For those who don't believe in the death penalty..

[TheSollyLama]

It may be a small difference to you, but to a person who is fighting for his innocence, it's a big difference.

--And to the rest of us, merely a loophole to eventually be exploited by people with the rest of their lives and gov't entitled legal representation.
And thus it mostly is now.
So the effect is overwhemingly similar to now, except that for most, there actually is an artificial deadline.

And see therein is the distinction of such importance it is barely noticed. IF you imprison someone for life, holding then captive in some kind of deprivation (not even getting into the argument of how solft free cable, food, lawsuits, and weight rooms is) until they die- unless they somehow beat the odds and prove themselves innocent after all this time......what is the difference in giving them an artificial time somewhat sooner than after we spend tax dollars alive longer........?

I am suggesting that an artificial deadline is no worse than some nebulous one of unending confinement. I just don't see much difference in a deadline a judge gives or some unknown date of death later in a life sentence. Jail till you die, whether that is in 2 months or 30 years.

Another big issue with life in prison is whether to prolong that life. In prison you get medical care that will make you live longer than otherwise- meaning a life sentence is most likely LONGER punishment and will continue to get longer as we prolong life more and more.
How much money do we need to spend on keeping people alive longer- just so they can sit in prison longer?
Isn't that pretty much cruel and unusual? Here, we'll spend tax dollars keeping you alive past heart attacks or cancer- only so we can keep you in prison that much longer!!!

You need to address these sorts of issues, along with the future. What happens in 20 years when it's possible that genetic medicines make common a lifespan of say 120 of age being realized?

Then what? With ever more prisoners, won't the punishments need to change? What is doing 15 years in jail to someone that lives to be 120? Alot less than to someone that expects to check out in his 70's or 80s!!!

The more life you are taking from someone- sholdn't there be stronger punishment?
Most people agree killing a child is worse than an adult. A child is having more life stolen from it than an adult. But what happens when you live to 110 routinely and killing a child is taking away 30 more years of life than today?

there is more here than you are addressing.

You have a right to life, and it shall not be violated

--The gov't promises that to YOU, a citizen of this country. It's the document by which WE live by. So depriving anyone else of that is not specifically a problem strictly speaking.
But you are saying that in certain situations I can forfeit my life, such as you killing me in self defense if I attacked you.
But then you say that you cannot forfeit your life by actions taken by you and have the gov't claim that forfeiture?

I just don't get that. I don't see it as your right to kill to be able to defend yourself. I see that as an action taken by someone that forfeits their right to life. Perhaps its a semantics thing.

But if you believe I give up my right to live if i attack you and you respond with deadly force. then why wouldn't say, killing a bunch of schoolkids after I raped them and videotaped it?
Just because I wasn't killed in some kind of old west type shoot out, is the crime somehow less heinous? Somehow not worthy of death simply because it didn't end by violence but rather with an arrest?

Let's take Timothy McVeigh. He wasn't killed in a self defense situation. He blew up 169 people, including a bunch of kids- but was apprehended later by police after investigation.
You are saying it would have been okay to kill Mcveigh at the time if you saw him driving up in a bomb laden truck and taken action to defend your life. But it is not okay to take his life after simply because HE GOT AWAY WITH IT?!

You can't seriously advocate something like that.

If the cops would have shot and killed say, the BTK guy one night while he was about to ice some hooker, that's okay cause it's defense of a life, right? So you say it's okay to kill ON BEHALF of someone other than yourself right? Just so we're clear on this- you do believe it's okay to kill FOR someone, right? A soldier can kill the enemies of your country FOR you, correct? A cop can kill to protect you, and such.......no argument there? You agree it's okay to pay people to kill for you.

But you are feeling righteous over the timing of them killing for you? I don't understand that. It's argument from Emotion.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--And to the rest of us, merely a loophole to eventually be exploited by people with the rest of their lives and gov't entitled legal representation.
And thus it mostly is now.
So the effect is overwhemingly similar to now, except that for most, there actually is an artificial deadline.

And see therein is the distinction of such importance it is barely noticed. IF you imprison someone for life, holding then captive in some kind of deprivation (not even getting into the argument of how solft free cable, food, lawsuits, and weight rooms is) until they die- unless they somehow beat the odds and prove themselves innocent after all this time......what is the difference in giving them an artificial time somewhat sooner than after we spend tax dollars alive longer........?

I am suggesting that an artificial deadline is no worse than some nebulous one of unending confinement. I just don't see much difference in a deadline a judge gives or some unknown date of death later in a life sentence. Jail till you die, whether that is in 2 months or 30 years.

Another big issue with life in prison is whether to prolong that life. In prison you get medical care that will make you live longer than otherwise- meaning a life sentence is most likely LONGER punishment and will continue to get longer as we prolong life more and more.
How much money do we need to spend on keeping people alive longer- just so they can sit in prison longer?
Isn't that pretty much cruel and unusual? Here, we'll spend tax dollars keeping you alive past heart attacks or cancer- only so we can keep you in prison that much longer!!!

You need to address these sorts of issues, along with the future. What happens in 20 years when it's possible that genetic medicines make common a lifespan of say 120 of age being realized?

Then what? With ever more prisoners, won't the punishments need to change? What is doing 15 years in jail to someone that lives to be 120? Alot less than to someone that expects to check out in his 70's or 80s!!!

The more life you are taking from someone- sholdn't there be stronger punishment?
Most people agree killing a child is worse than an adult. A child is having more life stolen from it than an adult. But what happens when you live to 110 routinely and killing a child is taking away 30 more years of life than today?

there is more here than you are addressing.

Get yourself convicted and *then* tell me it doesn't matter whether you've got 2 months or 30 years left to you. That's bullshit. And even if you wouldn't care either way, you don't have the right to make that decision for other people.

So likewise, while it may not make sense to take heroic measures to prolong the life of a lifer with a terminal disease, it would be unethical to deny them medical care for treatable conditions, unless the prisoner himself decides to decline the treatment.

The issues of sentence length in relation to lifespan growth is a whole 'nother argument, but really doesn't relate much to the rightness or wrongness of executing people, so I'm not going to respond to it in this thread.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--The gov't promises that to YOU, a citizen of this country. It's the document by which WE live by. So depriving anyone else of that is not specifically a problem strictly speaking.
But you are saying that in certain situations I can forfeit my life, such as you killing me in self defense if I attacked you.
But then you say that you cannot forfeit your life by actions taken by you and have the gov't claim that forfeiture?

I just don't get that. I don't see it as your right to kill to be able to defend yourself. I see that as an action taken by someone that forfeits their right to life. Perhaps its a semantics thing.

But if you believe I give up my right to live if i attack you and you respond with deadly force. then why wouldn't say, killing a bunch of schoolkids after I raped them and videotaped it?
Just because I wasn't killed in some kind of old west type shoot out, is the crime somehow less heinous? Somehow not worthy of death simply because it didn't end by violence but rather with an arrest?

Let's take Timothy McVeigh. He wasn't killed in a self defense situation. He blew up 169 people, including a bunch of kids- but was apprehended later by police after investigation.
You are saying it would have been okay to kill Mcveigh at the time if you saw him driving up in a bomb laden truck and taken action to defend your life. But it is not okay to take his life after simply because HE GOT AWAY WITH IT?!

You can't seriously advocate something like that.

If the cops would have shot and killed say, the BTK guy one night while he was about to ice some hooker, that's okay cause it's defense of a life, right? So you say it's okay to kill ON BEHALF of someone other than yourself right? Just so we're clear on this- you do believe it's okay to kill FOR someone, right? A soldier can kill the enemies of your country FOR you, correct? A cop can kill to protect you, and such.......no argument there? You agree it's okay to pay people to kill for you.

But you are feeling righteous over the timing of them killing for you? I don't understand that. It's argument from Emotion.

So are you one of those people who thinks that all of our rights are defined and bestowed by the government, and that we have no inherent human rights that are objectively just to respect? That is incorrect. We have an inherent right to life (as well as liberty and property), and we are fortunate enough to have a government that mostly respects those rights. The founding documents of this government explicitly recognize that these rights are pre-existing and are not created but only recognized by this government.

I'm perfectly fine with your definition of self-defense as response to "an action taken by someone that forfeits their right to life" rather than as "your right to kill to be able to defend yourself". No argument there. That definition does not change my position or arguments a bit.

In your examples above, the defining distinction is whether killing the perp on the spot will *prevent* death or damage. If shooting the guy down will prevent the bomb form going off, or stop him from killing you or others, and thereby save lives, then it is right to do so. If, however, the damage has already been done, then it is no longer self-defense, but summary execution, and therefore is no longer right, but wrong.

So, just as with your own defense, it is OK to kill on behalf of someone else (whether paid or as a volunteer is irrelevant) only under the same conditions: that doing so will prevent death or damage. It is no more right for a cop to kill someone who is in custody than it is for anyone else to do so. It is no more right for a soldier to kill when it is not in actual defense of the country than it is for anyone else to. It's not the pay, or the proxy; it's whether the killing is right or not, which is defined by whether it is in active defense or not.

And this is not "argument from emotion". Just because you do not understand or agree with something does not mean it is automatically a logical fallacy. (Plus, of course, there is the absurdity of calling my argument against the death penalty an "argument from emotion", when the post that began this thread [as well as many of your own arguments] "argued" in favor of the death penalty based solely on visceral reactions to the heinousness of the crimes described.)

PhilB

[TheSollyLama]

Get yourself convicted and *then* tell me it doesn't matter whether you've got 2 months or 30 years left to you. That's bullshit. And even if you wouldn't care either way, you don't have the right to make that decision for other people.

--Well the key here is 'Get yourself convicted' which is of course a symptom of being a criminal that has committed a murder......

See, once you have gotten to the conviction part- I am far less interested in just how you fucking 'feel' about it.

When did goddamn Oprah become the chief law maker? When did Dr. Phil have a say in sentencing?

When did the right to life of a person who themselves do not recognize such a right in their victim, become so damn important? Was it during those few seconds the life gurgled out of their victims throat?

So likewise, while it may not make sense to take heroic measures to prolong the life of a lifer with a terminal disease, it would be unethical to deny them medical care for treatable conditions, unless the prisoner himself decides to decline the treatment.

--So then it isn't cruel and unusual to keep someone alive just so they can be confined to a longer punishment? Cause I find that repugnant.
Here, let me keep you alive just so I can continue to exact my pound of flesh even longer..........
If jail is to be considered 'bad' and supposedly you wouldn't want to go there- then keeping someone alive just to continue that torment is flatly cruel.

The issues of sentence length in relation to lifespan growth is a whole 'nother argument, but really doesn't relate much to the rightness or wrongness of executing people, so I'm not going to respond to it in this thread

--Right and wrong are entirely your criteria. You cannot be anymore right than anyone else with an opinion on it.
But aside from that- it IS entirely within the realm of practical consideration.

Your immediate dismissal of a practical point reveals much about the nature of what you call an argument. You would rather go back to moral absolutism, and your belief that you are correct. From THAT little world you feel secure.

The fact is that there is a rising number of life sentences and so much the more if your ban on death came into being. Those people take up real space, real resources- for life. And now with you giving them medical intervention, even a prolonged life at that. Real dollars and cents.

The cost goes up and up from several levels and you ignore all that to shout that you deem it immoral and therefore the world should alter it's course...........
jesus said much the same and he ain't getting my vote for anything but another messiah-complex in training either.

So are you one of those people who thinks that all of our rights are defined and bestowed by the government, and that we have no inherent human rights that are objectively just to respect?

--Well without a government to give you those rights, and protect you from people that would not respect those rights- then you wouldn't have the rights to begin with.
It's the horse and cart argument. You and I just disagree on the order of things. You cannot have rights without a gov't to give them to you. Under islamic law, you have no right to squat, if you are not a muslim. You are dealt with accordingly. As a woman in some cultures you cannot go outside without a male. They have no rights.
If you disagree with that status, you are violating your own non-interventionist policy of not enforcing our morality or economy on anyone else.
You are given your freedoms BECAUSE our gov't exists to protect that for you. If you were born somewhere else, you very well may have no rights whatsoever to anyone.
We have rights because our gov't gives them to you and then defends it.

Where do you think we get our rights from? God?

You have any freedom you have because it's been a long, bloody road to ensuring them for you. It's taken death, destruction, slavery, assassination, clawing and dragging ourselves up to the level we are today and you dismiss all that it has gained you, and say that the same thing is immoral now.......

We have an inherent right to life (as well as liberty and property),

--Says who? God? You? You have the right to which you can accomplish. It so happens that our society has accomplished widespread law and order to allow people to think they are entitled to life instead of having to defend it constantly.

Without that gov't which you so bemoan, you would have only what rights you could manage for yourself, because there would be nothing to protect you from those that just don't give a damn about your freedom.

The founding documents of this government explicitly recognize that these rights are pre-existing and are not created but only recognized by this government

--So then we have a duty to make the world better. Even if by force? You are trying to play both sides of a coin here.

You say we are to not hurt people because we don't believe a gov't should hurt it's people and this basic right extends to everyone, even in other countries.
BUT
We cannot intervene to change anyone to be in line with a right we see as universal?
So if japan suddenly turned to outright slavery economy tomorrow we should still continue to deal with them because it's not our place to meddle?

Seems like a recipe for doing absolutely NOTHING.

If shooting the guy down will prevent the bomb form going off, or stop him from killing you or others, and thereby save lives, then it is right to do so.

And if that killing of that person involves killing others? Such as say, he goes boom and kills ten people around him instead of the whole building?

See, you are jusst not thinking this stuff out very far. You are stuck in this "I know what is right an wrong, don't argue" mentality.

You give no stable reason for this conclusion:

If, however, the damage has already been done, then it is no longer self-defense, but summary execution, and therefore is no longer right, but wrong

---There is no qualifying evidence here. Just that you think it's wrong, therefore it just HAS TO BE. Well not in the real world.
Summary execution? No, not after years of litigation, mandecades of work dedicated to these cases, and the like. It is FAR from summary.

It is execution, which we all get you oppose from some moral high horse you claim to be on. That is clear. What isn't is any substantial reason why beyond one guy on the internet thinking so.......

Again- sentencing someone to life is a death sentence. They will be incarcerated till they die. When that death actually happens is not terribly relevant. If could be on a set date a judge imposes or the day when the blood clot in your leg lets loose and you die old and in prison.
What the hell is the difference?

You seem hung up on some spiritual sort of nonsense about 'the sanctity of life' or the act of taking one.
The punishment is identical- jail till you die.

The only compelling difference is an artifical deadline or a random one- but not exactly 'natural' given medical care in prison....

So the entire issue is reduced to someting so insignificant. Whether you die sooner in a chair with a needle in your arm, or later in a bed with other needles in your arm.

And whether it's more cruel to keep you alive longer just to do more jail time.....that's even more immoral than shortening someone's life is lengthening it just to prolong their punishment. That's outright horrible in my opinion.

But again, I accept that it is indeed my opinion, instead of declaring that MY morality is the superior one like you do. I think that it's far less moral to imprison someone for an indefinite time, and then further keep them alive to endure more captivity. THAT is a moral judgement I make. I just don't climb on a moral high horse and preach about how immoral anyone who disagrees with me is.

it is OK to kill on behalf of someone else (whether paid or as a volunteer is irrelevant) only under the same conditions: that doing so will prevent death or damage

--Damage? Like property? Surely someone that believes in a right to life wouldn't place THINGS over the value of life? Say it aint so....

If it is, then what is the spending limit for a killing? Can I shoot you for say, burning my house up? Or is my lawn mower below the cut off limit for killing, maybe a shot in the kneecap?

Holy shit life is so sacred you can't take out a vicious murderer that's already rejected that right to life in others- BUT you can waste someone for messing with your crap????

Just because you do not understand or agree with something does not mean it is automatically a logical fallacy

--No, but when it bears every hallmark of a logical fallacy, can be defined solely within the context of a logical fallacy, and can be corrolated with similar logical fallacies.....then yeah, it is one...

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--Well the key here is 'Get yourself convicted' which is of course a symptom of being a criminal that has committed a murder.....

Or perhaps sometimes not, which is the point of why the death penalty is not a good idea.

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--When did the right to life of a person who themselves do not recognize such a right in their victim, become so damn important? Was it during those few seconds the life gurgled out of their victims throat?

If the justice system could be assured to be 100% accurate in never ever wrongly convicting anyone, I'd not be very worried about this issue. But in your simplistic world, if he gets convicted he is necessarily guilty and is no longer worth any human consideration, regardless of how incompetent his court-appointed lawyer might have been or how the jury selection was stacked or ... or ... Who's living in a fantasy world now?

Originally Posted by TheSollyLama

--Well without a government to give you those rights, and protect you from people that would not respect those rights- then you wouldn't have the rights to begin with.
It's the horse and cart argument. You and I just disagree on the order of things. You cannot have rights without a gov't to give them to you. Under islamic law, you have no right to squat, if you are not a muslim. You are dealt with accordingly. As a woman in some cultures you cannot go outside without a male. They have no rights.
If you disagree with that status, you are violating your own non-interventionist policy of not enforcing our morality or economy on anyone else.
You are given your freedoms BECAUSE our gov't exists to protect that for you. If you were born somewhere else, you very well may have no rights whatsoever to anyone.
We have rights because our gov't gives them to you and then defends it.

Ah. So your understanding of rights is on a par with your understanding of morals and of market economics. OK.

PhilB

[Ivan_markII]

Does it really matter if a person to be executed is guilty? As long as a person can be set as an example for other people not to follow then execute him! Even if the person isn't guilty then they will be setting a warning to other people contemplating the same crime.

That's why I love the movie Starship Troopers.
"This morning a murderer was caught. He was tried and convicted this afternoon. Execution at 6."

Shows quick justice.

[JINXR]

Originally Posted by Ivan_markII

Does it really matter if a person to be executed is guilty? As long as a person can be set as an example for other people not to follow then execute him! Even if the person isn't guilty then they will be setting a warning to other people contemplating the same crime.

That's why I love the movie Starship Troopers.
"This morning a murderer was caught. He was tried and convicted this afternoon. Execution at 6."

Shows quick justice.

So basically toss out your morals and become a murderer, just to put fear in innocent civilians and potential murderers. Hypocrisy anyone?

Can you honestly not see how wrong that is? Not to mention how many problems and how much corruption can arise from that situation? What if the public finds out that the accused was innocent but was put to death to set an example. Talk about loss of respect for the judicial system and the government. I won't even go into all of the corruption that would come from it.

[mikem317]

Originally Posted by PhilB

If the justice system could be assured to be 100% accurate in never ever wrongly convicting anyone, I'd not be very worried about this issue. But in your simplistic world, if he gets convicted he is necessarily guilty and is no longer worth any human consideration, regardless of how incompetent his court-appointed lawyer might have been or how the jury selection was stacked or ... or ... Who's living in a fantasy world now?

Perhaps worth the same human consideration that was imparted on the victim that was murdered, raped or otherwise injured, right?

Ooops. Although you are a self-professed libertarian, this paragraph sounds more like it came from the mouth (or rather, keyboard) of a criminal rights championing liberal moon bat.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by mikem317

Perhaps worth the same human consideration that was imparted on the victim that was murdered, raped or otherwise injured, right?

Ooops. Although you are a self-professed libertarian, this paragraph sounds more like it came from the mouth (or rather, keyboard) of a criminal rights championing liberal moon bat.

Only true if the guy is actually guilty, which requires due process in a fair system. So your argument here is circular. The accused deserves no consideration because he has been judged guilty; he gets judged guilty because he is afforded no consideration.

The victim who was murdered, raped or otherwise injured deserves to have the *actual* guilty party found and convicted, not to have some other guy who happened to be nearby railroaded in order to put on a show and improve the statistics of the local D.A.

As a libertarian, I think that the possibility of an innocent person being convicted of a crime he didn't commit, and then executed for it, by the very government whose proper job is to protect his rights, is about as glaring an example of violation of a person's rights as can be found. And I don't think one has to be a libertarian to see that.

I'm not at all advocating being soft on the guilty. I am saying that msitakes do get made, and that killing people makes any mistakes permanent and irrevocable. Whereas imprisonment instead protects the public from the guilty just as well as death, yet allows for the possibility of mistakes being corrected later if (for example) the real culprit is found, or new evidence is uncovered, or new tests show that the convicted person was not guilty, etc.

PhilB

[mikem317]

I created a thread on this not too long ago. So there's two threads focusing on capital punishment. I'm not going to rehash my thoughts here, but in brief, I believe that if there was no way to repudiate the crime, and the crime is as heinous as some of the crimes mentioned, capital punishment ought to be an option.

The crux of your argument deals with the possibility of the innocent proven guilty. What processes exist that eliminate this possibility?

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by mikem317

I created a thread on this not too long ago. So there's two threads focusing on capital punishment. I'm not going to rehash my thoughts here, but in brief, I believe that if there was no way to repudiate the crime, and the crime is as heinous as some of the crimes mentioned, capital punishment ought to be an option.

The crux of your argument deals with the possibility of the innocent proven guilty. What processes exist that eliminate this possibility?

As I've said several times on this thread and the other, if the justice system could be made (a) reliable enough to provide a very high assurance of no false convictions, and (b) robust enough to ensure that there would never be any political influence over the use of the death penalty, then I would be OK with it. But neither of those criteria currently are the case, nor are they likely to be soon, nor if they were ever achieved could they be counted upon to remain true.

I don't see that the death penalty buys us much of anything. It doesn't protect society from a convicted criminal any more effectively than imprisonment. It may or may not have an additional deterrent effect, but it isn't clear it does at all, which means that *if* it does, it's small. It maybe could save us a bit of money, but (a) that gets eaten up in the process of appeals and so on, and (b) that seems to me to be a pretty petty reason for killing people, especially given the much huger costs of the War on Drugs and other problems we already have with the system.

It does seem to satisfy a gut feeling of revenge for some people, but I think that's not a valid basis for operating a justice system. It's supposed to be about justice, not revenge; that's why we build a system instead of going back to rounding up a posse and lynching someone.

So I think there are several reasons why the death penalty is risky and inappropriate, and not much in the way of real advantages to compensate for that.

PhilB