Quote :

"I'm not going to let some fucker get a pass to sit on his ass"

There you are, aimorris.

7/8/2010 4:33:28 PM

It seems that God is trying to point the finger and make a community/govenment decision into a single person's decision.

I prefer to look at it from the perspective of "self defense" of a community.
I support the death penalty in that sense. I am not making any judgements on someone's life rather the community has judged that this person his violated the rights of others to the extent that their personal rights no longer exist.

If any of you have ever seen the movie Sgt. York... that is a basic representation.

I also feel that God has side steped the question by imposing "what if" scenerios.
God... "what if" someone was 100% guilty... do you still oppose? You ask a lot a questions but don't ever seem to answer any - do you enjoy hiding behind those insecurities?

7/8/2010 4:34:00 PM

I believe that's what "Oppose in all situations" means.

None of us have the right to order someone's death, no matter what they did.

7/8/2010 4:35:24 PM

Quote :

"None of us have the right to order someone's death, no matter what they did."

said individual sure didn't adhere to that rule, so why should he be protected under it?

7/8/2010 4:37:31 PM

because certain rights are inalienable

7/8/2010 4:39:33 PM

Quote :

"That's certainly been debated."

Hence why I put the "(relatively)" qualifier in my post, yet you conveniently left that out of your quote

7/8/2010 4:41:30 PM

Quote :

"said individual sure didn't adhere to that rule, so why should he be protected under it?"

Because we're not fucking barbarians?

7/8/2010 4:42:33 PM

We're not?

Quote :

"because certain rights are inalienable"

No rights which impinge other's rights should be inalienable.

7/8/2010 4:45:47 PM

Quote :

"because certain rights are inalienable"

you only have rights up until the point where you infringe upon mine...
at that point you have forfeited yours.

Quote :

"Because we're not fucking barbarians?"

This seems like a gross generalization of the people of Barbaria. Kinda racist if you ask me.

7/8/2010 4:46:23 PM

Quote :

" No rights which impinge other's rights should be inalienable. "

but unless they are still a risk there is no more impinging on rights. in matters of self defense murder is ok, but if someone is in prison with no parole they are not a threat.

7/8/2010 4:47:54 PM

in favor of the death penalty 90% of the time.

7/8/2010 4:47:58 PM

Quote :

"but if someone is in prison with no parole they are not a threat. "

That's interesting - we have links in this thread that prove otherwise...

7/8/2010 4:49:14 PM

In case you would like to see what other great, civilized, and respected countries we share this policy with:



[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 4:50 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 4:49:38 PM

Quote :

"That's interesting - we have links in this thread that prove otherwise..."

i'd be fine with putting someone in isolation and agree with you that your prison system needs help, but i'd like you to repost the specific link that "proves otherwise"

7/8/2010 4:51:29 PM

Quote :

" if one innocent person is getting put to death, that's one too many."

That's arguable. Distasteful, not clear-cut, and ideologically up for debate, but defensible from a pragmatic standpoint of net preservation of innocent life.

Quote :

" None of us have the right to order someone's death, no matter what they did."

Fuck that, I'm 100% comfortable with the idea of ordering someone's death (or doing it myself) in principle...it's just certain individual situations that are sometimes debatable.

Additionally, I have less faith in the judicial system (if we're speaking about ordering sometimes death in criminal, judicial circumstances) than I do in my own judgement (i.e, I'd kill the shit out of all sorts of bad people all over our country and the rest of the world if, hypothetically, I had the resources and legal immunity).

Quote :

" in matters of self defense murder is ok"

in matters of self defense, it isn't murder. it's simply killing.

Quote :

"in favor of the death penalty 90% of the time."

what the hell does that mean, Pat? 90% could be justified, depending on your argument, but if you think we're fucking it up 10% of the time, that's something I'd say you need to justify if you want to support the death penalty as an institution.


[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 4:53:29 PM

^^^
Shall I post something showing the religiousness of various countries? Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't mean it's right.

Actually, now that I think about it, that probably doesn't help the argument. We're way more fucking religious than most industrialized countries.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 4:53:35 PM

Quote :

"in matters of self defense, it isn't murder. it's simply killing."

semantics

^wait, is your claim that those nations are more or less religious than us?



[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 4:57 PM. Reason : nevermind, you figured out the FAIL in your post]

7/8/2010 4:55:42 PM

Not semantics.

See how useful that post was?

7/8/2010 4:56:26 PM

Quote :

"than I do in my own judgement (i.e, I'd kill the shit out of all sorts of bad people all over our country and the rest of the world if, hypothetically, I had the resources and legal immunity)."

So you're infallible? What if you made a mistake?

That's really my only problem with it (that and that we have no reasonably humane method to kill someone).

The fact that there have been so many people on death row who have been exonerated prove this.

Until we can punish people with a certainty, we should not have punishments that are irreversible.

7/8/2010 4:57:17 PM

^^^Technically speaking, yes.

Your implication, though, is that it's a meaningless splitting of linguistic hairs, and that's fucking stupid.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM. Reason : going to bed]

7/8/2010 4:58:19 PM

I'm not sure what you mean.

EDIT: Oh, you weren't talking to me

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 4:59:15 PM

actually i meant to write killing, but an argument over definitions is a semantics argument fallacy that overlooks my point

7/8/2010 5:05:52 PM

Against in all cases. Justice is better served, in my opinion, with life in prison.

7/8/2010 5:07:10 PM

Me

Quote :

"God... "what if" someone was 100% guilty... do you still oppose?"

God

Quote :

"I believe that's what "Oppose in all situations" means. "

God

Quote :

"So you're infallible? What if you made a mistake? That's really my only problem with it (that and that we have no reasonably humane method to kill someone). The fact that there have been so many people on death row who have been exonerated prove this. Until we can punish people with a certainty, we should not have punishments that are irreversible. "

Glad we cleared that up

7/8/2010 5:49:13 PM

I said I opposed it in all situations. Right now we have no way to prove someone is 100% guilty. So in all situations* we should not execute someone.

*By this I'm referring to the crime. Murder, rape, mass murder, etc.

7/8/2010 6:29:20 PM

i think it's pretty clear that he was speaking hypothetically

7/8/2010 6:45:52 PM

Quote :

"Right now we have no way to prove someone is 100% guilty"

This is the main reason why I oppose it.
But sometimes it really feels like some people deserve it.
I'd rather victims families be responsible for it...
...like having to pay a prison hit-man or doing it themselves (and risk their own murder charge)

7/8/2010 6:54:14 PM

in favor of the death penalty 50% of the time.

7/8/2010 7:02:38 PM

Oppose

7/8/2010 8:18:31 PM

I thought we already determined that it is actually possible to determine with 100% certainty that someone in particular did something in particular. Maybe not in every case, sure. But some cases actually are open and shut.

7/8/2010 8:22:37 PM

^
Perhaps, but how would we only apply the death penalty in those cases?

7/8/2010 8:30:20 PM

What do you mean how?

Determine that a case involving a capital crime has been proven to 100% certainty. Kill the perpetrator. Done.

Case not proven to 100% certainty but proven beyond reasonable doubt? Life in prison, possible appeals.

7/8/2010 8:45:16 PM

Quote :

"I thought we already determined that it is actually possible to determine with 100% certainty that someone in particular did something in particular. Maybe not in every case, sure. But some cases actually are open and shut."

That's impossible. Maybe in some hypothetical world, yes. But never in the real world. Sooner or later you are going to mess up.

7/8/2010 9:00:38 PM

Here's something interesting, the last words of people executed in Texas:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm

Lots of comments like "I'm sorry this happened. I'm not that person anymore." I've yet to see anyone say "I'm innocent I tells ya! Innocent!"

7/8/2010 9:02:24 PM

How about:

Quote :

"Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return, so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, Road Dog. I love you, Gabby."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

7/8/2010 9:09:09 PM

Quote :

"What do you mean how?"

I mean how as in:

Quote :

"Determine that a case involving a capital crime has been proven to 100% certainty"

Determine how?

7/8/2010 9:18:24 PM

Get a grip guys. We have the oversight of career politicians in the form of pardons. They wouldn't let anything bad happen. No, the condemned are certainly guilty. Without a doubt guilty. Especially the dead ones.

7/8/2010 9:31:27 PM

You obtuse fucks.

We're talking about in principle here.

^^Determine how? I thought we've already established that you actually can determine that somebody did something particular to a particular person. Some cases are actually open and shut.

^^^Yeah, that case shows the flawed justice system. Not the flawed notion of capital punishment. A person who actually does murder his 3 young children by burning them to death should be put to death himself. Now in this particular case, it certainly isn't clear.

Let's not kid ourselves however. Is he the only person that has been guilty of a crime but claimed innocence? I'm not saying he's guilty, but the fact that he didn't admit to it doesn't mean anything. But since it is not clear that it was intentional, he certainly should not have been executed.

I'd really have to read the transcripts of the case to comment further. I feel like we're missing some information regarding the evidence (not just the arson bullshit). I do know this, and it certainly doesn't mean he was guilty, but I won't leave my burning house until I'm certain that my wife and all of my children are out safely. I will die in the fire before letting that happen. It's curious that he let his children burn.

Of course this comment is without knowledge of the exact details. Maybe by the time he awoke (if he was asleep when it started) the structure was damaged to the point where getting to his kids was impossible. Not sure, like I said, short on the details.

Oh, and his actual last words, not that they mean anything regarding his innocence or deserving of capital punishment:

Quote :

"He then addressed his ex-wife, Stacy Kuykendall, who was watching about 8 feet away through a window. Willingham said, "I hope you rot in hell", and then attempted to maneuver his hand, strapped at the wrist to the execution gurney, into an obscene gesture."

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 11:18 PM. Reason : fire]

7/8/2010 11:00:12 PM

Quote :

"There are situations, where if I could be 100% certain of who committed the murder and what the circumstances were, I would support the death penalty. Unfortunately, I don't trust our justice system, and if one innocent person is getting put to death, that's one too many."

Ditto

7/8/2010 11:14:54 PM

^^ My point is that it's impossible to fix the flaws in our justice system. There will always be missed evidence, there will always be crooked cops, there will always be overzealous DAs, there will always be mistaken identity, there will always be DNA mistakes. You can never foolproof it 100% ever. And since this is a fact, you are taking a risk anytime you sentence someone to death. It's a judgment you can never take back, no matter how sorry you are.

7/8/2010 11:24:33 PM

I humbly disagree.

Did Timothy McVeigh blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building or did he not? Are you certain?

Oh and

Quote :

"Nineteen of the victims were small children and babies in the day care center on the second floor of the building."

If you're certain he did it, do you honestly believe he deserved life imprisonment?

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 11:29 PM. Reason : grammar]

7/8/2010 11:27:38 PM

It seems he did.

But who are you to decide that he deserves death? What does that say about our country as a civilized society?

And yes, I would have sentenced him to life imprisonment.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 11:29 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2010 11:29:26 PM

Mental exercise. Why do we punish some crimes more harshly than others?

[Edited on July 9, 2010 at 12:09 AM. Reason : refinement.]

7/9/2010 12:09:33 AM

Quote :

"But who are you to decide that he deserves death?"

Why do you keep saying that? What does that even mean?

7/9/2010 1:36:49 AM

Support.*











* With reservations.

7/9/2010 1:41:53 AM

Oppose

7/9/2010 3:25:57 AM

Quote :

"Why do you keep saying that? What does that even mean?"

It means what it means. Who are you, and I'm saying that indignantly, who do you think you are that you have the right to deprive a man of his life? And furthermore, if we, as a society, feel that we have the right to use law as a tool to eliminate the undesirables of our society, what does that say about the progress of our civilization?

7/9/2010 8:32:06 AM

Quote :

"I thought we've already established that you actually can determine that somebody did something particular to a particular person. Some cases are actually open and shut."

I would like to point out that nothing is ever 100% certain. Even if you walk in to see the person stabbing the victim in the chest multiple times, he could have already been killed by someone else, or maybe it's some bizarre form of treatment. Who the fuck knows. Bottom line: maybe you're 99.9% sure, but not 100%. And if you're at 99.9%, now where do we draw the line? 99? 98?

7/9/2010 9:15:26 AM

Quote :

"You obtuse fucks. We're talking about in principle here."

we get that, i oppose in all situations so that includes even ideal cases where there is no uncertainty. needlessly killing someone is morally repugnant.

7/9/2010 9:48:02 AM

Quote :

" I would like to point out that nothing is ever 100% certain. Even if you walk in to see the person stabbing the victim in the chest multiple times, he could have already been killed by someone else, or maybe it's some bizarre form of treatment. Who the fuck knows. Bottom line: maybe you're 99.9% sure, but not 100%. And if you're at 99.9%, now where do we draw the line? 99? 98?"

Did Timothy McVeigh blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building or did he not? Are you certain?

7/9/2010 9:52:17 AM