- #1
timejim
- 42
- 0
And we call ourselves "civilized". I say get rid of all of them. A Government has no business executing its' Citizens, for any reason.
Originally posted by timejim
And we call ourselves "civilized". I say get rid of all of them. A Government has no business executing its' Citizens, for any reason.
Originally posted by timejim
A Government has no business executing its' Citizens, for any reason.
Originally posted by wasteofo2
Ivan, what about cases like that of the green river killer in which the person admitted to raping and killing something like 46 women and it is obvious that it isn't a false confession due to the murderer giving accurate accounts of events and not fabricating anything?
If you can prove beyond a doubt someone is guilty of a crime like raping and killing dozens of women, do you think that execution is still wrong? What about people like osama bin laden or others who head terrorist organizations or people like former nazi officers? Would you rather the American taxpayers help keep Osama bin laden alive than give him a shot? Would you have kept Hitler in some sort of maximum-security jail if he hadn't killed himself? I don't have the figures with me at the present, but it costs quite a bit to keep a prisoner alive each year, what's the point of not killing murdurers and terrorists when keeping them alive will cost a lot of money, which could be used to do a lot of good around the world? Imagine all the little starving African kids which could be fed with the thousands of dollars it costs per year to keep one psycho killer alive.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that to kill someone, we need not be certain of guilt, just certain beyond reasonable doubt.
Originally posted by Sonty
All the people you mentioned are still useful. Even the most terible killer. Why kill them when you can painfully torture them? They would make a better example. You could make the "normal" murderers do some hard useless job like carrying a stone up and down some stairs. Death doesn't scare some people anymore. Work scares everybody.
Originally posted by wasteofo2
Ok, but what about people like Saddam, Bin Laden, Officials in tyrannical governments etc.?
And what if there was footage of someone going into a store and killing everyone with 2 machine guns, the police immediately caught him as he was leaving the store and he kills 3 police officers with the same guns before he's aprehended, what about then?
What's wrong with proof beyond a resonable doubt? Are you implying that they should disprove unreasonable doubts as well before they execute someone? It's certainly possible that aliens took over someone's mind and forced them to perpetrate a crime, but rather unreasonable to consider in a court of law, wheras falsification of documents, political agendas etc. are perfectly reasonable.
I'd imagine clinton added more reasons for which someone could be executed for due to the new ways in which people can commit crimes and cause others harm with technology.
Originally posted by wasteofo2
Eh, I was simply arguing death vs. imprisonment. Forced manual labor was kind of abolished a while ago in the USA and I don't think anyone who thinks killing people with a shot is uncivilized would be happy with those same people doing hard labor for no pay for their whole lives.
Well, if someone I loved was killed in that store, then obviously I might be filled with hatred and want "an eye for an eye", but looking at this objectively, what do we gain by killing anyone?
Originally posted by timejim
And we call ourselves "civilized". I say get rid of all of them. A Government has no business executing its' Citizens, for any reason.
Originally posted by Adam
An important matter to consider. Regardless of the authority or ethics you think you have, or you think your state has, none of it changes the fact that if you kill the prisoner, or support his execution, then you are a killer, or at least condone killing.
Is it worth being a killer? Do you want to be one? What does life mean to you?
Originally posted by phatmonky
Why is it that the government doesn't have the right to kill it's citizens, but it has the right to imprison them (remove their freedoms)?
Originally posted by wasteofo2
Ivan, what about cases like that of the green river killer in which the person admitted to raping and killing something like 46 women and it is obvious that it isn't a false confession due to the murderer giving accurate accounts of events and not fabricating anything?
If you can prove beyond a doubt someone is guilty of a crime like raping and killing dozens of women, do you think that execution is still wrong? What about people like osama bin laden or others who head terrorist organizations or people like former nazi officers? Would you rather the American taxpayers help keep Osama bin laden alive than give him a shot? Would you have kept Hitler in some sort of maximum-security jail if he hadn't killed himself? I don't have the figures with me at the present, but it costs quite a bit to keep a prisoner alive each year, what's the point of not killing murdurers and terrorists when keeping them alive will cost a lot of money, which could be used to do a lot of good around the world? Imagine all the little starving African kids which could be fed with the thousands of dollars it costs per year to keep one psycho killer alive.
Timejim, want to back up your thoughts with reason? Who are you to dictate what a government should and shouldn’t do?
Originally posted by wasteofo2
Ivan, what about cases like that of the green river killer in which the person admitted to raping and killing something like 46 women and it is obvious that it isn't a false confession due to the murderer giving accurate accounts of events and not fabricating anything?
If you can prove beyond a doubt someone is guilty of a crime like raping and killing dozens of women, do you think that execution is still wrong? What about people like osama bin laden or others who head terrorist organizations or people like former nazi officers? Would you rather the American taxpayers help keep Osama bin laden alive than give him a shot? Would you have kept Hitler in some sort of maximum-security jail if he hadn't killed himself? I don't have the figures with me at the present, but it costs quite a bit to keep a prisoner alive each year, what's the point of not killing murdurers and terrorists when keeping them alive will cost a lot of money, which could be used to do a lot of good around the world? Imagine all the little starving African kids which could be fed with the thousands of dollars it costs per year to keep one psycho killer alive.
Timejim, want to back up your thoughts with reason? Who are you to dictate what a government should and shouldn’t do?
Originally posted by phatmonky
Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. In Texas, we're adding a nexpress lane
Forensic evidence and 3 eye witnesses means you will be dead within 6 months of judgement, thus cutting down on the cost of housing people for 18+ years and appeals.
Originally posted by Adam
Is it worth being a killer? Do you want to be one? What does life mean to you?
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
A martyr is more dangerous than a crippled leader. You can only kill a martyr once. His influence can live forever.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well, if someone I loved was killed in that store, then obviously I might be filled with hatred and want "an eye for an eye", but looking at this objectively, what do we gain by killing anyone?
How do we elevate ourselves as a people by killing? How does this improve society? If the threat to society is effectively removed by a life sentence, then the death sentence becomes an act of vengence. Since there can never be absolute certainty of guilt, how many false convictions should we accept in order to satisfy this need? We cannot assume a perfect system since this will likely never happen. We must accept that some innocent people will die by false convictions. So you tell me, how many innocent lives may we sacrifice? How about if you or a loved one was the sacrificial lamb for our bloodlust? How would you feel about the death penalty then?
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
1). What exactly is reasonable doubt?
2). How do you ensure that each juror or judge agrees with your interpretation?
3). What if I don't agree with your interpretation; and Russ doesn’t agree with mine?
4). How do we ensure that each juror and judge is objective and honest?
5). Why do you call for aliens when one dirty cop will do?
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is what I said. This is just too much power for any machine to have over real people. Again, one act of corruption could end an innocent person’s life. The older I get, the more I realize how foolish it is to give the government or any agency any more power than it absolutely must have to in order operate effectively. We are taught about grand notions like “Social Contracts”, and "God and country", and other broad spectrum and ill defined notions like "National Security", and surely these all have their place, but these words can ring hollow as well. Princes and despots all use the same language.
Originally posted by Adam
An important matter to consider. Regardless of the authority or ethics you think you have, or you think your state has, none of it changes the fact that if you kill the prisoner, or support his execution, then you are a killer, or at least condone killing.
Is it worth being a killer? Do you want to be one? What does life mean to you?
Dunno about you, but when I signed up for the military, the requirement to be a killer was something I was aware of. I did however room with a guy who quit after 2 weeks because he had never considered the possibility. Boggles my mind.Originally posted by Adam
An important matter to consider. Regardless of the authority or ethics you think you have, or you think your state has, none of it changes the fact that if you kill the prisoner, or support his execution, then you are a killer, or at least condone killing.
Is it worth being a killer? Do you want to be one? What does life mean to you?
Originally posted by russ_watters
Dunno about you, but when I signed up for the military, the requirement to be a killer was something I was aware of. I did however room with a guy who quit after 2 weeks because he had never considered the possibility. Boggles my mind.
So yes, in the confines of my job in the military, I could have been a killer and I certainly did condone killing. Worth being a killer? Essential. Did I want to be one? No - but I'd do it if necessary. Life is not something to be taken lightly - its the most fundamental right. But it can be taken.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I think anyone who supports the death penalty should be willing to pull the switch them self. I you could do this then at least your position is consistent.
Originally posted by Adam
When I joined the military, the thought of killing and such really wasn't that important to me. I was far more interested in the traveling and other things. Eventually I realized what it was all about. Note I am no longer in the military.
The reason a state should not have the right to execute its citizens is that it gives the state an easy and permanent way to settle disputes with the citizens. In other words: 'Live by my rules or I use the ultimate force to end the discussion".
Originally posted by phatmonky
Why is death the ultimate force?
Why do you view death as a more heinous punishment than removal of your freedoms?
Why will no one answer this?
Originally posted by wasteofo2
In my current mental state, If I was guilty of a crime which could either get me a life sentnce or death, I would think that I'd prefer the life sentence. I enjoy living too much I guess.
Also, if I knew I was innocent of the crime there's always the chance that I'll be freed eventually.
I was saying in my current mental state, being someone who hasn't commited a crime worthy of death or life imprisonment. That was meant to show that I am a certain way now, and if I were to change so much that I would do something worthy of death/life in jail, my mental state would probabally change very much, and I don't know what I would prefer at that point.Originally posted by phatmonky
As a criminal you think like this... You also think you will be freed eventually (but most death penalty opponents use life in prison without parole as an alternative).
I personally would rather be dead than be born in a country where I do not have personal rights. Whatever happened to the crowd who believed the same?
Originally posted by phatmonky
Life without parole, or death? I'd take death.
Edit - thanks for answering my questions - one more thing, Are you against the death penalty? If so, why? I am trying to find out why people feel the government shouldn't be able to take life, but should be able to take freedom and rights.
Originally posted by Adam
The reason a state should not have the right to execute its citizens is that it gives the state an easy and permanent way to settle disputes with the citizens. In other words: 'Live by my rules or I use the ultimate force to end the discussion".
Originally posted by phatmonky
Why is death the ultimate force?
Why do you view death as a more heinous punishment than removal of your freedoms?
Why will no one answer this?
Originally posted by phatmonky
Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. In Texas, we're adding a nexpress lane
Forensic evidence and 3 eye witnesses means you will be dead within 6 months of judgement, thus cutting down on the cost of housing people for 18+ years and appeals.