi arabia for company in your illogic.

Me neither. I noticed that you had no answer to the fact that murderers do get released and murder again and escape and murder again, or simply murder in prison. The flaw in your thinking is glaring and yet, in utopian fashion, you ignore it and assume that somehow it will go a way if you just keep on thinking good thoughts.

I do not need to dignify that argument because it is patent nonsense.

For every murder you can name in that vein, I can name more who were wrongly executed.

And what do they say about the american justice system?

It is better that a hundred guilty go free than a single innoncent wrongly punished.

I'm sure your flawed logic does not permit you to understand this, but its worked fine so far.

Novel. Claiming an argument that you have no real answer to a failure. Let me know when you can assure me that murderers will be contained without fail to never murder again until they die.

I take it that your legal dictionary doesn't say anything about self-defense?

It's there, if you have the guts to look. Unless of course it says something completely fatal to your argument.

Since neither you, nor the legal system has an appropriate answer to the flaw in form, there is no viable option to the death penalty.

Eh?

Do you even know what form and substance are?

That there are flaws in form in the legal system makes it imperative that people NOT BE EXECUTED. That is why there is such a thing as judicial review -- to correct the flaws in form. Once the convict is deprived of life, it is impossible to do this.

Worse. Dogs don't premedetate.

So, not all persons have a right to life. Is that what you are saying?

I wonder how you will make the mountains of posts you made in the abortion thread to conform with this?

Well, it is true that you have called them emotional appeals. You tend to call everything that you have no answer to an emotional appeal. Nasty habit and it really doesn't help your case. You work on some way to assure that no murderer is ever released only to kill again, or escapes to kill again, or kills within the prison and then we can talk further. Until that time however, your thinking is too mired in theory to have any real world applicability.

You wish to execute criminals because society loathes them.

Yep. An appeal to emotion, alright.

 

[arbitor]

I'm not for abortion. My argument is consistent.

ok sorry. but my arguement still stands. there IS a difference between a murderer and an innocent baby.

That is ANCIENT JURISPRUDENCE as exemplified by the code of hammurabi (more popularly known as the principle of an eye for an eye). Modern jurisprudence isn't about revenge.

there is a difference. revenge is where you take the law into your own hands and go out and kill someone. justice is where the suspected murderer goes through a fair trial and is convicted or pardoned

NO.

What you are describing are the penalties called for in shariah law. A murderer's life is forfeit in the same manner as a thief's hands are forfeit.

that is an irrealevant comparison. that law is "a hand for a loaf of bread." that is not justice and that is certainly not what i am suggesting. im suggesting "a life for a life" i find it pathetic that you resort to comparing my philosophy to something that is in no way related.

If you wish to examine the american legal system, you need to look at john locke's social contract. The reason any man takes on the bonds of civil society is to protect his fundamental rights -- life, liberty and estate. To this end, he is willing to give up some of his liberty in order for society to protect his fundamental rights with the common force. That, in short, is the end of civil society.

When the state resorts to capital punishment, it is, in fact, contradicting the very end(s) for which society was constituted to begin with.

on the contrary, it exists to protect our freedoms and that includes protecting us from people in our society who take away the freedoms of others. and it also exists to distribute punishments to those who endanger the freedoms of others. our constitution is alot more complicated than the simple laws youre showing me, but i guess it is just to much for your simple mind to comprehend.

I do not see how you can honestly say that your argument conforms with any logic, whatsoever.

When a citizen breaks the social contract, the benefits of civil society are simply withdrawn from him. The state cannot 'withdraw' a person's right to live since it was not granted by the state to begin with. The net effect is that the offender is 'cut-off' from the social contract. Banishment, incarceration...take your pick. They are the more logical consequences than capital punsihment in view of the above political philosophy.

if allowing someone to live after taking life seems logical to you than i geuss thats your problem. i suggest you take some time to think more thoroughly about this subject and the goverments range of authority. you seem to love to quote from the basic philosophies of government but you dont take into consideration the complications and evolution of our constitution. you only quote the basic principles and you have no grasp of justice. eye for an eye is justice. what you want may be correct and it may not but it certainly is not true justice by definition.

 

[peoplespartyguy65]

The overall cost including the endless appeals is what makes capitol punishment cost more than life is prison. There has to be a cap on the amount of appeals a defendant can have. Executions should also be carried out in public, as this will I believe act as even more of a deterrent. As for those not liking or wanting the death penalty,lobby your local governments for harsher conditions while in prison for example,no t.v's, no radios work is required in order to eat. These kinds of things can make it less likely for people to offend as well.

 

[palerider]

That is because people like you wish to pretend that capital punishment is anything but an unfortunate abberation born from an obsolete legal system.

Talk about appeals to emotion.

And they should have 'rightly been executed' because......?

Because they were guilty of a capital offense. Stick with the program here.

'Civilized' is the state of being in civil society. That means living under laws that are logical and consistent.

And it is logical to allow convicted murderers the chance to kill again?

Protocols in the universal declaration of human rights are already in place. Removing capital punishment is a requirement for membership in the eu.

The universal declaration? You are a utopian. I am curious, just how many of the "rights" listed on that piece of toilet paper do you believe are genuine rights?

By the way, since you seem so keen on the utopian ideals of the UN, you might refer to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from the same useless body. Article 6 might interest you. Or it might not.

here it is for your reading pleasure.

Article 6 General comment on its implementation

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.

5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.

6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.

These aren't steps towards utopia -- merely a more humane social order.

Allowing murderers the opportunity to kill again creates a more humane social order how?

And if you really can't let go of that primal urge for revenge, then take pride in the distinction that you have somalia and saudi arabia for company in your illogic.

Very hypocritcal to accuse me of appeals to emotion. This one serves no purpose other than such an appeal.

I do not need to dignify that argument because it is patent nonsense.

You need not dignify any argument that you have no answer for. That is your standard MO.

For every murder you can name in that vein, I can name more who were wrongly executed.

OK Do it. Here are the names of 15 murderers who were either released to kill again, escaped and killed again, or were imprisoned for murder and killed again in prison. Now name more than 15 who you can prove were wrongly executed. By the way, if you want more names, I can provide plenty and every single one of them prove the fatal flaw in your thinking.

Clay Dobson, Kenneth Wayne McDuff, John Duffy, Jack Henry Abbott, Darryl Kemp, Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, Wayne Henry Garrison, Miguel Salas Rodriguez, Paul Harrington, James Rodney Hicks, Kevin Moore, Bert Hunter, Bennie Demps, and Leroy Schmitz .

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The overall cost including the endless appeals is what makes capitol punishment cost more than life is prison. There has to be a cap on the amount of appeals a defendant can have. Executions should also be carried out in public, as this will I believe act as even more of a deterrent. As for those not liking or wanting the death penalty,lobby your local governments for harsher conditions while in prison for example,no t.v's, no radios work is required in order to eat. These kinds of things can make it less likely for people to offend as well.

What great ideas! It's a wonder that no one ever thought of these things before. Another thing we could do to raise money is sell tags for the right to pull the switch on bad guys. How much do you think we could have gotten for the tag on Jeff Dahmer? Or Saddam Hussein? You know, another good idea would be not to just have the executions be public, but have them be electrocuted like Dell was in the movie THE GREEN MILE, dry electrodes make the people burn slowly and die in boiling agony--won't that be fun to watch? We can bring the kids and a picnic lunch just like we used to do at lynchings! What about public torture? Bull and bear fights! Public impalements! Chopping off the hands of thieves is good, that way they starve to death slowly as an example to our children.

I think that if we look back on our glorious past we can learn a lot about how to make people behave by using terror tactics. No more of this sissy, liberal innocent until proven guilty stuff, we'll torture the people till they confess--everybody is guilty of something. Bring back the Inquisition, those were the good old days when there was no crime and everybody was an obedient Christian or THEY DIED BAD!

I wish to commend Pale and Nums for their heroic battle, it's been so much fun to watch--like midgets beating a dead elephant with bristle brooms.

 

[numinus]

Talk about appeals to emotion.

I do not base my opinions on emotions -- only FACTS AND LOGIC.

The phrase "an eye for an eye", (Hebrew: עין תחת עין‎) is a quotation from Exodus 21:23–27 in which a person who has taken the eye of another in a fight is instructed to give his own eye in compensation. At the root of the non-Biblical form of this principle is the belief that one of the purposes of the law is to provide equitable RETALIATION for an offended party. It defined and restricted the extent of retaliation. This early belief is reflected in the Code of Hammurabi and in the laws of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ex 21:23–25, Lv 24:18–20, Dt 19:21).

RETALIATION HAS NO PLACE IN MODERN JURISPRUDENCE.

Because they were guilty of a capital offense. Stick with the program here.

You really love circular arguments, don't you?

Capital punishment should be inflicted on murderers because they are guilty of a capital offense.

Duh?

And it is logical to allow convicted murderers the chance to kill again?

Correct.

A convicted murderer has as much chance to kill as to reform. That is the consequence of having a legal system based on logical and consistent principles.

The universal declaration? You are a utopian. I am curious, just how many of the "rights" listed on that piece of toilet paper do you believe are genuine rights?

By the way, since you seem so keen on the utopian ideals of the UN, you might refer to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from the same useless body. Article 6 might interest you. Or it might not.

For a country so keen on criticizing others on their 'human rights record', it is the height of hypocrisy that the us signed this document with a proliferation of reservations as to render it completely moot and ineffective.

Which begs the question -- do you recognize a law or principle only when it suits your sentiment?

here it is for your reading pleasure.

Article 6 General comment on its implementation

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.

5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.

6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.

In 1950, the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted by the Council of Europe, declaring a protected human right to life in Article 2. There are exceptions for lawful executions and self defence, arresting a fleeing suspect, and suppressing riots and insurrections. Since then Protocol 6 of the Convention has called for nations to outlaw capital punishment except in time of war or national emergency, and at present this pertains in all countries of the Council except Russia. Protocol 13 provides for the total abolition of capital punishment, and has been implemented in most member countries of the Council.

Those protocols.

Allowing murderers the opportunity to kill again creates a more humane social order how?

It allows for an inherent goodness in human nature -- which is the reason why the right to life should be protected by government to begin with.

That is, of course, john locke's starting point of his political philosophy.

Very hypocritcal to accuse me of appeals to emotion. This one serves no purpose other than such an appeal.

Again, not emotion but fact.

You need not dignify any argument that you have no answer for. That is your standard MO.

I just did. That you are replying to it (without facts nor logic, might I add) proves just that.

OK Do it. Here are the names of 15 murderers who were either released to kill again, escaped and killed again, or were imprisoned for murder and killed again in prison. Now name more than 15 who you can prove were wrongly executed. By the way, if you want more names, I can provide plenty and every single one of them prove the fatal flaw in your thinking.

Clay Dobson, Kenneth Wayne McDuff, John Duffy, Jack Henry Abbott, Darryl Kemp, Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, Wayne Henry Garrison, Miguel Salas Rodriguez, Paul Harrington, James Rodney Hicks, Kevin Moore, Bert Hunter, Bennie Demps, and Leroy Schmitz .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

Newly-available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 15 death row inmates since 1992 in the US,[9] but DNA evidence is only available in a fraction of capital cases. Kirk Bloodsworth was the first American to be freed from death row as a result of exoneration by DNA fingerprinting. Ray Krone is the 100th American to have received the death penalty and later be exonerated.

You're 85 examples short.

 

[numinus]

The overall cost including the endless appeals is what makes capitol punishment cost more than life is prison. There has to be a cap on the amount of appeals a defendant can have. Executions should also be carried out in public, as this will I believe act as even more of a deterrent. As for those not liking or wanting the death penalty,lobby your local governments for harsher conditions while in prison for example,no t.v's, no radios work is required in order to eat. These kinds of things can make it less likely for people to offend as well.

Or, you can simply move to saudi arabia and apply citizenship there.

 

[numinus]

I wish to commend Pale and Nums for their heroic battle, it's been so much fun to watch--like midgets beating a dead elephant with bristle brooms.

Not as much fun as the circus you caused expounding gay (il)logic.

 

[numinus]

if allowing someone to live after taking life seems logical to you than i geuss thats your problem. i suggest you take some time to think more thoroughly about this subject and the goverments range of authority

.

I have thought about it quite thoroughly.

The question is, have you?

you seem to love to quote from the basic philosophies of government but you dont take into consideration the complications and evolution of our constitution.

Of course the constitution evolves. It evolves according to the PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH SOCIETY WAS CONSTITUTED.

Society evolved to eradicate slavery to better conform with the principles for which society was constituted.

Society evolved to grant special rights to children to better conform with the principles for which society was constituted.

Society evolved to define an individual's civil rights to better conform with the principles for which society was constituted.

Capital punishment, hopefully, would be the next subject of societal evolution.

you only quote the basic principles and you have no grasp of justice. eye for an eye is justice. what you want may be correct and it may not but it certainly is not true justice by definition.

Eye for an eye is a legal system based on RETALIATION.

The modern american legal system is NOT BASED ON RETALIATION. In fact, retaliation is a form of vigilanteism that is completely UNACCEPTABLE.

 

[numinus]

ok sorry. but my arguement still stands. there IS a difference between a murderer and an innocent baby.

The only standard for the right to life is that one is a PERSON.

In that regard, the fetus and the convict are the SAME.

there is a difference. revenge is where you take the law into your own hands and go out and kill someone. justice is where the suspected murderer goes through a fair trial and is convicted or pardoned

The only difference is that capital punishment is sanctioned by the state in behalf of the victim.

RETALIATION IS RETALIATION AND IT HAS NO PLACE IN MODERN JURISPRUDENCE.

that is an irrealevant comparison. that law is "a hand for a loaf of bread." that is not justice and that is certainly not what i am suggesting. im suggesting "a life for a life" i find it pathetic that you resort to comparing my philosophy to something that is in no way related.

Either you believe justice to be a form of retaliation or not.

Capital punishment is a form of retaliation -- NEVER SELF-DEFENSE.

on the contrary, it exists to protect our freedoms and that includes protecting us from people in our society who take away the freedoms of others. and it also exists to distribute punishments to those who endanger the freedoms of others. our constitution is alot more complicated than the simple laws youre showing me, but i guess it is just to much for your simple mind to comprehend

Nothing in your argument necessitates capital punishment.

Everyone deserves a fair trial. Everyone deserves punishment if found guilty. Capital punishment IS NOT A VALID FORM OF PUNISHMENT.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Not as much fun as the circus you caused expounding gay (il)logic.

Did I mention the midgets were naked? And had tiny little egos that would swell up on them?

 

[numinus]

Did I mention the midgets were naked? And had tiny little egos that would swell up on them?

I have no doubt, whatsoever, that as far as your imagination is concerned, the characters in your little fantasy would necessarily be naked.

You dirty dog you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have no doubt, whatsoever, that as far as your imagination is concerned, the characters in your little fantasy would necessarily be naked.

You dirty dog you.

You just say that because you're envious.