Death Penalty

NOT FACT. YOU ARE DREAMING.

Do you have any idea how many people are viciously assaulted, and even murdered, in our prisons and jails every year?

"Knowing that they may be assaulted" doesn't make it right, or even remotely tolerable, when it happens.

Wouldn't you agree?

WRONG.

The whole point is to protect the public AND rehabilitate.

Incidentally, the public is woefully NOT protected when convicts come out of prison ten times more dangerous than when they first went in, due to the degenerative effects of being surrounded by incorrigible inmates the entire time they're inside.

Then again, there's that annoying strawman again (or maybe you just have no idea what you're talking about). Every time there are budget cuts for the DOC (which is so often that it might as well be considered a constant), hardened criminals invariably get locked up with "those who aren't," and that is in states which actually have enough revenue to implement such a policy in first place.

Of course, county jails have even less available funds, so their abililty to separate the bad from the not-so-bad is even more limited.

Shirley, you are so obviously ignorant of the subject at hand that you couldn't possibly tell the difference.

 

I have read some of the posts about the barbarism of the death penalty and I will concede that it is a Roman practice to kill a criminal. However, the independent isolationist that I am, I always look at things from the perspective of "what if the dollar collapses tomorrow in the USA?". Convicted criminals (and I have said that every expense should be made to ensure that the conviction is just) of murder and rape are skilled killers that do the deed for free and for the fun of it. The hero military soldiers will be few and far between when there is no money to pay them. Only real heroes will emerge which account for about 1 % of the paid "heroes". I would rather not see those heroes emerge and have the threat eliminated.

 

I already fully rebutted this assersion in post #350.

 

We don't kill people to show that killing people is wrong.

Even with no sanction, most folks know that committing murder is wrong.
The moral confusion exists because some accept the amoral or immoral position that all killing is equal.

For those, like some anti death penalty folks, who believe all killing is morally equivalent, they would equate the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews and 6-7 million additional innocents with the execution of those guilty Nazi murderers committing that slaughter.

Such people would also equate the rape and murder of children with the execution of the rapist/murderer. This is what the anti death penalty folks do, morally equate killing (murder) with the punishment for that murder, another killing (execution).

For such anti death penalty folks to be consistent, they must also equate holding people against their will (illegal kidnapping) with the sanction for it, the holding people against their will (legal incarceration) or the taking money away from people (illegal robbery) with a sanction for that, taking money away from people (legal restitution).

Some anti death penalty folks are either incapable of knowing the moral differences between crime and punishment, guilty criminals and their innocent victims, or they are knowingly using a dishonest slogan by equating killing (murder) with killing (execution).

 

I fully covered the topic.

 

People who do wrong should make restitution to the victim or his/her dependants. Letting a lot of other people take vengeful action against the criminal out of ignorance or spite is senseless self-indulgence. Give people the chance to repent and reform, and see they pay those they hurt.

 

And what if the convict has no ability, worse still, no interest in making restitution to the victim or his dependents?

What if the crime committed is so heinous that restitution is impossible?

What if the disposition of the convict is such that he remains a physical and spiritual threat to anyone he may encounter, inside or outside of prison?

Whoever said the death penalty is necessarily about revenge?

We should not execute the incorrigible criminal in order to obtain vengeance. We should execute him in order to rid ourselves of his malevolent presence, once and for all. Leave the vengeance, along with the judgement of his soul, to God.

 

By definition unalienable (inalienable or natural) Rights cannot be denied by the government but they can be violated by the government. When the government incarcerates an individual it violates their Right of Liberty but we accept that violation as being a pragmatic violation of the individual's Right to Liberty as it is to protect the Rights of other individuals in society. As has been previously noted there are no pragmatic reasons for the government to violate the Right of Life for a person that is already incarcerated. The violation of the Right of Life of a prisoner does not protect anyone else's Rights.

The exact definition for inalienable/unalienable/natural Rights has been provided. The failure to comprehend that definition is not an argument but instead is a merely reflection of incomprehension.

When we resort to merely saying that because something's "legal" then it's acceptable we are in fact stating that historical acts such as the Holocaust was acceptable because Nazi Germany had laws that made it legal or that the imprisonment of millions of individuals by the USSR for political reasons was acceptable because the USSR had laws that made it legal. Sorry but the "legal" argument fails as it fails whenever a law violate the Rights of Individual for no pragmatic purpose.

There are no pragmatic reasons for the death penalty. Revenge is not a valid pragmatic reason for the violation of the unalienable Rights of an individual.

 

So this is your own private debate.

Every discussion takes different turns though much of the same information is being used.

As I wasn't talking to you, then you don't need to worry about whats being said, unless you disagree.

And I read your post #350 which does not 'fully' cover in my opinion. And does not take the place of my point.

If you just want the credit for the information, fine you can have it. Your the one.

Quantrill

 

So the government illegally puts people in prison for their crimes? So there is no form of punishment for crimes that is not illegal. After all, all punishment for crimes will affect ones pursuit of happiness and liberty. Do you hear yourself?

And you claim inalienable rights are vilolated by some but at the same time your willing to violate inalienable rights. That is called hypocrisy. At least get consistant.

Quantrill

 

All of us have the chance to repent and reform, before we die, whether we die by car wreck, cancer, murder or execution.

What restitution would you suggest to the parents whose 5 year old daughter was raped/tortured/murdered?

Think about them receiving the $50 check every month from the person that did that to their daughter.

I find it a perfectly grotesque idea.

The death penalty is imposed for the same reason all criminal sanctions are, that is that it is found to be just, appropriate and proportional to the crimes committed.

It isnot, remotely, vengeance.

"The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx

"The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx

"Killing Equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/0...y-distinct-moral-differences--new-mexico.aspx

 

My apologies for the confusion, that is not what I meant.

I was hoping to refer you and Shiva to post 350, whereby my reasoning issimilar to yours and contradicts Shiva, in full.

 

There is no contradiction and no hypocracy.

Does the incarceration of an individual violate an unalienable Right of Liberty? Yes

Is such a violation of a person's unalienable Right of Libery acceptable? It is if the purpose is to protect the unalienable Rights of others where the individual has demonstated that they would violate those rights if their Liberty was not infringed upon. It is a pragmatic violation of an unalienable Right of Liberty by government that is acceptable but it is a violation nonetheless.

Is the violation of the Right of Liberty solely for the purpose of punishment an acceptable pragmatically? No, it is not as "punishment" is merely a form of revenge and revenge does not meet the criteria of the protection of the unalienable Rights of the People.

Protection of the unalienable Rights of the People is the only acceptable pragmatic reason for the violation of the unalienable Right of Liberty of the Individual by government.

This is the argument against victimless crimes that result in incarceration. There isn't a pragmatic justification for the violation of the Right of Liberty of the Individual if they have not violated any Rights of the People.

The death penality does not provide any protections of the rights of The People as incarceration alone (the violaiton of the Right of Liberty) is adequite to provide that protection. It is an unnecessary violation of an unalienable Right of the Individual by government.

 

That's because you've been brainwashed, I fear. I notice that the spiters always go for some extreme case like this. Why not concentrate on the reality of the teenagers you insist on arming or the unemployed and uneducated you treat with contempt. You are deeply complicit in what your deprived people do you know.

 

Your just making up your own laws and excuses now. You choose to violate unalienable rights. Yet you are against others who you say violate unalienable rights. But its ok for you to do it because its 'pragmatic'. You can color it and camo it all you like. But its hypocrisy.

It doesn't matter that the death penalty doesn't provide for protection of rights. That is not its purpose.

Hypocrisy.

Quantrill

 

Sorry that I misunderstood.

Quantrill

 

If I may intercede:

The death penalty does, in fact, provide for the protection of rights, and that is its ultimate purpose.

The death chamber is a necessary form of self-defense, just as a cruise missile or the family shotgun. The law abiding citizenry have a legal, moral, and existential right to defend themselves against the malevolencies of incorrigible criminals.

...and before anyone says it, THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF OUR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES. The purpose of a correctional facility is to correct. The incorrigible, by definition, cannot be corrected. Their continuing criminality cannot be tolerated. Therefore, their continued existence cannot be tolerated.

 

I suppose you and only you get to define what incorrigible is, right?

 

Of course not.

It is not too difficult to define what is incorrigible. In fact, people do it all the time, even (quite annoyingly) those moonbats who are staunchly opposed to capital punishment but then think their opinion should count for something whenever they waffle on the occasion of hearing the latest atrocity committed by yet another fiend who was foolishly and irresponsibly released back into society under the aegis of the Criminal Justice System due to prison overcrowding.

"Incorrigible" can be defined as:

1.) Any act of criminal behavior so cruel, aborrent, and intolerable that the possibility of ever chancing a repeat performance through the release of such a criminal back into society cannot be responsibly considered by the People.

2.) The failure to rehabilitate after successive and sincere opportunities to do so (including job placement upon release from custody) have been provided by the People.

 

FALSE ! The primary purpose of American prisons is the protection of the public, and this has always been the case. Everything else is secondary to that.

 

If they could pay those they hurt (kill) by bringing them back to life, maybe then THAT restitution would be fitting. No other restitution would be.

 

I've given 3 solid pragmatic reasons for the death penalty in this thread. You are either not reading the posts, or you're being ridiculous.

 

We give the death penalty and all other sanctions because the guilty party committed the crime amd we have concluded that certain sanctions are appropriate for those crimes, that the punishment has been earned and provides just desserts, just as a salary or Nobel prize are given as reward for positive acts.

Self defense of individuals or society, additional protections for all of us, deterrence of other wrongdoers, etc, are the secondary benefits and outcomes of those sanctions, but are not the reason for them.

Justice must be the reason for sanction. It is primary.

To paraphrase CS Lewis, what morality would we reflect if we provided sanction as a defense of society, but the individuals sanctioned did not, in fact, deserve it?

 

You are missing both the foundations of the law and the morality behind them, as you have, consistently.

We all only have rights if we respect the rights of others. It is the foundation of civilization.

Those who violate the social contract have voluntarily given up certain rights, inclusive of the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

You have acknowledege that the right to liberty is not unalienable.

Your same logic and foundation are solid for the rights to life, property and the pursuit to happiness also not being unalienable.

You are simply avoiding your own rational for removal of the right to liberty.

In addition, as detailed to you previously, the death penalty provides

1) enhanced incapacitation - executed murderers cannot harm and murder, again, while living murderers can;

2) enhanced due process - those defendats facing the death penalty have greated due process protections than those facing any lesser sanctions, meaning that both their legal innocen, as well as thier actual innocence are both more protected by process, in pre trial, trial and on appeals, and

3) enhanced deterrence - society is better protected the increased deterrence of this sanction.

But, primarily, the death penalty, just as with the removal of liberty, property and/or the pursuit of happiness, must be just and deserved for the crime committed, the foundation of all sanctions and the reason they are provided.

Actually, it is only you that has failed to understand the moral foundations for the law.

No one on this board has said that all laws and all atrocities commtted under law are acceptable.

You have simply made that up as a canard and have consistently avoided the rational rebuke of your poor reasoning.

 

Or Shiva has decided to be ridiculous, read the posts and avoid addressing them, while making up what others are saying or meaning.