Roof Death Penalty

@layman,

This is silly.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

In addition I fundamentally oppose granting the State, under any circumstances, the power to kill its citizens.

Do you also fundamentally oppose equipping policemen with firearms, Finn?

1 Reply

@layman,

No

Equipping them with firearms is not providing them with the power to sentence someone to death.

They should only be used in defense of the public and themselves. That is a far cry from dealing death as a punishment.

1 Reply

The guy is just spamming. He has already said all he had of relevance.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

No

Equipping them with firearms is not providing them with the power to sentence someone to death.

They should only be used in defense of the public and themselves. That is a far cry from dealing death as a punishment.

Well, yeah, but I only asked because of your unqualified statement that

Quote:

In addition I fundamentally oppose granting the State, under any circumstances, the power to kill its citizens.

"Under ANY circumstances," you said. A cop with a gun is given "the power to kill a citizen" in the name of, and with authority from, the state.

I'm just trying to discern a consistent line of reasoning behind your position, ya know?

I'm sure there are *some* who would argue that, because there are known circumstances where police have killed innocent people with their firearms, then all policeman should be prohibited from carrying guns. Otherwise they are given a "power" which they can abuse. Not a good argument, but, still....

I have stated some of my reasons for favoring the DP, such as the positive benefits of both general and specific deterrence.

But, beyond that, I just wouldn't have the least bit of compunction about killing a guy who just killed 13 innocent people. Whats goes around, comes around, ya know?

I do NOT feel sympathy for the poor boy who just decided he would murder a bunch of other people, nor do I believe that he "deserves" better treatment than they got from him.

In fact, I kinda find it morally reprehensible to claim otherwise.

1 Reply

@layman,

"Ya know" you are just being argumentative which is fine, but I'm no longer inclined to play along.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Well, Finn, you have a viewpoint that I don't readily accept, so I guess any exchange between us on this topic could be called "argumentative."

But I was interested in hearing any explication you might provide regarding the rationale for the conclusions you reach.

With most of the anti-DP people, it just seems to boil down to "Killing is wrong. Period." I thought you would probably have some more subtle points you could articulate.

Best I can tell, it just boils down to the sentiment that you don't want the government to have the power to kill.

I get it, I guess. There are anarchists who don't want the government to have any power whatsoever. There are pacifists who don't want the military to have the power to kill. But these sentiments, without more, seem kinda hollow to me. What is the practical alternative?

Call me old--fashioned, or whatever, but I don't agree that everyone has the "right" to live to a ripe old age. There are consequences to actions. Some people lose their property, some lose their freedom, etc, as foreseeable consequences of the actions they take. Some lose their life, and I don't just mean at the hands of the State. To me it's just a higher degree of loss, not one that can never be tolerated under any circumstances. Some people simply don't "deserve" to live, in my book.

Quote:

“There are four kinds of Homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy.” (Ambrose Bierce)

1 Reply

Some years ago, a Palestinian rode a donkey up next to a school bus filled with Israeli children, and then detonated the suicide bomb he had strapped to his sorry ass.

In response, PETA wrote a letter to Arafat, imploring him to keep animals safe from the conflict. A PETA representative was then asked if she had any comment about the children who were killed.

Her response was: "That's not our concern."

People can "care about" whatever they want, I guess. They can "condemn" whatever they want. If your highest value is animals, with people being secondary or even not really worth considering, then that's what it is. "Values" are hard to explain sometimes.

Nonetheless, under the circumstances, I could not view this person's concern with "animals" to be commendable, given the lack of empathy toward human beings. But I imagine that she saw herself as extremely "moral," inasmuch as she had committed her being to defending "helpless animals."

I guess I see death penalty opponents in somewhat the same light. Their fervent insistence that savage killers be treated "humanely" strikes me as a disregard for, and even an insult to, the survivors of those who were slaughtered by the bastard.

When the destruction is over, the first (and only) concern PETA has is about the fate of the poor donkey.

0 Replies

Well I botched saying this earlier so I'll try again. On truly serious matters the justification for punishment is mostly for the example it sets, not reform of the offender. As Voltaire wrote of the British Royal Navy,
"Occasionally they shoot one Admiral, for the good of the others."

This acerbic comment was based on a real event: Admiral Byng, after losing an critical engagement with the French Navy at the Battle of Minorca (early 18th century). He lost an engagement (and with it the British Base at Maiorca) the Admiralty said he should have won; was tried at Courts Martial and executed by a firing squad of his staff officers. Afterwards the Brits did much better under the likes of Jervis and Nelson.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I understood you perfectly. That doesn't account for mistaken convictions and the fact the rich with great lawyers get a different standard of justice.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I understood you perfectly. That doesn't account for mistaken convictions and the fact the rich with great lawyers get a different standard of justice.

Does refusing to impose the DP change this?: "the rich with great lawyers get a different standard of justice."

What "mistaken convictions?"

0 Replies

Would anyone seriously argue that, because some innocent people have been sentenced to a year in jail, nobody should EVER be sentenced to year in jail? Or ten years? Or given a parking ticket?

That "reasoning" just doesn't take one very far.

So why is it different with the DP--it just another form of punishment that can be mistakenly imposed.

The rationale seems to be that it is "final." The resulting call for a total ban on the imposition of the DP, EVER, seems to boil down to "Don't ever make a final decision."

But once again, an intolerance of "finality" does not make sense as a general proposition. So, once again, the question arises--what is it that is unique about the DP that requires it be absolutely abolished--in each and every case regardless of circumstances?

It must boil down to "thou shall not kill." But isn't that the very thing we are trying to punish and deter when imposing the DP? Are we really saying "sure, you can kill all you want, but only if you're a criminal?"

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I understood you perfectly. That doesn't account for mistaken convictions and the fact the rich with great lawyers get a different standard of justice.

I agree, but I note that even with our present system, we haven't solved that one. The two are not in conflict if the death penalty is restricted to such crimes involving malicious premeditation; innocent victims who posed no threat to anyone; and an udder lack of remorse or any extenuating circumstances.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

If cluck A is guilty beyond the slightest doubt and cluck B is found guilty of an equally heinous crime, but wiggle room for grounds for at least a retrial is present, why should A's penalty be greater than B's. They are both convicted of equal crimes, with equal conviction by the juries. If B is innocent but some vindictive official successfully blocks retrial efforts, B is sure to be walking that Green Mile, just like A. Or don't you believe in equal justice under the law?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

If cluck A is guilty beyond the slightest doubt and cluck B is found guilty of an equally heinous crime, but wiggle room for grounds for at least a retrial is present, why should A's penalty be greater than B's. They are both convicted of equal crimes, with equal conviction by the juries. If B is innocent but some vindictive official successfully blocks retrial efforts, B is sure to be walking that Green Mile, just like A. Or don't you believe in equal justice under the law?

What is the world does this have to do with the death penalty, Ed? Doesn't it apply equally to any and every conceivable punishment? Should all poor people be exempt from all punishment, whatever the crime and whatever the punishment, because justice is not "equal?"

That the idea?

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

So why is it different with the DP--it just another form of punishment that can be mistakenly imposed.

The big difference is that when a person has had their life terminated by the fulfillment of the death penalty, there is no return to anything which can resemble life; because, the person is dead. With other miscarriages of justice there is always a glimmer of hope

Roof Death Penalty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know