HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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

Is it okay to kill?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2012, 07:24 PM
  #26
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I graduated from law school in the mid-1980's and have been on medical disability due to cancer for the last few years.
I'm very sorry to hear that , I hope you get better.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 02:07 PM
  #27
NYRFANMANI
beyond good and evil
 
NYRFANMANI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ye Old Saarbrücken
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,717
vCash: 500
No it is not ok! Under any circumstance, it is not ok!

And abortion is not killing! To be killed you must have first lived. Being in an euterus is not "living" the life there is to be lived ...

NYRFANMANI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 02:17 PM
  #28
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,581
vCash: 500
The hard right see it like this:

Abortion is the murder of a person who has not been given a chance to live. It is a murder decided by factors completely out of its control, and at the whims of others (ie the mother and her doctor). It is the denial of someone for the chance of life and the chance to prove their worth to society.

The death penalty is the murder of someone who has already had that chance, and has proven that they are detrimental to society. This person has had their chance (while the aborted fetus gets no chance), and have shown that they will do hideous, monstrous things if given the rights that normal, rational citizens enjoy. Even keeping them locked away is a drain on society.

The hard right thinks the left (pro-Choice and anti death penalty) are hypocrites on this particular issue as well, in that they would murder someone who is completely innocent, but attempt to protect the life of someone who has committed disgusting acts against his fellow man.

Finlandia WOAT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 02:41 PM
  #29
JJmcD
The Power Of Love
 
JJmcD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Long Island
Posts: 722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
The hard right see it like this:

Abortion is the murder of a person who has not been given a chance to live. It is a murder decided by factors completely out of its control, and at the whims of others (ie the mother and her doctor). It is the denial of someone for the chance of life and the chance to prove their worth to society.

The death penalty is the murder of someone who has already had that chance, and has proven that they are detrimental to society. This person has had their chance (while the aborted fetus gets no chance), and have shown that they will do hideous, monstrous things if given the rights that normal, rational citizens enjoy. Even keeping them locked away is a drain on society.

The hard right thinks the left (pro-Choice and anti death penalty) are hypocrites on this particular issue as well, in that they would murder someone who is completely innocent, but attempt to protect the life of someone who has committed disgusting acts against his fellow man.
This is quite accurate, although I wouldn't say just the hard-right. There are many others who feel this way including myself. You have a fetus that you are killing and not giving it a chance to live, while you have a mass murderer who deserves to die living in the prison just taking up space. There are two main reasons there is over-crowding in prisons (which is a huge problem), (1) petty non-violent offenses and minor drug criminals are filling up the prisons, and (2) criminals who should be on death row are living their taking up space. If it is known that the person has killed, let's say he murdered seven people, and it is PROVEN - what is the point of keeping him alive? Just to cost money and take up space? To me, that man is worthless. Instead of fighting to keep a man like that out of death row, I would be fighting against abortion so that there is a potentially great person to live (except of course if the birth would be of danger to the baby or mother or in extreme cases of pregnancy such as ****).

JJmcD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 03:24 PM
  #30
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSUCapsFan View Post
That's the least of their problems. They should start by allowing woman to drive.

In other news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20270325

Barbaric. Poor Brevik.
Yeah, that is so sad. So sad...

Everlasting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 03:46 PM
  #31
SK13
Mo'Linguish
 
SK13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,223
vCash: 50
I get being emotional about the crimes that some of these monsters have committed. I get empathy for the victims, I get closure - but all of that comes from a place that modern legal systems are specifically built to ignore. There can be no emotion, no empathy. It's got to be cold, and logical otherwise we run into the lynch mob mentality that Nancy Grace and her followers subscribe to and go after innocent people.

Coldly, and logically, there is no reason to kill a captured criminal. It's cheaper, less hypocritical and practically as safe to lock them in a hole. Hell, even from an emotional standpoint, they'll probably suffer more in a prison complex for the rest of their lives.

Abortion, on the other hand, is a more difficult issue. What's a life? It doesn't start at conception, sorry, that's just science. It probably starts before birth, though. There are health issues, for both the mother and the child. There are economic issues. Birth control doesn't always work, pregnancy may seriously damage the women's career choice or quality of life. Early abortions and the use of birth control occupy similar places in my mind, they are preventitive care.

Late term abortions, particularly in the late second term and third term, make me really uneasy. By the time you get to the point where children have survived premature birth, you have to start acknowleding that it's a life and not a potential life.

So basically, I'm anti death-penalty and pro-choice - but with issues about the later.

SK13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 03:46 PM
  #32
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
The hard right see it like this:

Abortion is the murder of a person who has not been given a chance to live. It is a murder decided by factors completely out of its control, and at the whims of others (ie the mother and her doctor). It is the denial of someone for the chance of life and the chance to prove their worth to society.

The death penalty is the murder of someone who has already had that chance, and has proven that they are detrimental to society. This person has had their chance (while the aborted fetus gets no chance), and have shown that they will do hideous, monstrous things if given the rights that normal, rational citizens enjoy. Even keeping them locked away is a drain on society.

The hard right thinks the left (pro-Choice and anti death penalty) are hypocrites on this particular issue as well, in that they would murder someone who is completely innocent, but attempt to protect the life of someone who has committed disgusting acts against his fellow man.
I appreciate this post and the logic behind this point of view even if I don't agree with it.

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 03:56 PM
  #33
Bruise Bros 2426
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
The act of murdering a murderer is murder. The State has been an accomplice to more than 1,200 murders since 1976. More than 3,000 inmates are awaiting execution throughout the US.

Instead of executing these people, wouldn't it be more sensible to study them?

The Land of The Free has the highest incarceration rate on this planet. Release all of the nonviolent drug offenders, end the drug war, and focus on the real criminals.

Bruise Bros 2426 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 04:15 PM
  #34
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruise Bros 2426 View Post
The act of murdering a murderer is murder. The State has been an accomplice to more than 1,200 murders since 1976. More than 3,000 inmates are awaiting execution throughout the US.

Instead of executing these people, wouldn't it be more sensible to study them?

The Land of The Free has the highest incarceration rate on this planet. Release all of the nonviolent drug offenders, end the drug war, and focus on the real criminals.
The new approach being taken in Texas that was driven first by cost overruns and then a realization that measures other than lengthy incarceration were more effective and contribute to greater public safety. Ironically the prior Texas tough on crime approach is the path now being taken by the Harper government while Texas adopts toe past Canadian approach.
Conservatives in the United States' toughest crime-fighting jurisdiction — Texas — say the Harper government's crime strategy won't work.

"You will spend billions and billions and billions on locking people up," says Judge John Creuzot of the Dallas County Court. "And there will come a point in time where the public says, 'Enough!' And you'll wind up letting them out."

Adds Representative Jerry Madden, a conservative Republican who heads the Texas House Committee on Corrections, "It's a very expensive thing to build new prisons and, if you build 'em, I guarantee you they will come. They'll be filled, OK? Because people will send them there.

"But, if you don't build 'em, they will come up with very creative things to do that keep the community safe and yet still do the incarceration necessary."

Faced with a budget crisis in 2005, the Texas statehouse was handed an estimate of $2 billion to build new prisons for a predicted influx of new prisoners.

They told Madden to find a way out. He and his committee dug into the facts. Did all those new prisoners really need to go to jail? And did all of those already behind bars really need to be there?

Madden's answer was, no. He found that Texas had diverted money from treatment and probation services to building prisons. But sending people to prison was costing 10 times as much as putting them on probation, on parole, or in treatment.

"It was kinda silly, what we were doing," says Madden. Then, he discovered that drug treatment wasn't just cheaper — it cut crime much more effectively than prison.

That was the moment, he says, when he knew: "My colleagues are gonna understand this. The public is gonna understand this.…The public will be safer and we will spend less money!"

His colleagues agreed. Texas just said no to the new prisons.

Instead, over the next few years, it spent a fraction of the $2 billion those prisons would have cost — about $300 million — to beef up drug treatment programs, mental health centres, probation services and community supervision for prisoners out on parole.

It worked. Costs fell and crime fell, too. Now, word of the Canadian government's crime plan is filtering down to Texas and it's getting bad reviews.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...xas-crime.html

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:28 PM
  #35
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The KlINGberg
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 26,312
vCash: 500
I'm fine with the death penalty in cases where there is no question of guilt, meaning something obvious like being videoed killing someone.

In cases built upon eye witness testimony, capital punishment should never be allowed.

As for malum in se, a meaningless Latin phrase is no basis for law. It also confuses matters. If murder is wrong because it is wrong (ignoring the horrible logic of the point), then how can we excuse murder in any circumstance? When a guy stands over a dead body and fearfully claims self defense, shouldn't the police say ignore his pleas and lock him up if the "wrong because it is wrong" rule really was the rule of law?

Of course we let the guy go if he was defending himself, which shows how little malum in se means. If we are fine allowing legal murder in that situation, I don't see the big horror in allowing capital punishment in slam dunk cases (again, a witness saying "he did it" means next to nothing to me).

Troy McClure is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:19 PM
  #36
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,634
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN88 View Post
No it is not ok! Under any circumstance, it is not ok!

And abortion is not killing! To be killed you must have first lived. Being in an euterus is not "living" the life there is to be lived ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN88 View Post
For Christ's sake the guys name is Fuqah! Try to get a sence for the real and the pretentious ****.

Only murderers and rapist ought to be killed. Thats my take on the death penalty...


DOES NOT COMPUTE.

Leafsdude7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:25 PM
  #37
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK13 View Post
I get being emotional about the crimes that some of these monsters have committed. I get empathy for the victims, I get closure - but all of that comes from a place that modern legal systems are specifically built to ignore. There can be no emotion, no empathy. It's got to be cold, and logical otherwise we run into the lynch mob mentality that Nancy Grace and her followers subscribe to and go after innocent people.

Coldly, and logically, there is no reason to kill a captured criminal. It's cheaper, less hypocritical and practically as safe to lock them in a hole. Hell, even from an emotional standpoint, they'll probably suffer more in a prison complex for the rest of their lives.

Abortion, on the other hand, is a more difficult issue. What's a life? It doesn't start at conception, sorry, that's just science. It probably starts before birth, though. There are health issues, for both the mother and the child. There are economic issues. Birth control doesn't always work, pregnancy may seriously damage the women's career choice or quality of life. Early abortions and the use of birth control occupy similar places in my mind, they are preventitive care.

Late term abortions, particularly in the late second term and third term, make me really uneasy. By the time you get to the point where children have survived premature birth, you have to start acknowleding that it's a life and not a potential life.

So basically, I'm anti death-penalty and pro-choice - but with issues about the later.
I'm in agreement with this, with slightly less concern for late term abortions from an ethical perspective; it's still a terrible thought.

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:33 PM
  #38
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK13 View Post

Coldly, and logically, there is no reason to kill a captured criminal. It's cheaper, less hypocritical and practically as safe to lock them in a hole. Hell, even from an emotional standpoint, they'll probably suffer more in a prison complex for the rest of their lives.
I'm a bit confused: thinking logically, would it not be cheaper to pay the one time execution cost of a felon than to pay for his food, clothing, shelter and healthcare for the next 50 or so years (assuming that the person is in his mid to late 20's)?

Finlandia WOAT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:36 PM
  #39
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
I'm a bit confused: thinking logically, would it not be cheaper to pay the one time execution cost of a felon than to pay for his food, clothing, shelter and healthcare for the next 50 or so years (assuming that the person is in his mid to late 20's)?
I agree it's cheaper to kill someone than to keep them alive.

Any death penalty people know why they're left on death row for an average of 15 years? I've always been confused by this.

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:37 PM
  #40
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
I'm a bit confused: thinking logically, would it not be cheaper to pay the one time execution cost of a felon than to pay for his food, clothing, shelter and healthcare for the next 50 or so years (assuming that the person is in his mid to late 20's)?
But you're also paying for his/her lawyers, trials, hearings, acquittals etc. etc.

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:44 PM
  #41
Finlandia WOAT
Do U Like Quebec?
 
Finlandia WOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 9,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansfield View Post
But you're also paying for his/her lawyers, trials, hearings, acquittals etc. etc.
But that goes into the cost whether or not the person is executed, is given a life sentence or is even acquitted. It's not contingent on the death penalty.

Finlandia WOAT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:49 PM
  #42
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan The Parade View Post
But that goes into the cost whether or not the person is executed, is given a life sentence or is even acquitted. It's not contingent on the death penalty.
Murder trials where the death sentence is on the table are horrendously expensive and often drag on for years. I'm sure there's been many cases where it cost much more money to have someone executed than it would've for them to receive life without parole.

Just a few examples of death penalty costs-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphi...death-penalty/

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

http://www.kbsi23.com/inside/perspec...-costs-4.shtml

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/20...-despite-costs

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:54 PM
  #43
bombers15
Registered User
 
bombers15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlfie View Post
Is it okay to kill?
No..

bombers15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 02:57 PM
  #44
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,634
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
To answer the question, only in the case where a life (or many lives) are in immediate danger from another person or a person explicitly requests to be killed with rational reasons (ie: terminal illnesses with extreme pain). Killing for revenge, including judicial executions, are not okay.

Leafsdude7 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 03:54 PM
  #45
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,127
vCash: 500
I'm far more okay with the death penalty than abortion. Someone who's murdered a bunch of people deserves death more than an innocent.

I make the exception for cases of "Oh **** I've been forced into sex/Oh **** I'll die if I birth this thing." As a male I have zero frame of reference for those situations and I'm not sure I'm qualified to form a concrete stance for those cases. When it comes to convenience abortions ("ew, I got knocked up. I'm too lazy to have a kid), I'm against those. That unique DNA hasn't done anything to anyone, the only thing it did wrong was form inside an irresponsible person. Comparatively, someone in line to get executed has probably done something heinous to other people. Unless they're falsely accused...which is a whole other bag of worms.

So, I guess: It's complicated and depends on circumstances.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 04:00 PM
  #46
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I'm far more okay with the death penalty than abortion. Someone who's murdered a bunch of people deserves death more than an innocent.

I make the exception for cases of "Oh **** I've been forced into sex/Oh **** I'll die if I birth this thing." As a male I have zero frame of reference for those situations and I'm not sure I'm qualified to form a concrete stance for those cases. When it comes to convenience abortions ("ew, I got knocked up. I'm too lazy to have a kid), I'm against those. That unique DNA hasn't done anything to anyone, the only thing it did wrong was form inside an irresponsible person. Comparatively, someone in line to get executed has probably done something heinous to other people. Unless they're falsely accused...which is a whole other bag of worms.

So, I guess: It's complicated and depends on circumstances.
Who is responsible for that unique DNA? I mean, does the government have any jurisdiction?

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 04:09 PM
  #47
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,127
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
Who is responsible for that unique DNA? I mean, does the government have any jurisdiction?
I personally consider that unique DNA to be a person. I'd personally give some jurisdiction over it. Government has some jurisdiction over minors, I guess they could have lesser jurisdiction over the unborn. I know a lot of people disagree with me, and I'm not King of America (last I checked) with the power to make my whims law, so I doubt we see any resolution on that matter any time soon. I'd be surprised if we did.

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 04:23 PM
  #48
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
I personally consider that unique DNA to be a person. I'd personally give some jurisdiction over it. Government has some jurisdiction over minors, I guess they could have lesser jurisdiction over the unborn. I know a lot of people disagree with me, and I'm not King of America (last I checked) with the power to make my whims law, so I doubt we see any resolution on that matter any time soon. I'd be surprised if we did.
I'm normally speaking theoretically, so no need to take your throne.

My main concern is that the government will not get involved in your unique DNA in other situations. Why isn't illegal to smoke during pregnancy, I mean that's DNA abuse!

I have issues with the government telling any woman what she can do with her body, and that's where I leave it. I hate the idea of later term abortions, but I have trouble ethically clearing up why anyone has jurisdiction in the matter.

Gobias Industries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 04:32 PM
  #49
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beef Runner
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 42,127
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
I'm normally speaking theoretically, so no need to take your throne.

My main concern is that the government will not get involved in your unique DNA in other situations. Why isn't illegal to smoke during pregnancy, I mean that's DNA abuse!

I have issues with the government telling any woman what she can do with her body, and that's where I leave it. I hate the idea of later term abortions, but I have trouble ethically clearing up why anyone has jurisdiction in the matter.
Damn, I was hoping for an okay to wander down to Congress and declare myself monarch.

I wouldn't be surprised if it became illegal to smoke during pregnancy in some states. As for the woman's body thing, that's cool. But as far as I'm concerned, once conception occurs, someone else' body is involved as well. How much free reign should she have over that body? More than a child? Equal?

Beef Invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 09:50 AM
  #50
Diskothek
Registered User
 
Diskothek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Personally I'm against the death penalty due to cost, possibility of being wrong and 2 wrongs don't make a right. Also against abortion aside from cases of ****, fetal defects, incest or if the life of the mother is at stake.

Huh, I think you can guess what it censored. Rhymes with... cape.

Diskothek is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.