2
   

Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 02:35 am
i support the right to chose and the death penalty. both with the same caveat that choices, circumstances, responsibilty and consequences all go hand in hand.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 02:42 am
We are championing civilisation - but I do not suppose that will be explicable to Lusatian.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 02:44 am
watchmakers guidedog wrote:

I've lost count of the number of times I've been called a "nazi" for describing my political ideas. Still, giving the life and comfort of a homocidal psychopath to save the lives and comfort of many suffering from diseases sounds like a worthwhile sacrifice to me.

Besides, the inefficiency of killing people and then just letting valuable, useful and educating bodies just rot away to nothing in the soil gets to me sometimes... I bloody hate waste.

as a practical matter, your suggestion is probably unconstitutional. but if it's efficiency you're after, the cost of executing someone, taking into account the lengthy appeal process, could be put to use for worthwhile causes with a moratorium on the death penalty.

while we're discussing consistency & efficiency, i certainly find it doubly puzzling why anyone--the president, for instance--feels that embryos that are discarded at fertility clinics shouldn't be used for stem cell research.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 02:49 am
goodfielder wrote:
The logical connection is that both entail the termination of a human life.

Nope. That's why there's no logical connection. In one instance (the death penalty) we're referring to a person. In the other, abortion, we're talking about a foetus not a person. And then it goes off into arguments about when life begins and all that and becomes the usual circus of assertion and denial. Ends up going nowhere.

Why the two are compared is beyond me. Two different issues. Not connected.


here's one connection. a person about to be executed is potentially innocent--reasonable doubt not being the same as certainty, assuming the individual maintains his innocence. the foetus is likewise a potentially innocent human being--given there is no way to establish when a foetus becomes a human being, premature births showing that it's well before actual childbirth.
0 Replies
 
watchmakers guidedog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 03:22 am
yitwail wrote:
as a practical matter, your suggestion is probably unconstitutional.


Definately... cruel and unusual would kick that out of court.

Quote:
but if it's efficiency you're after, the cost of executing someone, taking into account the lengthy appeal process, could be put to use for worthwhile causes with a moratorium on the death penalty.


Appeals are not necessary if the trial runs right the first time... Plus with involuntary medical experimentation, research corporations can pay to use them as test subjects for the government to recoup on legal costs. :wink: Don't try to out-efficiency me Razz

Quote:
while we're discussing consistency & efficiency, i certainly find it doubly puzzling why anyone--the president, for instance--feels that embryos that are discarded at fertility clinics shouldn't be used for stem cell research.


Agreed. Very wasteful.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 03:58 am
Lusitian wrote:
Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

When I submit that I'd rather see someone get a life sentence than be electrocuted, that doesn't mean I "champion" him.

Lash wrote:
That they don't want to become like those who murder.

Works for me.

yitwail wrote:
for instance, in 1999, 43% of death row inmates were African-American, even though African-Americans are only 13% of the population. Couey is caucasian, coincidentally, as are the "vast majority" of serial killers. unless African-Americans are over 3 times as likely to commit capital offenses, the death penalty is not disbursed in the same way upon them as upon white Americans.

I don't see how this conclusion follows from your example. Inmates aren't supposed to be in prison so they can represent their race. They are supposed to be in prison so they can be punished for a crime they committed. Hence, when 43% of death row inmates are African-American, the fair question to ask is, "what percentage of murderers is black?" It isn't "what percentage of the population is black?"
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 04:10 am
Yeah - bring back the death penalty for......



....desertion in wartime..
http://www.thereisnocat.com/images/bush-alabama.jpg

...betraying state secrets (CIA operatives)....
http://untruenews.com/images/dick_cheney_smiles.jpg

..war crimes, crimes against humanity, being a total dick...
http://www.wm.edu/chancellor/images/kissinger.jpg

...hiding killers, rapists, torturers, drug dealers....
http://www.hermes-press.com/negroponte.jpg

...countless deaths... consorting with the enemy... funding criminals... being the father of another complete dick....
http://courses.knox.edu/matheson/George_H_Bush_editted.jpg

...
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 04:11 am
..giving me the squirts...
http://pbskids.kids.us/images/sub-square-barney.gif
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 04:19 am
I'm sorry you're so angry about this issue. Your post however is a rather transparent ad hominem on all liberals period.

Why not just post "All Liberals Are Doody Heads" and get it over with?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 06:55 am
yitwail wrote:
goodfielder wrote:
The logical connection is that both entail the termination of a human life.

Nope. That's why there's no logical connection. In one instance (the death penalty) we're referring to a person. In the other, abortion, we're talking about a foetus not a person. And then it goes off into arguments about when life begins and all that and becomes the usual circus of assertion and denial. Ends up going nowhere.

Why the two are compared is beyond me. Two different issues. Not connected.


here's one connection. a person about to be executed is potentially innocent--reasonable doubt not being the same as certainty, assuming the individual maintains his innocence. the foetus is likewise a potentially innocent human being--given there is no way to establish when a foetus becomes a human being, premature births showing that it's well before actual childbirth.


Streeeeeeeeetching...... Very Happy
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 07:06 am
HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- A convicted murderer who said he first tried cocaine at the age of 10 was executed Wednesday for abducting and fatally stabbing a man during a drug-induced haze nine years ago.

Douglas Roberts, 42, was upbeat and animated in the seconds before the lethal drugs were administered.

"I've been hanging around this popsicle stand way too long," he said. "When I die, bury me deep, lay two speakers at my feet, put some headphones on my head and rock 'n' roll me when I'm dead."

"I'll see you in heaven some day," he added.

At his trial, Roberts told his attorney to call no defense witnesses and pick a jury that favored the death penalty. His jury deliberated two hours before convicting him and the following day decided he should be put to death.

Roberts was convicted of killing Jerry Velez, 40, who was abducted in San Antonio in May 1996.

Roberts, a machinist, had just robbed a San Antonio convenience store and stole a customer's car at knifepoint. Lost in an unfamiliar place and "stoned out of my mind," Roberts said he spotted Velez walking to a row of cars parked outside an apartment complex.

The pair drove to a dirt road in a remote area about 30 miles northwest of San Antonio, where Roberts and Velez scuffled.

Roberts was armed with a Bowie knife, and an autopsy showed Velez was stabbed five times, had ribs broken, a lung punctured and head injuries. Evidence at Roberts' trial showed the victim had been run over with a car as many as three times.

Roberts drove back toward Austin where he called police from a pay phone and told a dispatcher about the slaying, then waited for authorities to pick him up.

Roberts was to have shared the death chamber Wednesday with another condemned prisoner, Milton Mathis, for a rare back-to-back execution. But Mathis won a reprieve Tuesday from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

Roberts was the fifth Texas prisoner put to death this year.

source
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 07:17 am
Timberlandko - I agree with you that if you oppose the death penalty you should logically oppose abortion if you believe that human life begins at conception. The argument of abortion (for those that are logical) is when you believe human life begins, not whether an innocent life is more important than a guilty life. So I can understand that some one can be opposed to the death penalty and support abortion if they truly believe that life does not begin at conception.

That being said I am opposed to the death penalty because I do believe human life (although these murderers are just barely human) is important and I do believe in Thou shall not kill. Lusatian is making the assumption because you oppose the death penalty that you are a champion of murderers. That is definitely incorrect. I would never say that some one who murders should be let off scott free that they should not be punished. In my opinion murder is too good for them. They should have to suffer even worse than what they caused of their victim(s). Live in prison is not fun. I believe that a murderer should spend life in prison with no chance of parole. And that they should not have any privileges. They should have to work hard - no pleasantness in their life. Being killed is the easy way out. Being made to suffer every day of their life with reminders of what they have done seems to me, a much more severe punishment than simply giving them a shot and they peacefully "fall asleep."
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 07:36 am
I oppose the death penalty because how it is right for us to murder someone when the person we are murdering is dying for murdering someone? How does that make sense? Shouldn't we then die for murdering someone? If that is, in fact, the punishment for murder?

I (like someone else, I can't rmember who posted it) believe in the right to choose but also that abortion is wrong. I would never do it. But I can't stop someone else from doing it.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 07:47 am
Not only do I support capital punishment. But in cases similar to the one noted. I would have the perpetrator taken out to the nearest lamppost and hung. One more minute of life is one minute too long.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 07:50 am
Adrian wrote:
So Timber, you oppose the death penalty and abortion? Or the other way round?

Neither way around.

watchmakers guidedog wrote:
And it works both ways. Those who are for the death penalty are often against abortion. People are strage sometimes. Then again moral positions aren't always going to be logical, they're emotional processes which tend to be held somewhat seperately from intellectual reasoning.

Yup - pretty much gotta agree with that.

watchmakers guidedog wrote:
Quote:
Moral relativism and ... situational ethics equal ... intellectual ... bankruptcy


I disagree. What proof do you have for this? (apologies for the edit. I attempted to abbreviate it without altering context, let me know if I cut anything relevant out).

It goes to the nature of truth. A truth either is or is not, an act or thought either is moral or it is not, is ethical or not; else, the paradox of conditional absolute.

goodfielder wrote:

Nope. That's why there's no logical connection. In one instance (the death penalty) we're referring to a person. In the other, abortion, we're talking about a foetus not a person.

A mere convenience of semantics. By that token, your work has no value untill the bank has cleared your paycheck and you have cash in hand. Carryin' that a bit further, the cash itself has no value unless and untill converted to goods or services.

goodfielder wrote:
And then it goes off into arguments about when life begins and all that and becomes the usual circus of assertion and denial. Ends up going nowhere.

Only if one is given to moral and ethical semantic games. That way lies sophistry, not philosophy.

goodfielder wrote:
Why the two are compared is beyond me. Two different issues. Not connected.

There's the disconnect. You make my point. I understand why you've not made the connection; your baggage is slowin' you down and the train has left without you.

goodfielder wrote:
yitwail wrote:

here's one connection. a person about to be executed is potentially innocent--reasonable doubt not being the same as certainty, assuming the individual maintains his innocence. the foetus is likewise a potentially innocent human being--given there is no way to establish when a foetus becomes a human being, premature births showing that it's well before actual childbirth.


Streeeeeeeeetching...... Very Happy

I believe, goodfielder, the only "stretch" involved is that entailed by attempts to fit your argument to reality. "A moral precept is valid only in so far as it is not inconconsistent with my preference" just makes no sense.

Now, with all that said, I do not endorse abortion-as-birth-control-by-way-of-convenience, but I support anyone's right to make choices, even poor ones. I am not big on tryin' to legislate morality - a practice I consider somethin' somewhere between an excercize in futility and an advertisement for the proscribed behavior.

I do not endorse the death penalty in any but the circumstance of the most egregious, heinous, clearly, irrefutabley proven crime against life, national security, or humanity (as in the case of warcrime/atrocity). I support, even in that circumstance, the principal's right to full, thorough, and dispassionately objective review and appeal, in accordance with every protection of law and Constitution. For most of what today are considered capital offenses, I endorse life without parole, and without privilege beyond food, clothin', shelter, protection from harm, basic medical care, and sufficient excersize to prevent significant muscular atrophy.

Edit to add: Good points, Linkat - seems you snuck in there with 'em while I was typin' the above.

Edited again to correct a misattribution. Too bad life doesn't have an "Edit" button. Embarrassed Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 07:50 am
That's the thing about the death penalty. If we're going to have one let's don't fart around. March the perp straight from the judges chambers to a room with a drain in the floor and put a 3 cent bullet their head and dispose of them.

Quit wasting taxpayer dollars. A bullet to the head is faster and more humane, and Waaayyyyyy cheaper.

I'm sure there are plenty of people including many from here on this forum that would volunteer to do it.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 08:08 am
Thomas wrote:

yitwail wrote:
for instance, in 1999, 43% of death row inmates were African-American, even though African-Americans are only 13% of the population. Couey is caucasian, coincidentally, as are the "vast majority" of serial killers. unless African-Americans are over 3 times as likely to commit capital offenses, the death penalty is not disbursed in the same way upon them as upon white Americans.

I don't see how this conclusion follows from your example. Inmates aren't supposed to be in prison so they can represent their race. They are supposed to be in prison so they can be punished for a crime they committed. Hence, when 43% of death row inmates are African-American, the fair question to ask is, "what percentage of murderers is black?" It isn't "what percentage of the population is black?"


right you are. the statistic needed is comparing rates of conviction by race to rates of incarceration by race. unfortunately, i'm unable to find this data, thus far. but here's a reasonable substitute: the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey. it's not quite apple to apple because it counts all reported crimes, most of which don't even result in arrests, but for 2002, 22.8% of violent crimes with a single offender and 24.1% of violent crimes with multiple offenders were perpetrated by African-Americans, which is consistent with the hypothesis that the Justice System has a racial bias. the complete data for 1996-2002 are availablehere.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 08:24 am
watchmakers guidedog wrote:

Appeals are not necessary if the trial runs right the first time... Plus with involuntary medical experimentation, research corporations can pay to use them as test subjects for the government to recoup on legal costs. :wink: Don't try to out-efficiency me Razz


how's this then: let's put them to work. that's how China can make everything so inexpensively.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 08:27 am
The ratios regarding the number of blacks in prison as opposed to the number in the general population continues to be bandied about and worried over. I have a suggestion that will solve that imbalance. A close watch should be kept on the statistics and the moment equilibrium is achieve the blacks should be notified there crime quota for the year has been reached and they must stop all criminal activity.

Or we can just admit that the ratio of crime to population has little or no meaning what so ever.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 08:39 am
I don't have links handy, and I might even have the idea wrong, but I seem to recall I've seen data which indicates the preponderance of crime involvin' blacks is black-on-black crime, and that among that crime, murder is pretty high on the list, with aggravated, forcible rape accompanied by other bodily harm right up there with it. Like I said, I haven't checked, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. On the other hand, I am convinced there are grave inequities entrenched within the justice system. I'd really like to see a thorough overhaul of that ancient, creakin', multiply-patched bus. The basic design is OK, but the mission parameters have changed enough to call for major revision to the production model.

Another trivia tidbit, appropos of nothin' - women are many times more likely to attempt suicide than are men. Men are many times more likely to accomplish the deed than are women. And while women make up roughly half the population, woman-as-aggressor domestic violence amounts to somethin' around a third of reported domestic violent crime. Statiscally, men tend to go more for batterin' women, without direct and primary intent to kill, while women tend to go more for killin' - or at least attemptin' to kill - men. The skew is slight, but it is there.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/30/2023 at 09:10:40