Death Penalty: What % of innocent deaths is acceptable?

For your information since you seem confused as to the facts. Executing a convicted murder is not "killing in cold blood". It is all part of due process.

Sooo, executing convicted murders is bad, but murdering unborn babies is advanced civilization in your little mind. How nice, you know in some advanced civilizations it was OK to kill those nasty Jews too. After all they aren't really people are they? A lot of civilized countries have no problem with stoning women or tossing gays off roofs too. Isn't it nice to classify yourself as a civilized human being and beat your chest?

No where did I say nearly a million innocent babies were murdered in any state? That would be in the United States. A million little beings snuffed out like stomping on ants. Thousands every day. That is totally acceptable to you?

In 1977, Willy Otey broke into a house where a 17 year old girl lived, for several hours he beat her, raped her, sodomized her, slasher her face, cut off her nipples, then finished her off with a claw hammer. You call putting this animal to death barbaric, yet you call those who oppose murdering unborn babies names?

Me thinks someone has is liberal head stuffed up his liberal arse.

 

When Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China and the relatively few other nations that still kill their citizens, kill their citizens, there is always "due process." It is a dispassionate, calculated act, always in cold blood, and not as a consequence of passion or anger, in the "heat of the moment"

Your petty ad hominems aside, the vast majority of advanced nations no longer surrender to the State the power of life and death over over citizens or fetuses. Once an actual person has developed during gestation, it quite properly becomes a societal concern. Before that, the politicians do not get to impose their will upon the individual, but rather, she, in consultation with loved ones and trusted medical and spiritual advisers, controls her own womb, not your invasive politicians.

Ignoring your comment that "It was OK to kill those nasty Jews" and such, if you believe that the morality of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and China is superior to that of Norway, France, Germany, Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, New Zealand, Great Britain, Demmark, Belgium, Austria, Italy, Spain, Australia, etc., that, of course, is your right.

Your proclivity for musing about most of Christendom engaging in such a curious pastime is noted.

You may wish to consider a more wholesome fantasy life.

 

I don't need a fantasy life. I can just bask in your righteous hypocrisy.

 

... and you can delight in the US emulating Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and China rather than advanced nations with a Christian heritage (even with its distinction of exempting the wealthy from killing by the State.)

 

Just more racist rants with no facts to back your delusion.

 

You are upset because your moral values are antithetical to those of advanced, western, first-world nations and align with the likes of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and China that are leaders in the practice.

Progress has been very impressive in overcoming the State arrogating the right to kill its citizens in cold blood among nations with a Christian heritage.

Most countries, including almost all First World nations, have abolished capital punishment either in law or in practice.

The U.S. is the only Western country that still has the death penalty.

​

 

Only someone devoid of facts and intelligence would make a statement like that. Great Britain, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Egypt and dozens of countries employ the death penalty.

 

You appear impervious to facts and intelligence. Great Britain abolished cold-bloodied killing by the State for murder in 1965 and for all other offenses in 1998. The other nations you cite are, like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and China, not advanced western democracies with a Christian heritage.

Under Egypt's despotic rule, the theocratic tyranny of several other middle eastern states that kill their citizens is also a factor since the Grand Mufti authorizes all death sentences in Egypt.

You may not like the morality of advanced western democracies with a Christian ethos, but they are not all about to regress.

 

So in your mind we need to follow what other feel is correct. If that is the case, read this quote from Wikipedia.
" Performing abortion only on the basis of a woman's request is allowed in 30 percent of countries". I guess you must believe we must immediately stop request abortions. We wouldn't want the rest of the world thinking we are backwards, would we?

 

I'm glad that I was able to clarify that the United Kingdom does not kill its citizens in cold blood as you falsely claimed. If you still prefer the current policy of Islamic theocracies to that of western democracies, that is your business.

In your desperate diversion regarding whether politicians should seize control of wombs from the instant of conception, I explained to you that a person develops during gestation, and after that point, it properly receives the protection of society. No "woman's request" should be the sole determinant after that critical stage has been reached.

 

So now you are the authority on when a being becomes being. How does it feel to be God?

 

You can believe in the homunculus theory, that upon conception, an itty-bitty person with a brain instantly appears.

Don't expect your notion to catch on in advanced, wester nations and the people of those nations to suddenly decide that your politician should seize control of the wombs of every female at the moment of conception.

Your diversion from the matter of people surrendering to the State the right to kill citizens in clod blood is futile. Your fake claim that Great Britain still does that is sad.

 

That's ok, when you think you are God, you can decide that murdering babies by the millions is acceptable. By the way what is a "wester"?

 

How does telling yourself that someone is "murdering millions of babies" relate to Islamic theocracies surrendering to the State the power to kill people, and so many advanced western nations with a Christian heritage abandoning the practice?

 

Asphyxiation by a large pair of breasts.

 

Remember how Tyrion Lannister answered the question, "How would you like to die?"?

Might take a while to locate those Dornish women today. ​

 

Cocaine and hooker party

 

But, what if you get pardoned and end up with HIV, HepC, HPV, HSV and yet to be named Venereal Diseases?

 

I'm willing to take that risk

 

There are, in my opinion, only three valid arguments against capital punishment:

(1) It contributes to the brutalization of society, which should make the taking of human life 'taboo'. (That is, taking human life should something we don't argue the merits of, but just viscerally reject.)

I personally think this argument is theoretically correct, but the contribution of capital punishment, compared to the constant glorification of killing in the entertainment media, its routine occurence in many communities, and its prevalence in many Third World countries in wars, means that Capital Punishment's contribution to the normalization of killing is a tiny tiny fraction of the whole. And of course, unless you're a pacifist, you do support the killing of people in wars, including the killing of possibly-unwilling conscripts on the other side.

In some possible future world where there is almost no killing and no glamorization of it by the commercial media, where it would be, along with criminal murders, the only other example of deliberate killing, this argument might have force. But we're not there yet.

(2) Innocent people can be executed, who, if given life sentences, might later be exonerated.

There is absolutely no question that people have been executed for crimes which they did not commit. (It's ironic that usually people who want to give the state near-total control of the economy, do recognize that it's far from perfect in arbitrating matters of life and death, which you think would really concentrate its attention, as opposed to deciding how many square yards of Number 3 canvass should be produced this year. Actually, it turns out that giving the state near-total control of the economy gives it far greater killing power than allowing capital punishment, as witness Venezuela, but that's another story -- capital punishment by socialism.)

I personally think this is a compelling argument, but ... usually, the people who are executed, who are innocent of this particular crime, are also guilty of other ones. Your average marketing executive or cable guy or housewife, with no previous convictions, is very unlikely to end up on a capital charge for a crime for which they are innocent, although it is of course the stuff of many crime novels and movies. So they are unable to arouse much public sympathy. That was the situation in the case linked to above, Mr DeLuna. Apparently, they executed the wrong criminal.

(3) I haven't heard this argument before, but it seems plausible to me that a jury, trying a case where a guilty verdict may result in execution, might be more reluctant to return a 'guilty' verdict, if they have any doubts at all .... and a good lawyer is always able to raise a doubt or two. .

 

Yup, I could go with Tyrion's idea !!

 

When you take cases such as the murder of Lee Rigby, then the two perpetrators are candidates for capital punishment. I'm only for capital punishment when the perpetrator is caught in the act and there's no doubt whatsoever.

Now society is footing the bill to house two guys that would never get out. Never mind Human Rights, it should be Human Lives that the state should be concerned about. A criminal has forfeited their rights to live in a civilised society when committing a crime, what about the victim's right to life?

 

Agree completely. When the murderers are clearly guilty, I don't lose sleep over their punishment, especially in a case like Lee Rigby's. It's too bad they're still alive, and I hope that some patriotic lifer in their prison does the right thing and terminates them with extreme prejudice. Scum of the earth.

 

It ought to be obvious. If it is correct for an "advanced western nation" to kill millions of babies, what difference does a paltry 23 convicted murders make?

By the way, didn't some of those "advanced western nations" execute about 6 million people for the crime of being a Jew? This is the type of behavior you think we should emulate?

 

Your fanaticism is not shared by decent folks who recognize that, before an actual person has developed within her womb during gestation, decisions are properly the proper purview of the woman, with the support and advice of loved ones and trusted medical and spiritual advisers as she deems appropriate. Your insistence that politicians should seize control of all wombs at the instant of conception is morally depraved, imho. Your fake claim that million of "babies" are being killed throughout Christendom is hyperbolic nonsense.

Whether you think so is your business. Many advanced nations also once sanctioned the killing of citizens in cold blood by the State, but the vast majority have progressed - including Great Britain despite your falsehood concerning it.