Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Why don't we execute drunk drivers, too? Assault another human being? Strap them to the chair!
Wrong planet.
Your attempt at aguing reductio ad absurdum fails the reality test.
Abducting an eight-year-old girl on her way home from school, brutally ****** her outside your car and then smashing her head in with a hammer is too different from impaired driving to warrant a meaningful comparison.
It comes down to this for me, and my apologies if it's too simple for this crowd: if people aren't allowed to kill people, governments shouldn't be allowed to kill people either. The death penalty caters to people who prefer blood lust and vengeance over reason.
I have felt that way for more than thirty years, but I'm beginning to think there are some crimes in respect of which life in prison with a possibility of parole is an entirely inadequate penalty.
Capital punishment actually isn't really enough either in some of those crimes, so I am not seriously advocating for the death penalty.
However, retribution and denunciation are among the correct legal principles of sentencing, and for some reason they are not adequately reflected in the statutory penaly for first degree murder in cases like Clifford Olsen, Michael Rafferty and a host of others.
Empirically, the death penalty does not act as an effective deterrent either, but there's something about the Tori Stafford murder that makes me want to see that creep suffer some kind of punishment that is commensurate with what he inflicted on that poor girl.
It's a good thing for Rafferty that he's within the criminal justice system. It's actually protecting him now, and especially so if he goes away for life. The longer the better for him.
It comes down to this for me, and my apologies if it's too simple for this crowd: if people aren't allowed to kill people, governments shouldn't be allowed to kill people either. The death penalty caters to people who prefer blood lust and vengeance over reason.
Your attempt at aguing reductio ad absurdum fails the reality test.
Abducting an eight-year-old girl on her way home from school, brutally ****** her outside your car and then smashing her head in with a hammer is too different from impaired driving to warrant a meaningful comparison.
What would you know about reality? You're the one saying that when the government kills a criminal, it isn't killing. Boggles the mind.
And the last part of your post is just disturbing. Is this the **** you think about on a daily basis? You're a real nutter.
Most importantly, why are you so blood thursty? Out for revenge? Talking about cutting peoples testicles off and shoving them down peoples throats? Have you been a victim of crime? You're just over the top, man.
There's no sensible argument for it. There's only emotional arguments.
It does not act as a deterrent,it does not act as rehabilitation and it does not make society safer. All that's left is revenge. And maybe it's just me, but I don't see that as a reasonable basis for a justice system.
Emotion should not guide our policy. If killing is wrong, then killing is wrong no matter who does it. A sensible society does not advocate the taking of a life. Let's not subscribe to mob rule.
How do we show people that killing people is wrong by killing people who kill people?
If you think that the argument for and against capital punishment can be casually dismissed in a Ghandi quote, you're going out of your way to ignore a lot of the nuances of the debate, and you're probably making a lot of assumptions about when, how, and under what circumstances capital punishment would be administered.
Very few of the people advocating capital punishment are looking for eye-for-an-eye revenge punishment (you killed someone, so we're going to kill you back). I'm in favour of capital punishment, but I certainly don't think that executing, say, a drunk driver who kills someone or executing someone who ends up killing someone in a barfight that gets out of hand, is "justice" - that would be the eye-for-an-eye garbage that you're referring to, and that sort of thing shouldn't happen. And I think a lot of the pro capital punishment crowd would agree with me.
Capital punishment should (and call me naive, but I'm certain that it would) be reserved for the most heinous of crimes.
Why don't we execute drunk drivers, too? Assault another human being? Strap them to the chair!
If you think that driving drunk and assault are the exact same thing as first-degree, premeditated murder, then you have no business participating in this discussion.
It comes down to this for me, and my apologies if it's too simple for this crowd: if people aren't allowed to kill people, governments shouldn't be allowed to kill people either. The death penalty caters to people who prefer blood lust and vengeance over reason.
By same logic we shouldn't have the right to hold prisoners, since people aren't allowed to capture and detain one another.
The government shouldn't have the right to fine or tax you with threat of retribution if you don't pay up since people aren't allowed to hold a protection racket.
Your argument doesn't hold water. By definition, we give government much more power than we give indiviuals, as long as it's not arbitrary in it's application of power.
By same logic we shouldn't have the right to hold prisoners, since people aren't allowed to capture and detain one another.
Major difference being that capturing and detaining a dangerous criminal actually serves society's interests. Killing a criminal doesn't benefit anybody.
And there's certainly a difference between taking someone's life and, say, calling them bad names. Both are "wrong", but if you can't see the difference, then I'm sorry.
What would you know about reality? You're the one saying that when the government kills a criminal, it isn't killing. Boggles the mind.
And the last part of your post is just disturbing. Is this the **** you think about on a daily basis? You're a real nutter.
Most importantly, why are you so blood thursty? Out for revenge? Talking about cutting peoples testicles off and shoving them down peoples throats? Have you been a victim of crime? You're just over the top, man.
Maybe you're not aware of the evidence given in the Tori Stafford murder trial, which is front-page news in Southern Ontario yesterday and today.
Google that, and then tell me I'm a nut.
I'm actually not in favour of capital punishment, but I am outraged by the evidence given yesterday at the trial.
Capital punishment should (and call me naive, but I'm certain that it would) be reserved for the most heinous of crimes.
This is one of of the more common talking points of the CP debate.
Problem is, even " the most heinous crimes" is still far too arbitrary to grant the state the ability to execute criminals.
Too difficult to define and draw the line as to what is "heinous" enough to warrant execution for one. Pickton, Sandusky, Ted Bundy might seem obvious... but I think you could also classify the numerous crimes that those crooks on Wall Street committed leading up to 2008 as heinous and I know I wouldn't loose any sleep if some of those dudes at the top got the lethal injection.
And even if you got an iron clad classification of what crimes warrant CP and what don't, it doesn't change the fact that the justice system isn't competent enough to justify CP... in fact, I doubt any legal system ever will be competent enough to justify it.
How can anybody be seriously comfortable with granting the system the ability to execute? That just doesn't make any sense at all with what we know about the flaws of the system.
Major difference being that capturing and detaining a dangerous criminal actually serves society's interests. Killing a criminal doesn't benefit anybody.
I don't see how detaining a prisoner serves more society's interest than killing him. Both are removed from a position where they can do harm to their fellow citizens.
And for the detained one, there is always the possibility of liberation/escape, and recidivism. If you find a way to commit another crime after a death sentence, please share.
Quote:
And there's certainly a difference between taking someone's life and, say, calling them bad names. Both are "wrong", but if you can't see the difference, then I'm sorry.
calling them bad names? I am sorry, this came left field for me. Can you explain your point without any jump in troll logic?
By same logic we shouldn't have the right to hold prisoners, since people aren't allowed to capture and detain one another.
Laws giving the police power to arrest people for breaking the law are slightly different than giving the government power to murder one of its citizens, but if you want to pretend those are the same thing, you're entitled to that.
By same logic we shouldn't have the right to hold prisoners, since people aren't allowed to capture and detain one another.
Sure they are. Parents have the right to imprison their children for deeds they view as wrong for short periods of time (AKA grounding).
Killing in the manor of Capital Punishment is never allowed in the general public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch
I don't see how detaining a prisoner serves more society's interest than killing him. Both are removed from a position where they can do harm to their fellow citizens.
It's extremes. Killing him is more extreme than detaining him, and more questionable morally. Thereby, since detaining him results in practically the same outcome, I prefer the less morally ambiguous option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork
Maybe you're not aware of the evidence given in the Tori Stafford murder trial, which is front-page news in Southern Ontario yesterday and today.
Google that, and then tell me I'm a nut.
I'm actually not in favour of capital punishment, but I am outraged by the evidence given yesterday at the trial.
So basically, it's "what he did is so bad, we gotta kill the piece of shit"? Sorry, but I think we're better than that.
Last edited by Leafsdude7: 03-14-2012 at 10:20 AM.
Laws giving the police power to arrest people for breaking the law are slightly different than giving the government power to murder one of its citizens, but if you want to pretend those are the same thing, you're entitled to that.
Except that the government isn't "murdering" one of it's citizen when it comes to the death penalty.
Murder would be sending agents to your home and kill you there.
Execution, like lawful detainment, are regulated and you must provide a legal justification. In the case of execution, the justification is obviously a sentence pronounced by a jury of your peers.
If you can't make the different between a lawful execution and s murder, why are you discussing this issue rather than looking up a dictionary? The difference is as important as the difference between kidnapping and detaining or theft/racket and fines/taxes.
Finally, you should make the distinction between the legal system and the government. It's not the government who is executing people, it's the legal system. The Prime minister can't simply point at someone and have him detained or executed. Only a judge can.
Government has no judiciary power. And technically not legislative power either.
Laws giving the police power to arrest people for breaking the law are slightly different than giving the government power to murder one of its citizens, but if you want to pretend those are the same thing, you're entitled to that.
While that might be true, that is up for the citizens and ultimately the government to decide what powers they have and what powers they need.
BTW; why should citizens be forced to pay for a criminal's housing, food, medical, and anything else they need for the next 20-70 years when given a life sentence? Who should foot the bill for any appeals they might have? Or any lawyer fees? How about the guards? The facilities?
Apparently it costs around 8,000-45,000 here in the United States (factoring in a lot of different things) to house one prisoner per year.
I don't see how detaining a prisoner serves more society's interest than killing him. Both are removed from a position where they can do harm to their fellow citizens.
And for the detained one, there is always the possibility of liberation/escape, and recidivism. If you find a way to commit another crime after a death sentence, please share.
Oh, please. Now we're justifying capital punishment because so many prisoners escape prison and go on killing rampages? Wow, that's quite a story.
If they're in prison, they're of no threat to society. If they are let out somehow and offend again, then that is a failure of our parole system, not an argument for capital punishment.
And you're right on your first point. Both do the same thing - they remove the threat from society. But of the two, why choose the one that kills a person? There's no point if they do the same thing. Killing a person for no real reason other than revenge is a failure of morality.
Quote:
calling them bad names? I am sorry, this came left field for me. Can you explain your point without any jump in troll logic?
The point was that there is a difference between one "wrong" and another. There is a significant difference between taking a person's life and capturing them. So you can't use the argument, "well, locking someone up is wrong too, therefore we shouldn't use jail blah blah." No. The criminal forfeited their right to freedom, not their right to life. Everyone has that right. But again, if you can't see the difference between killing a person and putting them in prison, then why are we even trying to have a discussion?
While that might be true, that is up for the citizens and ultimately the government to decide what powers they have and what powers they need.
BTW; why should citizens be forced to pay for a criminal's housing, food, medical, and anything else they need for the next 20-70 years when given a life sentence? Who should foot the bill for any appeals they might have? Or any lawyer fees? How about the guards? The facilities?
Apparently it costs around 8,000-45,000 here in the United States (factoring in a lot of different things) to house one prisoner per year.
Maybe economic arguments shouldn't be used when we're talking about a person's life. There's factors that transcend the important of money and cost-saving.
That said, capital punishment costs more anyway. So really, there's absolutely no point to it.
Sure they do. Parents have the right to imprison their children for deeds they view as wrong for short periods of time (AKA grounding).
Killing in the manor of Capital Punishment is never allowed in the general public.
your argument is twisted and faulty.
You claim that since parents are allowed Detaining under condition Y (their children for short periods of time), the government is therefore allowed to detail citizens for condition Z (long periods of time for any member of society convicted of crime or short periods for members thought to be a danger to others or themselves)
But since people aren't allowed to kill under condition X (legal execution), the government isn't allowed to do X?
Your argument would have made sense if people were allowed to detain each other following Z, but it's not the case.
The legal system is allowed to do things the general population can't, because it's the freaking legal system, regulated and considered just by the society.
There's no logical argument in favor of the death penalty when one considers that it's more costly, no more safe/effective (what is the probability of a criminal escaping a modern maximum-security facility?), offers no deterrence, may in fact give incentives to criminals to commit murders (suppose a criminal is being pursued by a police officer for having killed someone and is aware that he will likely be punished with the death penalty if caught - why would he not shoot the police officer as well in order to get away?) and runs the risk of executing innocent people (but that something its supporters have little problem rationalizing away). It's pure revenge/emotion/bloodlust that, outside of the United States, has been relegated to the worst, most backwards societies on earth.
There's no logical argument in favor of the death penalty when one considers that it's more costly, no more safe/effective (what is the probability of a criminal escaping a modern maximum-security facility?), offers no deterrence, may in fact give incentives to criminals to commit murders (suppose a criminal is being pursued by a police officer for having killed someone and is aware that he will likely be punished with the death penalty if caught - why would he not shoot the police officer as well in order to get away?) and runs the risk of executing innocent people (but that something its supporters have little problem rationalizing away). It's pure revenge/emotion/bloodlust that, outside of the United States, has been relegated to the worst, most backwards societies on earth.
Exactly. There is absolutely no reason for it.
And we see that in this thread. No one has yet to provide an actual good reason for capital punishment. The only arguments have been, "well if the guy is a really bad guy....then I feel okay about it." But that's not a reasoned argument.
You claim that since parents are allowed Detaining under condition Y (their children for short periods of time), the government is therefore allowed to detail citizens for condition Z (long periods of time for any member of society convicted of crime or short periods for members thought to be a danger to others or themselves)
How is Y different from Z? Other than time scale, which is based on the severity of the crime, there's no difference.
In the case of killing someone actively and premeditatedly, there's no case in the general public that's allowed that even gets close to Capital Punishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PricePkPatch
The legal system is allowed to do things the general population can't, because it's the freaking legal system, regulated and considered just by the society.
I don't disagree with the fact, but I do disagree with the insinuation that it's moral. The legal system shouldn't be able to do some things. No one would sanction the state allowing the raping of Rafferty if he's found guilty, so why do people sanction the state killing him?
And you're right on your first point. Both do the same thing - they remove the threat from society. But of the two, why choose the one that kills a person? There's no point if they do the same thing. Killing a person for no real reason other than revenge is a failure of morality.
Less cost to the society? Less possibility (going from minimal to absolute 0) of doing harm again?
Quote:
The point was that there is a difference between one "wrong" and another. There is a significant difference between taking a person's life and capturing them. So you can't use the argument, "well, locking someone up is wrong too, therefore we shouldn't use jail blah blah." No. The criminal forfeited their right to freedom, not their right to life. Everyone has that right. But again, if you can't see the difference between killing a person and putting them in prison, then why are we even trying to have a discussion?
the point I was making was the faulty logic used earlier. Saying that if citizens aren't allowed to do X means the Government/Legal system shouldn't be allowed to do so as well is stupid.
Citizens aren't allowed to own heavy ordnance, nuclear weaponry, biological weapons, field armies, etc... Yet the government does it, and is not in the fault for doing so.
And someone committing a crime isn't relinquishing anything. I am not sure where you pulled that (prolly your ass, seeing how the argument stinks).
The legal system takes away their right of freedom, property, and life (when judged appropriate) based on what is considered just punishment or safety measures.
The legal system is allowed to do so, not the government. So tell me exactly why one right is liberally taken away (property or freedom) while the other is considered sacrosanct under ANY circumstance? (right of life)
Now, I am not saying I am for the death penalty. Personally, I don't believe it's a very efficient way of dealing with many kinds of crimes (hell, the sheer number of imprisonment in the US is extremely inefficient).
However, I am curious about the faulty logic put forward that is arguing against the death penalty. Make your case if you want, but at least make a logic and well constructed one. Just raising silly points appealing to illogic emotions sure is not gonna fly with me.
(against death penalty, in favor of full-castration of recidivist sex offenders, if you would believe it )
(and would be nice to have corporal punishment for criminally irresponsible people like 150 MPH drivers in city streets or recidivist drunk drivers)
)
