Score one against barbarism

Narith · Post by **Narith** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:43 am

Narith wrote:On the other hand due to the flawed system it is no more right to execute an innocent person than it is to remove such a violent threat from our population.

That should have been "to NOT remove such a violent threat".....

jookkor · Post by **jookkor** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 5:12 am

I dont see any need for the death penalty at all. I dont think a government should have that kind of power, and if murder outside of self defense is wrong then it should be wrong across the board.
I think that if somebody is convicted of a heinous crime and is found %100 guilty through modern forensics or credible witnesses ect....they should be kept alive. For a long long time. And used to study medical procedures and experimental drugs on. If you kill somebody, their dead their punishment is over with. But if you prolong their life and make every second of every minute of every hour of every day an excercise in pain, they will pay many many times over for what they have done.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:50 am

Capitol punishment is a nessicary (sp?) evil of our society unfortunatly.

CapitAl punsihment is not a NECESSARY evil, Narith. Every other republic, and indeed a number of other countries, have abolished the death penalty, and those societies have yet to fall into ruin.

There may be those who deserve death. I don't know. But I do know that there are none on this Earth with the wisdom to make that determination accurately.

maltheos · Post by **maltheos** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:10 am

Narith wrote: Ah, but the crimes they commit are very adult in nature are they not? What makes a murder commited by a 16 year old any less of a crime than one commited by a 19 year old? A person under the age of 18 may not have the same rights as one over the age of 18, however they should still be held accountable under the same penalties for heinous crimes. The arguement against that I believe is that someone under the age of 18 does not have the comprehension to understand what they did was a crime which we all know is false reasoning. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of why someone under the age of 18 is not held to the same reponsibility in the case of a crime such as murder as someone over the age of 18.

Its not less of a crime. They merely felt that the option of killing them should not be on the table. Life without parole should be more than enough punnishment. I agree 18 is kind of a line in the sand. There are some kids who probably are as mature and clear thinking as most 18 year olds at age 13, and others who dont hit that until sometime in their late 20's. However, as there is no solid matutity test, 18 must stand.

Narith wrote: Capitol punishment is a nessicary (sp?) evil of our society unfortunatly. Due to the fact that our justice system is flawed however you will find a small percentage of people who are truely innocent caught in the system. This presents a catch 22, people who do things to deserve the death penalty actually do deserve it and in order to maintain societies saftey and remove these predators from our midst it is needed as they can not be rehabilitated, and releasing them into the general population of the prisons only servers to endanger those in prison who though do deserve punishment for thier crimes, do not deserve that sort of risk... you are placing a fox in the hen house so to speak. On the other hand due to the flawed system it is no more right to execute an innocent person than it is to remove such a violent threat from our population.

Capital punsihment is a necessary evil? Then please save us from the anarchic situation and huge murder rates of Europe and Canada. It is not a necessary punishment. I agree it has deterent effects, don't get me wrong. However, ilife without parole should be sulficient deterencein most ( if not all) cases. If you are woried about the danger they present to other inmates segregate them. "Death Row" can become "Life without parole row" fairly easily, and if you are going to argue about the danger they present to other such personel, it seems odd given that you wanted the people in question dead.

Narith wrote: So I geuss it boils down to, which creates more victims? Allowing someone to live who deserves the death penalty, or keeping the death penatly knowing that one day you may execute an innocent? Personally in my opinion allowing those who deserve the death penalty to live will ultimatly create more victims, it does not however make it any easier on the concious knowing that you may slay an innocent person in the process, I still stand by that the death penalty is a needed evil, one that should not be removed and one that should be applied to all predators of this type no matter the age.

As disgusting and vile as it makes me feel I have to agree with Tholiak. If you are old enough to visciously murder someone, you are old enough to die for your crimes.

I need to shower now for agreeing with Tholiak

Show me evidence that the death penalty's deterence factor saves lives and I might buy it. As it stands however, I don't. One inocent life ended by the state is state sanctioned murder. One guilty life whose punishment it shifted from death to life in prision, not that big a change -- they are both effectively dead to the outside world.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:22 am

Narith -

Let's accept for the moment that I beleive the death penalty is morally ok (I don't, but just for the sake of argument)

Is it still morally ok for the government to enact a death penalty system that has a chance to take the life of an innocent person?

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:35 am

Embar Angylwrath wrote:Narith -

Let's accept for the moment that I beleive the death penalty is morally ok (I don't, but just for the sake of argument)

Is it still morally ok for the government to enact a death penalty system that has a chance to take the life of an innocent person?

We already accept one that can put you away for life that has such chances.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:37 am

Relbeek Einre wrote:
Capitol punishment is a nessicary (sp?) evil of our society unfortunatly.
CapitAl punsihment is not a NECESSARY evil, Narith. Every other republic, and indeed a number of other countries, have abolished the death penalty, and those societies have yet to fall into ruin.

There may be those who deserve death. I don't know. But I do know that there are none on this Earth with the wisdom to make that determination accurately.

Don't have the wisdom to draw up criterion that qualifies a candiidate for the death penalty or the wisdom to judge someone against that criterion?

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:39 am

Aabe wrote:
Embar Angylwrath wrote:Narith -

Let's accept for the moment that I beleive the death penalty is morally ok (I don't, but just for the sake of argument)

Is it still morally ok for the government to enact a death penalty system that has a chance to take the life of an innocent person?
We already accept one that can put you away for life that has such chances.

Yes, we do. We also accept that fact that if later, we find evidence of innocence, we can let them out. Not so easy to do that with a dead guy.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:52 am

Sadly life is not perfect. Idealism is a nice goal, but life is seldom that. I would accept other arguements for no death penalty. But I don't think practially, demanding a perfect system is a valid one.

Torakus · Post by **Torakus** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:49 am

This one is going to get reviewed again very quickly. I think the folks in Arkadelphia are going to seek death for at least 1 of 2 teen killers in a case that goes to trial there in the next few months. I think Sandra Day O'Connor will welcome this. She seemed really pissed that the U.S. SC would allow a lower court reversal of a SC 8th amendment decision stand.

Does anyone else get tired of reading dissents and opinions written by Antonin Scalia? Why must he insert some mean spirited comment against reviewing foreign court decisions in the first paragraph of every opinion?

Its not often I agree 100% with SDO'C but she nailed this one and didn't have to rely on the rather disingenuous argument that slightly less than 50% of death penalty states not making a national consensus. Thats fuzzy math that ignores the fact that if you add the states that do not have the death penalty to those that do not allow juvenile executions, you have a massive national consensus.

Tora

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:59 am

Aabe wrote:Sadly life is not perfect. Idealism is a nice goal, but life is seldom that. I would accept other arguements for no death penalty. But I don't think practially, demanding a perfect system is a valid one.

If we have alternatives that have a chance to correct errors, would it be moral to embrace a flawed system that doesn't, especially since we're speaking of the final sanction?

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:18 am

Till the injection happens (how many years does that take? 10? 15?) there is recourse. Again life is not perfect. Say it's wrong to kill a person, argue its cruel and unusal punishment, propose two wrongs don't make a right, conjecture civilized people shouldnt act this way, but you and I both know we have to accept imperfect things all the time. I just don't buy it as a main arguement not to have a death penalty.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:35 am

What ability does the state have to right an injustice AFTER the needle goes in?

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:35 pm

Life isn't fair. You can't make it all fair. You can put barriers in front of issues claiming something is not fair while allowing other stuff to pass the is not fair. You want to argue other angles of the death sentence, I'm all ears. Requiring a perfect system is inconsistent with how we judge other aspects and risks we allow in our lives.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:37 pm

Answer the previous question, Aabe.

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:23 pm

I recognize the inherent flaws in the death penalty.

Unfortunately, there are inherent flaws in the current system that I find even more objectionable - the idea that a Manson, a Malvo, a Speck can be set free.

maltheos · Post by **maltheos** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:32 pm

Aabe wrote:Life isn't fair. You can't make it all fair. You can put barriers in front of issues claiming something is not fair while allowing other stuff to pass the is not fair. You want to argue other angles of the death sentence, I'm all ears. Requiring a perfect system is inconsistent with how we judge other aspects and risks we allow in our lives.

I am well aware that life isnt fair, and that the system is not perfect. However, Some descisions are irreversable and some are not. I would rather have the option of saying oops, our bad and releasing someone who was conviceted in error that have the state say sorry our bad, he wasnt guilty, we put him to death by mistake. Avoiding one death in error like that is worth the risk of many very bad men being sent to priosn.

I'm not lobbying for a perfect system, just one in which bad descisions dont have irreversable consequences

Narith · Post by **Narith** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:08 pm

maltheos wrote:
Narith wrote: Capitol punishment is a nessicary (sp?) evil of our society unfortunatly. Due to the fact that our justice system is flawed however you will find a small percentage of people who are truely innocent caught in the system. This presents a catch 22, people who do things to deserve the death penalty actually do deserve it and in order to maintain societies saftey and remove these predators from our midst it is needed as they can not be rehabilitated, and releasing them into the general population of the prisons only servers to endanger those in prison who though do deserve punishment for thier crimes, do not deserve that sort of risk... you are placing a fox in the hen house so to speak. On the other hand due to the flawed system it is no more right to execute an innocent person than it is to remove such a violent threat from our population.
Capital punsihment is a necessary evil? Then please save us from the anarchic situation and huge murder rates of Europe and Canada. It is not a necessary punishment. I agree it has deterent effects, don't get me wrong. However, ilife without parole should be sulficient deterencein most ( if not all) cases. If you are woried about the danger they present to other inmates segregate them. "Death Row" can become "Life without parole row" fairly easily, and if you are going to argue about the danger they present to other such personel, it seems odd given that you wanted the people in question dead.

But the problem is that "life without parole" is not life without parole, it is subjective based on the laws of the state. Life without parole can me 20 years in prison granted, however it means that someone who should never have been allowed back into society is potentially out after those 20 years to create more victims.

The death penatly can be argued that it is self defense, you are simply defending yourself and society agaist these creatures that that have proven that they can not be in society without taking innocent lives, and most likely given the oppertunity will only create more victims, create more loses to society, to families, to parents, and to children. This does not make killing the guilty any more morally acceptable than if one were kill an innocent, that is where the necessary (that still do esnt look spelled right) evil comes in, it is evil to kill, but sometimes one must put up with an evil to stop a greater evil. The "which creates more victims, having the death penalty or not" statement meant that if kept alive with our laws as they currently are, would the creature on death row create more victims if released? Can they be rehabilitated? Or even if the laws are changed so that life without parole truely means life without parole will any victims be created in the jail system itself while these monsters are kept alive in cages? Does the current and the future potential victim count out weigh the death of these monsters, or does thier death out weigh the death of any victims they have and will create? When a bear or wolf enter into society and kill, is it not hunted down and shot? What when one of our own turns into a greater predator than they? Are they not themselves becomming animals, losing thier human status? Of course this is all simply philosophical debate.

My stance is and always will be that though the deathpenalty is evil, it is still needed not just as a deturant but as a way to prevent future victims from an already dangerous creature. The age of the creature is a moot point, it is still dangerous, deadly, and needs to be removed in order to prevent other human beings from losing thier lives....

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:23 pm

Partha wrote:I recognize the inherent flaws in the death penalty.

Unfortunately, there are inherent flaws in the current system that I find even more objectionable - the idea that a Manson, a Malvo, a Speck can be set free.

Please, answer the question. What ability does the state have to correct an injustice after the state has killed the person?

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:25 pm

Ooops.. thought you were Aabe dodging again. Didn't see it was you (Partha) until after I hit the submit.

Aabe.. answer the question please. (You too Partha, if you're interested)

Brell Rants

Score one against barbarism

Re:

Re: