[sceptic]

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty.

...

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are.

I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X".

note taken and accepted, but what has that to do with the debate except point out that two different things have been said,sometimes I wonder about people on these forums

[blackshoe]

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

Nice rant. Actually, I sympathize with your position. It's that dilemma I spoke of earlier. But... you completely sidestepped what I consider the key question: does society, or the government, or indeed any group, have a right to impose the death penalty? If so, what is the basis of this right?

Does an individual have the right to decide that these pieces of ***** (if you want to call them that, do so, don't hide behind a three letter acronym) should die for what they've done? If an individual did so decide, and carried out his own execution, would you applaud him, or try him for murder?

[gwnn]

btw for the Bible-quoters, I believe Republicans like to quote Exodus 21:12 "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." So using "thou shalt not kill" is somewhat of a double standard. Not to say capital punishment is good. I think it's bad.

[sceptic]

ok, this is for all the people taking the moral high ground on this

if we allowed the death penalty in a country, would that not be because most people actually want the death penalty, I am sure if the majority wanted leiniency then they would abolish the death penalty, funny how the Yanks seem to take the moral high ground on this debate

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Feb 21 2008, 01:37 AM, said:

Nice rant. Actually, I sympathize with your position. It's that dilemma I spoke of earlier. But... you completely sidestepped what I consider the key question: does society, or the government, or indeed any group, have a right to impose the death penalty? If so, what is the basis of this right?

Does an individual have the right to decide that these pieces of ***** (if you want to call them that, do so, don't hide behind a three letter acronym) should die for what they've done? If an individual did so decide, and carried out his own execution, would you applaud him, or try him for murder?

I think that this all boils down to the notion of the social contract...

The social contract that prevails in most countries holds that the Government maintains a monopoly on force. If an individual chooses to live as part of civilized society he surrenders certain rights, one of which is the right to extract personal justice.

People can and do withdraw from the social contract. There are plenty of folks who commit murder. We call them murderers... We have an expectation that the State will deal with them.

from my perspective, murder is murder. Vigilantism is a crime.

[sceptic]

hrothgar, on Feb 20 2008, 10:48 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Feb 21 2008, 01:37 AM, said:

Nice rant. Actually, I sympathize with your position. It's that dilemma I spoke of earlier. But... you completely sidestepped what I consider the key question: does society, or the government, or indeed any group, have a right to impose the death penalty? If so, what is the basis of this right?

Does an individual have the right to decide that these pieces of ***** (if you want to call them that, do so, don't hide behind a three letter acronym) should die for what they've done? If an individual did so decide, and carried out his own execution, would you applaud him, or try him for murder?

I think that this all boils down to the notion of the social contract...

The social contract that prevails in most countries holds that the Government maintains a monopoly on force. If an individual chooses to live as part of civilized society he surrenders certain rights, one of which is the right to extract personal justice.

People can and do withdraw from the social contract. There are plenty of folks who commit murder. We call them murderers... We have an expectation that the State will deal with them.

from my perspective, murder is murder. Vigilantism is a crime.

The state or whatever should have the means to decide that someone deserves to die, I would hate to see vigilantees

[luke warm]

except maybe for charles bronsen

[TimG]

sceptic, on Feb 20 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

ok, this is for all the people taking the moral high ground on this

if we allowed the death penalty in a country, would that not be because most people actually want the death penalty, I am sure if the majority wanted leniency then they would abolish the death penalty, funny how the Yanks seem to take the moral high ground on this debate

The majority is not always right.

I live in Maine, in these United States of America. There is no death penalty in Maine, nor in 11 other states. The other 38 states, plus the Federal Government, have the death penalty.

The quick web reading I have done, reveals that the Federal Government has executed only 3 people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. My guess is that this small number is because states usually have jurisdiction in homicide cases.

[finally17]

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty.

...

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are.

I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X".

Exactly. It's not a question of what a criminal might or might not deserve.

Rather, "is it the right of the state, to enforce this punishment ever?" and furthermore, if you say yes, then a) "how can we legitimately and fairly determine that a person's crimes are worthy of this punishment?" and "how can we insure that we never enact this punishment on the innocent?"

But many of us say no to the first for whatever reasons (many given), making the others somewhat moot.

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty.

...

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are.

I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X".

I don't feel that I need to give any further argument for it.

The original question was "If you were king of the world, is A) Yes, capital punishment is needed sometimes or B ) No, capital punishment is bad, end of discussion". You appear to support the B version.

I give the examples only to show why you must have capital punishment. Note, I did not say that all murderers or rapists or whatever should be executed, but there are cases where such punishment befits the crime. If you do not have capital punishment available as an option, then how do you deal with people who commit such atrocities? "Oh sorry, bad boy, don't do it again, in the meantime we will provide you food, shelter and clothing for the rest of your life?"

I don't think so.

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty.

...

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are.

I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X".

I don't feel that I need to give any further argument for it.

That is totally fine, you can of course believe what you want and make whatever arguments for it that you want or don't want. But then it's totally ridiculous of you to classify the opposing viewpoint as absurd if you don't even feel like bothering to put in the effort to make any sort of real argument against it.

Is your criterion for determining who receives the death penalty "the ones that seem to me to obviously deserve it"?

[finally17]

sceptic, on Feb 20 2008, 05:45 PM, said:

ok, this is for all the people taking the moral high ground on this

if we allowed the death penalty in a country, would that not be because most people actually want the death penalty, I am sure if the majority wanted leiniency then they would abolish the death penalty, funny how the Yanks seem to take the moral high ground on this debate

i didn't realize this was a discussion of what people want. I thought it was a discussion of what we believe to be right. This is irrespective of the will of the people.

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 05:22 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty.

...

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are.

I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X".

I don't feel that I need to give any further argument for it.

That is totally fine, you can of course believe what you want and make whatever arguments for it that you want or don't want. But then it's totally ridiculous of you to classify the opposing viewpoint as absurd if you don't even feel like bothering to put in the effort to make any sort of real argument against it.

Is your criterion for determining who receives the death penalty "the ones that seem to me to obviously deserve it"?

Cases such as these need no "argument" for the existence of capital punishment. They speak for themselves. If you do not understand why, then there is no point in trying to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise.

It really isn't about what "my criteria" for capital punishment is. It is about whether or not the option of capital punishment should be available at all. Clearly, there are cases where the punishment fits the crime. If you can look at these cases and say honestly say "no these people should not be executed" or "I honestly believe they could be rehabilitated" (which I note, you haven't), then yes, you are being absurd.

[finally17]

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

Cases such as these need no "argument" for the existence of capital punishment.  They speak for themselves.  If you do not understand why, then there is no point in trying to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise.

Chuck, you're smarter than this. This claim is just silly.

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

It really isn't about what "my criteria" for capital punishment is. It is about whether or not the option of capital punishment should be available at all.

You can't answer one question without the other. How can you think there should be capital punishment but completely ignore the issue of how it is decided who deserves to receive it and who doesn't?

[bid_em_up]

Josh, again, the original question was "If you were king for a day: yada yada yada"

It was not "how do you decide whether or not someone is deserving of capital punishment."

My answer to the question is, "yes, you need to have capital punishment."

Your's apparently is "no, capital punishment is bad, end of discussion."

I do not need to explain who or why or what criteria is required for someone to decide on the punishment as you seem to think that I do.

If I was king, then I would likely be the one to make that decision. If I was king then I would want the option available to me so that in cases such as the ones I gave, where it is reasonably clear the person deserves to be put to death, then that penalty can be served upon them. But I don't have to answer what " specific criteria" needs to be met, in order to state that capital punishment should be an available option, as you seem to think I do.

[bid_em_up]

finally17, on Feb 20 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

Cases such as these need no "argument" for the existence of capital punishment.  They speak for themselves.  If you do not understand why, then there is no point in trying to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise.

This claim is just silly.

You may think so. I don't.

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 08:41 PM, said:

I do not need to explain who or why or what criteria is required for someone to decide on the punishment as you seem to think that I do.

Well of course not, in the sense that you don't "have to" do anything you don't want to do. But if you want your answer to have meaning...

Do you think it makes your view seem more valid to toss the little 'end of discussion' on your characterization of my views? I'm sure including something that I have never come close to implying feels much better than actually, oh I don't know, making an argument in support of what you think. In fact, it seems like it would be much more accurate to stick a sarcastic remark like that on the characterization of the person who believes "Cases such as these need no "argument" for the existence of capital punishment. They speak for themselves. If you do not understand why, then there is no point in trying to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise. "

[bid_em_up]

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

Do you think it makes your view seem more valid to toss the little 'end of discussion' on your characterization of my views?

I'm not sure why I would even argue with someone who hasn't bothered to even read the original question.

I tossed nothing in, that was the phrasing of the original question.

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Feb 20 2008, 09:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 20 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

Do you think it makes your view seem more valid to toss the little 'end of discussion' on your characterization of my views?

I'm not sure why I would even argue with someone who hasn't bothered to even read the original question.

I tossed nothing in, that was the phrasing of the original question.

I'm not sure you are even arguing. 'I'm right and if you don't understand why then too bad for you' is not an argument. Nor do you have any idea whether I even voted in the poll.