I'm pro-choice, myself, but what do you want pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty to say? That they believe the life of an unborn fetus is worth far more than that of a murderer? Hypocrisy not found, if that's what you were hoping for.
I'm pro-choice, myself, but what do you want pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty to say? That they believe the life of an unborn fetus is worth far more than that of a murderer? Hypocrisy not found, if that's what you were hoping for.What doresident pro-lifers have to say?
And others believe that a life of an unborn fetus is not worth as much as of any born human. Just a difference of opinion. But at least both agree there is no such thing as absolute "sanctity of life."I'm pro-choice, myself, but what do you want pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty to say? That they believe the life of an unborn fetus is worth far more than that of a murderer? Hypocrisy not found, if that's what you were hoping for.
The question is not, "Does this person deserve death?"
it is rather , "Do we entrust the state with the power to take a person's life?" The answer to the latter question is, "no." In a world of perfect laws, perfect prosecutors, perfect evidence, and perfect juries, the answer is still, "no". We should not entrust the state with such power, period.
There is no auto correct for the death penalty, unlike all other forms of punishment that dont include corporal,punishment.No, that is entirely the question. Justice means giving a man what he deserves, but more than this it means enabling a criminal to pay his debt to society, to atone for his crime. Even if that costs him his life, when the debt is paid he is restored to some dignity. By carrying out his punishment he righted, to what extent he could, the wrong that he committed.
It's like in the movie The Green Mile, when one cop rebukes the other who had been taunting the corpse of a criminal just executed. "He's square with the house."
It seems to me that you're real objection lies with society inflicting any punishments at all on those who break its laws. If I adapted your exact argument to denounce life imprisonment, how would you reply?
Furthermore, you said even in a perfect world the answer is still no. So in the event that perfect justice determines that someone rightly and justly deserves death, you oppose it. Why?
You can do anything you want including declaring an argument fallacious and passing laws that are unjust. You can say a black man isn’t a person.A fallacy. The murderer is not innocent.
I understand the concept of innocence may be subjective, but we can make an objective standard in Law, so that a torturous or mass murderer is fit for execution.
There is no auto correct for the death penalty, unlike all other forms of punishment that dont include corporal,punishment.
As to your second point about perfect worlds...they dont need capital punishment ergo it doesnt exist.
Finally, the inherent problem with the death penalty is that laws can be flawed and abused by those who make them, and we shoukd always leave room for corrections.
Justice means giving a man what he deserves, but more than this it means enabling a criminal to pay his debt to society, to atone for his crime. Even if that costs him his life, when the debt is paid he is restored to some dignity.
No, that is entirely the question. Justice means giving a man what he deserves, but more than this it means enabling a criminal to pay his debt to society, to atone for his crime. Even if that costs him his life, when the debt is paid he is restored to some dignity. By carrying out his punishment he righted, to what extent he could, the wrong that he committed.
It's like in the movie The Green Mile, when one cop rebukes the other who had been taunting the corpse of a criminal just executed. "He's square with the house."
It seems to me that you're real objection lies with society inflicting any punishments at all on those who break its laws. If I adapted your exact argument to denounce life imprisonment, how would you reply?
Furthermore, you said even in a perfect world the answer is still no. So in the event that perfect justice determines that someone rightly and justly deserves death, you oppose it. Why?
If it's a cakewalk and overall not considered a punishment for wrong-doing, then why do you call it "justice" ?
The number of times I've seen people arrested with a "don't give a fuck" attitude" tells you that the system doesn't work. Punishments are meant to deter behavior - FIN. It's not meant to be a response, it's strictly meant to be something that deters particular behaviors. If it doesn't deter the behavior, then it fails in achieving the goal. You must find something different that does deter the behavior.
I already found beers. If you lived local I would buy you one
And yes, I do hold myself to higher standards. If there is one thing I ensure of in life it's that I do not impede other people in life. Seems pretty simple, no?
you're not really bringing any real data to the table of what punishment means. You're just saying: "I think criminals don't give a fuck and welcome life in prison. It's easy. They just don't care. Me--I'D FUCKING HATE IT!." OK, so you'd fucking hate it, but of course the way things make sense to you, obviously any other criminal that is not you would be pleased with such an existence, because that's just how they are. Animals and all. No need for remorse, no need for reform, nothing.
you make an argument on supposition. You aren't bringing anything here, just interpreting other peoples' experiences from within some version of the world with rules that you have created for yourself.
LoL, and we've got Boomer, a "multiple (?) felon" by his own admission, allowed to pay his debt and participate in society again, just calls for summary execution of all convicted, no chance to appeal against a system that is notoriously and criminally incapable of getting such convictions correct. But hey, at least HE got his chance to rehabilitate.
To even use the word 'worthy' says to me that an effort is being made to put lipstick on a pig. We use the worthy to imply we are praising something that is positive. What we are really saying is that we feel worthy killing doing our own killing. This is exactly what the murderer felt murdering somebody they thought worthy of death.I dont believe anyone is worthy of the death penalty. Just my opinion.
Who the fuck says I got rehabilitated? Did I change my ways? Yes...and, yes, by my more current standards, I'd probably have been executed as a habitual criminal more than 40 years ago.
2 things got me out of the spiral my life was in after the war...a judge who, in spite of his reputation as a "hanging judge," was a Marine who had served in Korea and was somewhat sympathetic to my problems, (PTSD existed before it was recognized) and I met my wife...and her dad saw some of the horrors of war serving in China, Burma, and India during WWII. Without both of those, I'd probably have died/been killed in prison.
That's great and all for you, getting a judge that likewise had his way shooting Asians all over the wars, you know "shared experience"...you also still routinely post around here that the only good Vietnamese is a dead one.
I mean...what the fuck man?
I know I've said some internet shit about Russians here and there, that I have personally encountered in life and those that have murdered generations of my lady's family, but I've never personally killed one, let alone many, so that doesn't sit behind my words. Can you say the same?
It's not that I don't understand that war kills and murder in civilian life can be separated...but many don't. Then you read people and their comments, and sometimes you just don't know. It all goes back to privilege. I mean, fucking GREAT that you got a sympathetic judge that understood what it was like to be ordered to kill a shitload of Asians, but I simply do not FUCKING UNDERSTAND why you can't extend the simplest motherfucking ounce of common human decency to someone unjustly sitting on death row for no other reason than the color of their skin. No other reason. None whatsoever, because that's what you responded to, so that's what we're talking about.
Great to be white and have that experience in war, killing all those people, eh?
Dude...this thread is about a WHITE SUPREMACIST being sentenced to death...
I don't remember ever saying the only good vietnamese is a dead one...maybe 45or so years ago...sure, but that was kind of before AT...
WNow rappers...I'm sure I've said numerous times that the only good rapper is a dead rapper...
dude, it was like a week ago. And yes, I'm too lazy to dredge up shit.
no, this thread isn't about a White Supremacist. It's asking about the death penalty and trying, as any retarded evangelical will do, to mask the actual morality of the topic with a false choice.
The thread title is designed for weak people with simple minds, which is all that OP can handle.
I see algebra is not your thing.
All I ask is that you solve for X, and ignore the moron. I know you're smarter than that.
J
"Should a white supremacist child-murderer be worthy of the death penalty?"
To even use the word 'worthy' says to me that an effort is being made to put lipstick on a pig. We use the worthy to imply we are praising something that is positive. What we are really saying is that we feel worthy killing doing our own killing. This is exactly what the murderer felt murdering somebody they thought worthy of death.
You can do anything you want including declaring an argument fallacious and passing laws that are unjust. You can say a black man isn’t a person.
So the argument would be... that law is too weak, too easily corrupted to be trusted with a fair and objective standard. With a moral outcome.
So we take the conservative approach to government and demand it be gutted in this regard. Wholly unable to perform the task of execution.
Well, given the rise of deep fakes, even crystal clear video evidence of a person slaughtering school kids wouldn't be enough. If you didn't place some measure of trust in our system. From an "ant government" point of view, it makes a lot of sense to suggest the Death Penalty should never exist. I do not find myself opposed to the notion, but I still feel like we can reach a certain degree of absolute certainty that people caught in the act of torture and/or mass slaughter deserve a swift end.
So I balance my mistrust of government with my feeling of outrage FOR justice. And you want me to side with my mistrust of government.
Very valid points overall. Typical liberal narrative:
I trust the government to know whats best for me.
I trust the government to run our healthcare industry.
I trust the government to know if we should or should not own firearms.
I trust the government to know how best to school and indoctrinate my children.
I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT to know if someone should be executed for committing heinous crimes! How will they know! They get so many things wrong!11one!
Oh the iron-knee.
Very valid points overall. Typical liberal narrative:
I trust the government to know whats best for me.
I trust the government to run our healthcare industry.
I trust the government to know if we should or should not own firearms.
I trust the government to know how best to school and indoctrinate my children.
I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT to know if someone should be executed for committing heinous crimes! How will they know! They get so many things wrong!11one!
Oh the iron-knee.
My argument, as far as I can see, has nothing to do with mistrust of government. Others have made that case on the basis that the death penalty takes so long to apply that time has allowed many incorrectly convicted have been cleared.So the argument would be... that law is too weak, too easily corrupted to be trusted with a fair and objective standard. With a moral outcome.
So we take the conservative approach to government and demand it be gutted in this regard. Wholly unable to perform the task of execution.
Well, given the rise of deep fakes, even crystal clear video evidence of a person slaughtering school kids wouldn't be enough. If you didn't place some measure of trust in our system. From an "ant government" point of view, it makes a lot of sense to suggest the Death Penalty should never exist. I do not find myself opposed to the notion, but I still feel like we can reach a certain degree of absolute certainty that people caught in the act of torture and/or mass slaughter deserve a swift end.
So I balance my mistrust of government with my feeling of outrage FOR justice. And you want me to side with my mistrust of government.