Thoughts on the Death Penalty

[Bunz]

The state is obliged to comply with the requirement of law - NOT the requirement of the victim's family, or anyone else's for that matter. In this regard, the justice system is said to be impartial. All criminal proceedings involving a capital offense - the aggrieved party is ALWAYS the body politic (People of the us vs. so and so).

Bypassing the justice system is itself a criminal offense. This is the result of equality. The power you have over your fellow man is precisely the power your fellow man have over you. No more, no less.

I dont disagree

I don't see my post anywhere in that.

I was quoting Truthaboveall.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

First of all, I want to complement all on the civil tone this discussion has maintained, for the most part. It is another issue that many will feel strongly about, yet the respect shown for all is noticeable. Kudos!

There is no right to die.

Part of the problem is that the states, when determining whether a "request for execution" on the part of the prisoner is a valid consideration or not, is that the "right to die" is used as a determinant. This should not be the case, especially in states that allow capital punishment and also have sentencing options of death or life without parole. I've heard statements from judges that death 'would be an easy way out' and choose to sentence the convicted to life without parole.

If we are truly concerned with the "rights" and "humane treatment" of the convicted that should be as burning a cause as eliminating executions in itself. Oddly, it is often the same people who are protesting executions in the penal system who are often pro-life AND advocating the "right to die" issue. That tells me that there is a graded scale on the essential value of any human life. And please, this is not an attempt to hijack this thread into other issues. Just a comment about a portion of it, which is the humanity involved and the value of the lives involved.

All the more reason NOT to execute a criminal.

The state is obliged to comply with the requirement of law - NOT the requirement of the victim's family, or anyone else's for that matter. In this regard, the justice system is said to be impartial. All criminal proceedings involving a capital offense - the aggrieved party is ALWAYS the body politic (People of the us vs. so and so).

Correct. The issue of vengeance should never be a component, and is a miscarriage of justice. The blind portion of justice signifies that the law does not see either the suffering of the victims or their families or the lack of remorse or gloating of a killer. It should be blind to the wealth, the poverty, the education or lack thereof, the background or the promising future of any involved in a case. It should be based solely on the law, and the violation of the law. Every accused should remain innocent until proven guilty, and not accused, tried and hung by either the media or the victims' family.

But as I believe we both agree, a victim's family's desire for vengeance should not be a reason to execute. NOR should it be a reason to NOT execute. It should be a non-issue under the law.

 

[numinus]

Why not?

Your reasoning faculty is prone to sporadic flights of fancy.

Does it make sense to you for the state to protect your right to live only to assist you to kill yourself?

 

[numinus]

First of all, I want to complement all on the civil tone this discussion has maintained, for the most part. It is another issue that many will feel strongly about, yet the respect shown for all is noticeable. Kudos!

Part of the problem is that the states, when determining whether a "request for execution" on the part of the prisoner is a valid consideration or not, is that the "right to die" is used as a determinant. This should not be the case, especially in states that allow capital punishment and also have sentencing options of death or life without parole. I've heard statements from judges that death 'would be an easy way out' and choose to sentence the convicted to life without parole.

If we are truly concerned with the "rights" and "humane treatment" of the convicted that should be as burning a cause as eliminating executions in itself. Oddly, it is often the same people who are protesting executions in the penal system who are often pro-life AND advocating the "right to die" issue. That tells me that there is a graded scale on the essential value of any human life. And please, this is not an attempt to hijack this thread into other issues. Just a comment about a portion of it, which is the humanity involved and the value of the lives involved.



Correct. The issue of vengeance should never be a component, and is a miscarriage of justice. The blind portion of justice signifies that the law does not see either the suffering of the victims or their families or the lack of remorse or gloating of a killer. It should be blind to the wealth, the poverty, the education or lack thereof, the background or the promising future of any involved in a case. It should be based solely on the law, and the violation of the law. Every accused should remain innocent until proven guilty, and not accused, tried and hung by either the media or the victims' family.

But as I believe we both agree, a victim's family's desire for vengeance should not be a reason to execute. NOR should it be a reason to NOT execute. It should be a non-issue under the law.

Excluding any desire for vengeance, there is no reason left for the state to execute a criminal offender.

Always, the state acts towards the inalienable rights of the individual as it relates to the common good. Whatever common good to be had in the death penalty is a matter of convenience. We simply do not disregard the fundamental rights of the individual for matters of convenience.

Notice that this argument is consistently applied to abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research - in fact all moral questions involving human life and dignity in WHATEVER form it manifests.

 

[Popeye]

Excluding any desire for vengeance, there is no reason left for the state to execute a criminal offender.

Always, the state acts towards the inalienable rights of the individual as it relates to the common good. Whatever common good to be had in the death penalty is a matter of convenience. We simply do not disregard the fundamental rights of the individual for matters of convenience.

Notice that this argument is consistently applied to abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research - in fact all moral questions involving human life and dignity in WHATEVER form it manifests.

What? You're equating cells in a petri dish with a human being? A woman's right to chose with the death penalty? A terminally ill human's right to die with dignity, with that of a murderer?

All three are stretches and clouded with political bias.

 

[Coyote]

What? You're equating cells in a petri dish with a human being? A woman's right to chose with the death penalty? A terminally ill human's right to die with dignity, with that of a murderer?

All three are stretches and clouded with political bias.

Actually....no, it's not clouded with political bias - it's totally, 100% consistant.

 

[bewitched]

from my shaman point of view... the death penalty is necessary to break the beads of consciousness that create more evil that lead to the penalty in the first place. however, if the death penalty isn't done by beheading it doesn't really work all that well and evil people on earth still exist.

 

[numinus]

What? You're equating cells in a petri dish with a human being?

If I had a large enough petri dish and forcibly glue you to it, you would be nothing more than a bunch of 'cells in a petri dish', no?

A woman's right to chose with the death penalty?

One cannot make a personal choice that would directly result in the death of another.

A terminally ill human's right to die with dignity, with that of a murderer?

There is no right to die. Any attempt to justify this non-existent right as a consequence of the right to privacy is seriously flawed. While you may kill yourself at your own liesure and in the privacy of your own home, you may not enlist the aid of another for this - not without criminal consequences on your accomplice.

All three are stretches and clouded with political bias.

If one were to apply the principles of law, one would realize that these conclusions are consistent and logical. They have very little to do with affairs of state - hence political would be the furthest from them.

 

[numinus]

from my shaman point of view... the death penalty is necessary to break the beads of consciousness that create more evil that lead to the penalty in the first place. however, if the death penalty isn't done by beheading it doesn't really work all that well and evil people on earth still exist.

It is not necessary at all. That is what the penal system is for.

And if you are arguing on the basis of deterence, then the best deterent is a highly effective law enforcement. Nothing can deter crime better than the certainty of capture.

 

[Popeye]

If I had a large enough petri dish and forcibly glue you to it, you would be nothing more than a bunch of 'cells in a petri dish', no?

Terrible analogy. You sound like a religious nut, along the lines of Randall Terry and his ilk.

One cannot make a personal choice that would directly result in the death of another.

Since we are talking about abortion- Roe v Wade

There is no right to die. Any attempt to justify this non-existent right as a consequence of the right to privacy is seriously flawed. While you may kill yourself at your own liesure and in the privacy of your own home, you may not enlist the aid of another for this - not without criminal consequences on your accomplice.

You may die with dignity in Oregon, perfectly legal.

If one were to apply the principles of law, one would realize that these conclusions are consistent and logical. They have very little to do with affairs of state - hence political would be the furthest from them.

All of the views you previously expressed are consistent with the extreme religious right. I have a feeling politics is very much in play here.

 

[vyo476]

Your reasoning faculty is prone to sporadic flights of fancy.

Does it make sense to you for the state to protect your right to live only to assist you to kill yourself?

Yeah. I guess it does.

I mean, the right to "freedom of speech" doesn't require me to go running around shooting my mouth off all the time. Freedom of speech also covers freedom of silence.

I guess "freedom of choice" would be my pick for the one overriding right...even though I've never seen it written anywhere in our founding documents.

 

[vyo476]

Sorry, Popeye, but I'm gonna have to say that that argument just went to numinus.

You are just a collection of cells. If you wish to dehumanize fetuses by stating that they're just a bunch of cells in a petri dish it would do you well to remember that you're technically just a bunch of cells, too.

Hiding behind a Supreme Court decision is a weak defense. Remember Dred Scott?

I've debated with numinus before. He's a philsopher, not a religious nut. You might want to read up on metaphysics if you want to even try to stay in an argument with him.

 

[bewitched]

It is not necessary at all. That is what the penal system is for.

And if you are arguing on the basis of deterence, then the best deterent is a highly effective law enforcement. Nothing can deter crime better than the certainty of capture.

I thought the penal system was about penises.
no, beheading isn't a deterant, it's an elimination of beads of consciousness which deals with quantum physics.

as far a certainty of capture... hah. that's kinda funny... to criminals.

 

[Popeye]

Sorry, Popeye, but I'm gonna have to say that that argument just went to numinus.

You are just a collection of cells. If you wish to dehumanize fetuses by stating that they're just a bunch of cells in a petri dish it would do you well to remember that you're technically just a bunch of cells, too.

Of course we're a bunch of cells. We're also 60-70% water, that doesn't make us comparable to a lake. Cells in a petri dish are not self aware, you and I are.

Hiding behind a Supreme Court decision is a weak defense. Remember Dred Scott?

When legalities are being discussed, it's not hiding.

I've debated with numinus before. He's a philsopher, not a religious nut. You might want to read up on metaphysics if you want to even try to stay in an argument with him.

I don't care if he's Aristotle himself, the views expressed sound religiously based. If I'm wrong, he has my apologies.

 

[numinus]

Terrible analogy. You sound like a religious nut, along the lines of Randall Terry and his ilk.

The analogy is to the point, fyi.

You are arguing human existence to be contingent on the circumstances they are in. This, in itself, is ARBITRARY, hence bereft of logic. If you can recognize the human person from one moment to the next, why then can you not recognize the same person throughout his entire natural existence - that is from conception to death?

Since we are talking about abortion- Roe v Wade

Have you even read roe v wade enough to make an intelligent discussion with me? The idea of dividing a woman's pregnancy in trimesters and legislating them separately REEKS of political expediency.

The very notion of attributing human existence to an external condition or circumstance is logically untenable, worst it is REPULSIVE TO REASON.

You may die with dignity in Oregon, perfectly legal.

You mean conveniently don't you?

There is nothing dignified in killing another human being - especially when one's motivation is convenience, either for one's self or the people around him.

And the situating becomes even more morally skewed when you co-opt a medical practitioner to do this deed for you. There are very strong and compelling reasons why a medical practitioner is made to undertake the hippocratic oath prior to his practice. There are very strong and compelling reasons why the hippocratic oath does not allow for exceptions.

All of the views you previously expressed are consistent with the extreme religious right. I have a feeling politics is very much in play here.

Extreme 'right or left' are words that make sense only in political dynamics - NOT IN QUESTIONS OF ETHICS. There is no political capital to be had in defending the rights of the weakest, the most socially damaged and outcast.