2
   

Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 07:48 am
Eorl wrote:
From CNN.com just now:

Quote:
"Michael Ross did not have any final words," said Shelly Sindland, a reporter for WTIC in Hartford who witnessed the execution. "When asked if he wanted any final words, he said, 'No, thank you.'


Gotta love them journalists.


An absolute sociopath was executed -- 21 years too late .... good riddance.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 07:54 am
God riddance, perhaps?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 09:17 am
I think the difference is in my advocation. My hands are not bloodied by a murder that occurs due to my government having weak deterents, because the impetus for murder comes directly from the murderer who commits the crime. Conversely, in capital punishment, the impetus for murder comes from me (and my community).

Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer.

Surely capital punishment can only be justified by claiming that the end justifies the means. I don't think it does.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 02:39 pm
Eorl wrote
Quote:
I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer.



Do you actually believe that or are you just trying to support your position?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 04:04 pm
Eorl wrote:
I think the difference is in my advocation. My hands are not bloodied by a murder that occurs due to my government having weak deterents, because the impetus for murder comes directly from the murderer who commits the crime. Conversely, in capital punishment, the impetus for murder comes from me (and my community).

Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer.

Surely capital punishment can only be justified by claiming that the end justifies the means. I don't think it does.


So,what you are saying is that if you are forced to make a choice,kill me or watch me kill your wife and kids,you would stand there and watch me kill your family?

I dont believe that for a minute.
You can say whatever you want,but unless you have been in that position,you have no idea what you would do.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2005 05:58 pm
Thomas wrote:
That doesn't answer my question though, because you may not have the option of not getting your hands bloody. You get your hands bloody when you vote for mushy laws that fail to deter murders, and you get your hands dirty when you vote for tough laws that make the state execute people. Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that even assuming that capital punishment does save more lives by deterring murder than it kills through executions, you would still be against it. So my question, to rephrase it in the vocabulary of your latest answer, was this: On what basis do you prefer one way of getting your hands bloody over another? Why would you rather leave some murders undeterred to save the lives of some (lower number of) murderers?


You are saying one may not have an option of not getting one's hands bloody. That's assuming that the death penalty is actually deterring murder, or deterring murder more than life without parole. I'm not aware of conclusive evidence towards that end.

Weighing the unproven possiblity of getting my hands bloody against the state sanctioned (and therefore, ultimately, my) method of getting my hands bloody, I would choose the first one.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 May, 2005 09:39 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I think the difference is in my advocation. My hands are not bloodied by a murder that occurs due to my government having weak deterents, because the impetus for murder comes directly from the murderer who commits the crime. Conversely, in capital punishment, the impetus for murder comes from me (and my community).

Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer.

Surely capital punishment can only be justified by claiming that the end justifies the means. I don't think it does.


So,what you are saying is that if you are forced to make a choice,kill me or watch me kill your wife and kids,you would stand there and watch me kill your family?

I don't believe that for a minute.
You can say whatever you want,but unless you have been in that position,you have no idea what you would do.


No, that is not at all what I'm saying. I'd kill to save my wife and baby under attack no question.

But...what if it turned out he was not trying to kill them? He was trying to help them after some-one else attacked and I've just arrived on the scene and I've killed the wrong man....only I shouldn't be carrying a knife, so under your system...I'm to get the death penalty !!!! but I digress......

What I'm saying is I would risker a higher general threat of murder due to the death penalty not being applied as a deterrent (which is in doubt anyway, but beside the point)
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 04:26 pm
Eorl wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I think the difference is in my advocation. My hands are not bloodied by a murder that occurs due to my government having weak deterents, because the impetus for murder comes directly from the murderer who commits the crime. Conversely, in capital punishment, the impetus for murder comes from me (and my community).

Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer.

Surely capital punishment can only be justified by claiming that the end justifies the means. I don't think it does.


So,what you are saying is that if you are forced to make a choice,kill me or watch me kill your wife and kids,you would stand there and watch me kill your family?

I don't believe that for a minute.
You can say whatever you want,but unless you have been in that position,you have no idea what you would do.


No, that is not at all what I'm saying. I'd kill to save my wife and baby under attack no question.

But...what if it turned out he was not trying to kill them? He was trying to help them after some-one else attacked and I've just arrived on the scene and I've killed the wrong man....only I shouldn't be carrying a knife, so under your system...I'm to get the death penalty !!!! but I digress......

What I'm saying is I would risker a higher general threat of murder due to the death penalty not being applied as a deterrent (which is in doubt anyway, but beside the point)


I hate to say this my friend,but you just shot yourself in the foot.

You do not advocate the DP,saying..."Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer."

So,while you dont want the govt killing a CONVICTED murderer in your name,you have no problem administering the DP yourself if it became neccessary.
That seems a little strange to me.
You are in favor of the DP,but only under limited circumstances,it seems.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 04:57 pm
In case anyone is interested,here is a short explanation of my views on criminal justice...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1340116#1340116
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 May, 2005 09:31 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Eorl wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I think the difference is in my advocation. My hands are not bloodied by a murder that occurs due to my government having weak deterents, because the impetus for murder comes directly from the murderer who commits the crime. Conversely, in capital punishment, the impetus for murder comes from me (and my community).

Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer.

Surely capital punishment can only be justified by claiming that the end justifies the means. I don't think it does.


So,what you are saying is that if you are forced to make a choice,kill me or watch me kill your wife and kids,you would stand there and watch me kill your family?

I don't believe that for a minute.
You can say whatever you want,but unless you have been in that position,you have no idea what you would do.


No, that is not at all what I'm saying. I'd kill to save my wife and baby under attack no question.

But...what if it turned out he was not trying to kill them? He was trying to help them after some-one else attacked and I've just arrived on the scene and I've killed the wrong man....only I shouldn't be carrying a knife, so under your system...I'm to get the death penalty !!!! but I digress......

What I'm saying is I would risker a higher general threat of murder due to the death penalty not being applied as a deterrent (which is in doubt anyway, but beside the point)


I hate to say this my friend,but you just shot yourself in the foot.

You do not advocate the DP,saying..."Putting someone to death in a concious deliberate and premeditated way is not something I will do, nor will any government that represents me.

I would prefer to risk anarchy, even endanger myself and my family rather than lower myself to the level of the murderer."

So,while you dont want the govt killing a CONVICTED murderer in your name,you have no problem administering the DP yourself if it became neccessary.
That seems a little strange to me.
You are in favor of the DP,but only under limited circumstances,it seems.


How do you reach those conclusions? Read more carefully and then explain it to me.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 06:53 am
Is there some confusion between the death penalty as a judicial order and self defence which might result in the death of the attacker? If so, there is a big difference. I'm opposed to the death penalty for many reasons but no way would I deny the right to self defence even to the point where someone needed to use lethal force.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 06:59 am
Agreed goodfielder.

Mysteryman is simply trying to call me hypocrite for supporting one and not the other, by declaring them to be the same thing. He's got Buckleys.. Wink
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 10:11 am
goodfielder wrote:
Is there some confusion between the death penalty as a judicial order and self defence which might result in the death of the attacker? If so, there is a big difference. I'm opposed to the death penalty for many reasons but no way would I deny the right to self defence even to the point where someone needed to use lethal force.


You are suggesting the "why" of a death has meaning. I absolutely agree with you on that point. If I shoot an intruder in my home, I am completely justified in doing so.

Of course there are those who would say, "A death is a death. The reason for the death doesn't matter to the dead person." Which, while true, is immaterial. Intent, while not the entirety of the analysis, is important.

But I'm having trouble reconciling this enlightened view with your prior statement, "The punishment for murder shouldn't depend on the circumstances of the crime. Murder is murder is murder. It's either death or life imprisonment."You seem to understand there is a reason to look at the facts and circumstances of a particular homicide, for a number of reasons. And you recognize the difference between justifiable homicide and first degree murder is the intent of the actor.

Given that, surely you are capable of distinguishing between a murder which was committed in the heat of passion, such as an enraged husband who after catching his wife with a paramour, shoots him dead in the heat of the moment, as opposed to a cold-blooded premeditated murder where an entire family was stalked, kidnapped, raped, raped, tortured and then burnt alive by a sociopath?

Is it your position that both murderer should receive the same punishment?
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 0.09 seconds on 02/08/2023 at 05:19:22