Democracy, and how the US can push to become one.

How many American black men in Chicago died while the HAAWIC was speaking last night?

What is HAAWIC?

Something along the lines of 'H...African American whiner in chief', but I have not yet nailed down what it stands for exactly.

I have no idea what your personal view actually is and I should not have made the personal reference.

I know though what the view of a majority of liberals is and so, again, I won't narrow my brush.

I do have concerns about it being fairly applied, but they don't come under the heading of "political."

I simply do not want a State powerful enough to kill it's citizens.

No matter whether a person or an entity any and all powers will eventually be abused.

I admit that there is some appeal to this notion, however the sentence would still be carried out under the auspices of the government. I prefer a government that has zero power to kill its citizens.

They have adopted the convenient and cynical argument that a fetus is not a "baby" or, for that matter a human being.

I would love to meet the pro-choicer who regards the obviously pregnant belly of a loved one (or their own) and who coos "Oh how is the lump of bloody tissue doing?"

OK, then let those that come up with the sentence carry out that sentence.

That's still under the authority of the state.
I'm with Finn on this one.

Fair enough.

So the current system is the best way to do things.

No, the best system would be to deprive the government of the power to kill any of its citizens, regardless of how the process is manipulated.

The scum who deserve to die are legion, but we can't have Rule of Law and liberty if we allow victims or the State to decide who should die.

It's not as if a lifetime of rotting in a cell in a hellhole like an American prison constitutes a free ride.

I'm not quick to agree with you, but I will say the process could be more efficient.

- Letting the criminals decided who should die in states that prevent citizens from protect themselves with a gun is wrong, and it's the much bigger problem with an easy solution.

We agree on this topic.

Then the fight should be directed at gun laws.

Regardless, there is no way to render all of us immune from the harm of sick bastards.

I'm not arguing that the death penalty is barbaric (it's not) I'm arguing that it is dangerous.

Having said all of this I will not be joining any candlelight vigil outside of Roof's prison on the night that he is executed.

Absolutely! Big democrat controlled cities & states have the most restrictive gun laws, and they put citizens at greater risk. Those Gun Free zones that democrats love so much, are nothing more than shooting galleries for the sick bastards - including muslim terrorist. Return the right of self protection to law abiding Americans, all of them - no matter what state they live in.

Finn, I asked you a folow-up question about your position on this earlier, but never noticed a response.

I personally have difficulty seeing the connection you are trying to make between the imposition of criminal punishment and lack of liberty. What's up with that?

Would we also have no "rule of law" and/or no "liberty" if we allow the state to decide who gets imprisoned for life?

I had overlooked this response when I said, in my last post, that I didn't notice one from you.

This is a different argument, but still one that I don't really understand. Yes, all power can be abused. But is the proper reaction to that the (impossible) demand that no one ever have any power?

Even a guy who get assessed with a parking fine can be unjustly "convicted" by an "abuse of power." Goes without saying. But what else is new?

Would you repeal a citizen's right to defend himself by resort to lethal force when necessary? Should HE have the "right" to decide who dies--either him or the criminal attacking him? Or would that be morally compromising? Should it be strictly up to the criminal to decide who, as between the two, is gunna die? At the least the citizen could die with a "clear conscious" knowing that he did not use any "power" to protect himself, eh? Maybe he would thereby be rewarded with an eternal blissful existence in heaven, I dunno.

The greatest power any person or entity can have over a person is the power of life and death.

Not wanting the government to have this power is not even close to saying no one should have any power.

The power to throw a citizen in a cell and throw away the key is pretty damned mighty, but I don't oppose it because the State must have some power to deal with terrible citizens and a life sentence allows for a lot of time in which injustice might be overturned. Once the State kills you, it doesn't really matter whether or not you are exonerated at some future date.

It's really not that complicated.

I understand the notions of retribution and vengence. I'm not arguing that the death penalty is barbaric or immoral. I am saying that it is foolish to allow the State to have the ultimate power over us and one that cannot ever be rectified if abused.

We all know it has been and likely will be abused in the future.

Thanks for the response, Finn. I have already responded to it in the other thread you posted it in, If you care to pursue the discussion any further, we can do it in this thread, if you want.