No need for me to express my opinion; they just said it.
Opinions and questions worth considering.
- Thread starter 2ndAmendment
- Start date
I agree that the international decisions should not have been the guiding force behind the Court's decision to overturn the execution of juveniles. I myself believe that it should have been based on the fact that it's just immoral to execute people who committed their crimes when they were under the age of 18 (and all others, in my own humble opinion). Since youngsters' have the greatest opportunity to reform themselves, I don't see how we can justify executing them. I would have preferred for that to be stated in the Court's opinion rather than the rulings of the ICJ or other international courts.
What I do consider legitimate is the inclusion of consideration for what the states are deciding and the development of a national concensus. I also am not certain why the ending of the death penalty for juveniles in five states does not reflect a national concensus when only twelve states currently allow it (sure five seems like a small number, but 5 of 17 is more significant than 5 of 50). With 38 states forbidding the death penalty for juveniles, I do not see how that cannot pass for a national concensus.
What I do consider legitimate is the inclusion of consideration for what the states are deciding and the development of a national concensus. I also am not certain why the ending of the death penalty for juveniles in five states does not reflect a national concensus when only twelve states currently allow it (sure five seems like a small number, but 5 of 17 is more significant than 5 of 50). With 38 states forbidding the death penalty for juveniles, I do not see how that cannot pass for a national concensus.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
Juviniles do have the greatest oprotunity for reform, but I think the the severity of the crime and past offenses should weigh in. Some things are just unacceptable and a 16 year old knows the difference between right and wrong. As far as national concensus goes, I'm much more for states rights. The individual states should hold the sole right to govern within thier boarders. I would never want the people of Montana deciding how the courts in my home state of Texas should rule.rraley said:
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I disagree that juveniles have the greatest opporunity to reform. In fact, I think the direct opposite is true. Placing a juvenile, say 15-17 years old, in prison for 20 or 30 years is going to generate a true criminal. He's going to be sexually abused for years, he's going to be emotionally shattered, very well trained in how to commit crimes... and then we're going to release this kid onto the streets. How lovely. I think it's better to just off them.
I do think we need to take a look at how well thought out the crime was as well. For example, the four-year old who just shot his two-year old brother just grabbed the gun from his mom's purse, shot his brother, then was wondering where his brother is. That's obviously not someone who understood what they were doing.
Now go to PA several years ago, where a 13 or 14-yr old got mad at a playmate, went across the street to his house, went up to his parent's room and got one of his Dad's rifles off the rack, loaded the rife, opened the bedroom window so he wouldn't damage the glass, shoots and kills his playmate, clears the rifle and wipes it down before putting it back in the rack, hides the shell casing, and then returns to the scene to act shocked at what has happened. Two juveniles, two killings, but I think one should get the chair. He showed all of the planning and premeditation of an adult.
I do think we need to take a look at how well thought out the crime was as well. For example, the four-year old who just shot his two-year old brother just grabbed the gun from his mom's purse, shot his brother, then was wondering where his brother is. That's obviously not someone who understood what they were doing.
Now go to PA several years ago, where a 13 or 14-yr old got mad at a playmate, went across the street to his house, went up to his parent's room and got one of his Dad's rifles off the rack, loaded the rife, opened the bedroom window so he wouldn't damage the glass, shoots and kills his playmate, clears the rifle and wipes it down before putting it back in the rack, hides the shell casing, and then returns to the scene to act shocked at what has happened. Two juveniles, two killings, but I think one should get the chair. He showed all of the planning and premeditation of an adult.
Last edited by a moderator:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
rr...
...take a little walk with me, will you?
THIS IS BRUTAL, So, don't read one more word if you're not prepared to face REALITY...I'm serious.
Ready??????
....
You're home one evening, studying diligently as usual, TV on in the background. Something catches your attention. A shooting or something at the Home Depot. You didn't catch it all but you know your mom left an hour ago to go to...Home Depot. Nah...
Turns out some 17 year old kid, a 'jeuvenille' was in the trunk of a car specifically modified by him and his accomplice as a sniper nest. Seems it was this kids turn, again, to kill. So, our 'jeuvenille' picks out a random person, some woman. He has no clue who she is because she's never done a thing to him because they've never even met; she has just been selected by him for extinction...just because he was there to do what he helped plan do and she was there...at the wrong ####ing moment.
Our 'jeuvenille' places his cross hairs on her and follows her to the door of her car where she pauses, where he knew she'd pause because they'd practiced this...and done it before. He breathes in lightly, settles the crosshairs on her back just about where her heart should be, she bends over to unlock the door and....now...she stands up again, adjusting her packages... pause...exhale lightly...squeeze...don't jerk...he feels the trigger break and the sudden functioning of the weapon, just like it was built for and...the woman is stunned, he's watching her reaction through his scope. She doesn't know what just happened?! But he does and he watches, a rush of accomplishment as the goal is attained.
Her husband is looking around for the source of a noise he's heard before...but it can't quite place...nah...a shot...here? She now knows something is seriously, terribly wrong. The killer watches her start to buckle as she places a hand on her exit wound, staring disbelievingly at all the blood. She starts to panic but she's losing consciousness, her mind screams out but her mouth won't work...starting to fail, to fall...shock...her eyes jerk to her husband...her mind...going black...rails, fights...what will...become...of...my...
..........son?
The car drives away now, slowly, normally, so as to not attract attention. Just like last time. And the time before...
Reform? REFORM?????????????????
I'm sorry to use you as an example but THIS IS WHAT THIS JEUVENILE DID.
SEVERAL TIMES.
He consciously planned to hunt innocent human beings. He killed, if not your mom or mine, someone elses. And again. A father. An aunt. A son.
Please don't be detached and think of this as some abstract social 'policy'. Please don't think of this kid and his life, the why, the maybes, the could haves and should haves. Think of what he did.
How can we intelligently and rationally remove the power from a jury to execute a cold blooded murderer like this???
We CAN'T.
Because if we do then we say that your mom, my mom, their world, their family, none of it has the value of this punks possible 'reformation'.
If we kill him we say he has done the worst a human can do and, while we can't bring mom back, we are gonna punish him in the only way that comes closest to paying for his crime.
Anything less and we've thrown his crime in the junk drawer with people who just can't seem to stop stealing things.
Anything less says your mom was something less. My mom was something less.
I want this piece of #### dead and buried.
God does make some junk.
If you are offended by how I made my point, I apologize but this is the way it is for what, seven families or so. Their friends. Their future. There is no 'reform' for them, only moving on.
There is nothing, NOTHING so final and horrific as cold blooded murder but it's not an abstract, an accident, an Act of God.
Someone COMMITS it.
...take a little walk with me, will you?
THIS IS BRUTAL, So, don't read one more word if you're not prepared to face REALITY...I'm serious.
Ready??????
....
You're home one evening, studying diligently as usual, TV on in the background. Something catches your attention. A shooting or something at the Home Depot. You didn't catch it all but you know your mom left an hour ago to go to...Home Depot. Nah...
Turns out some 17 year old kid, a 'jeuvenille' was in the trunk of a car specifically modified by him and his accomplice as a sniper nest. Seems it was this kids turn, again, to kill. So, our 'jeuvenille' picks out a random person, some woman. He has no clue who she is because she's never done a thing to him because they've never even met; she has just been selected by him for extinction...just because he was there to do what he helped plan do and she was there...at the wrong ####ing moment.
Our 'jeuvenille' places his cross hairs on her and follows her to the door of her car where she pauses, where he knew she'd pause because they'd practiced this...and done it before. He breathes in lightly, settles the crosshairs on her back just about where her heart should be, she bends over to unlock the door and....now...she stands up again, adjusting her packages... pause...exhale lightly...squeeze...don't jerk...he feels the trigger break and the sudden functioning of the weapon, just like it was built for and...the woman is stunned, he's watching her reaction through his scope. She doesn't know what just happened?! But he does and he watches, a rush of accomplishment as the goal is attained.
Her husband is looking around for the source of a noise he's heard before...but it can't quite place...nah...a shot...here? She now knows something is seriously, terribly wrong. The killer watches her start to buckle as she places a hand on her exit wound, staring disbelievingly at all the blood. She starts to panic but she's losing consciousness, her mind screams out but her mouth won't work...starting to fail, to fall...shock...her eyes jerk to her husband...her mind...going black...rails, fights...what will...become...of...my...
..........son?
The car drives away now, slowly, normally, so as to not attract attention. Just like last time. And the time before...
Reform? REFORM?????????????????
I'm sorry to use you as an example but THIS IS WHAT THIS JEUVENILE DID.
SEVERAL TIMES.
He consciously planned to hunt innocent human beings. He killed, if not your mom or mine, someone elses. And again. A father. An aunt. A son.
Please don't be detached and think of this as some abstract social 'policy'. Please don't think of this kid and his life, the why, the maybes, the could haves and should haves. Think of what he did.
How can we intelligently and rationally remove the power from a jury to execute a cold blooded murderer like this???
We CAN'T.
Because if we do then we say that your mom, my mom, their world, their family, none of it has the value of this punks possible 'reformation'.
If we kill him we say he has done the worst a human can do and, while we can't bring mom back, we are gonna punish him in the only way that comes closest to paying for his crime.
Anything less and we've thrown his crime in the junk drawer with people who just can't seem to stop stealing things.
Anything less says your mom was something less. My mom was something less.
I want this piece of #### dead and buried.
God does make some junk.
If you are offended by how I made my point, I apologize but this is the way it is for what, seven families or so. Their friends. Their future. There is no 'reform' for them, only moving on.
There is nothing, NOTHING so final and horrific as cold blooded murder but it's not an abstract, an accident, an Act of God.
Someone COMMITS it.
Last edited:
Good illustration Larry. It is far too easy to just think about things in the abstract. One of the great failings of the "liberals" is that they deal in ideals instead of reality.
One other very real fact is that many gang killings are planned and orchestrated by older members for the juvenile to carry out the killing since the juvenile is more likely to get off. The kids wanting to be accepted and knowing that others have gotten off do the deed. If they get caught, they do minimum time or none at all because of their youth.
I agree with Bruzilla that there is a vast difference between the 4 year old and the 12 - 17 year old that is involved in a violent crime. If these young criminals, that is what they are, were punished with the severity they rightly deserve, and it happened consistently, I believe young people would stop doing the crime.
I firmly believe that 90% of violent crime is committed by less that one tenth of one percent of the population which means they repeat offend often. You off one of those in the small group of offenders and the violent crime rate drops significantly. That is the reason capitol punishment, when carried out during recent memory instead of dragging on for 10 years or longer, and concealed carry work at reducing the violent crime rate.
One other very real fact is that many gang killings are planned and orchestrated by older members for the juvenile to carry out the killing since the juvenile is more likely to get off. The kids wanting to be accepted and knowing that others have gotten off do the deed. If they get caught, they do minimum time or none at all because of their youth.
I agree with Bruzilla that there is a vast difference between the 4 year old and the 12 - 17 year old that is involved in a violent crime. If these young criminals, that is what they are, were punished with the severity they rightly deserve, and it happened consistently, I believe young people would stop doing the crime.
I firmly believe that 90% of violent crime is committed by less that one tenth of one percent of the population which means they repeat offend often. You off one of those in the small group of offenders and the violent crime rate drops significantly. That is the reason capitol punishment, when carried out during recent memory instead of dragging on for 10 years or longer, and concealed carry work at reducing the violent crime rate.
I will state that the public policy regarding the death penalty is established in order to create deterrence for violent crime, rather than a system of "payback," which you Mr. Gude seem to endorse (no doubt you do believe in deterrence as well). Before we move onto to me disproving the value of deterrence, let me discuss the issue of payback. Believe me, I fully understand that desire for "equitable" punishment. The sniper did terrible deeds. A 16 year old who rapes and kills did a terrible deed. A 50 year old serial killer did terrible deeds. I am certain that most relatives of a killed person would want to take that man out on the street and kill them with their own hands. But indeed, that action would not bring back the loved one. It would not satisfy the human lust for that scum to be killed just the same terrible way as the victim. It would not end the hurt that comes with losing a loved one. As for me, if my mother was killed, I would ask that the murderer did not receive the death penalty: my hatred for that government policy comes from my mother, who has taught me to take the higher road, not to seek revenge because you never get truly even, and to believe that all human life is sacred and we mortals have no right to decide who lives and who dies. I would believe that the execution of that person would only create another victim in a mindless moment of inhumanity. Killing is a terrible aspect of our human nature and perpetuating the cycle of death with the executions should not be tolerated in our land. That being said, I do not believe that violent criminals should receive parole in almost any situation. It is far too easy for dangerous criminals to get out of jail right now and that should be changed. These juveniles aged in the 12-17 range, may I remind you, should also be sentenced to long prison terms without parole. They should be lifers.
Onto deterrence, a fatally flawed concept. As I stated earlier, the government has the death penalty in place in order to ensure deterrence...it is believed that the death penalty will prevent some potential murderers to back out because of the potential of the death penalty for themselves. This concept has no basis in any empirical evidence. The South has had the highest number of executions in the nation since 1976, but the murder rate in that region is a full 1.2% higher than the national murder rate. Furthermore, the murder rate in the south is 2.7% higher than the murder rate of the Northeast, which has had the lowest number of executions since 1976. Deterrence is not applicable, which makes it practicality as a public policy to be entirely moot.
Furthermore, some more food for thought...118 death row inmates since 1973 have been exonerated from their crime. The death penalty is an irreversible punishment...how can we live with ourselves after we know that we executed an innocent person?
Onto deterrence, a fatally flawed concept. As I stated earlier, the government has the death penalty in place in order to ensure deterrence...it is believed that the death penalty will prevent some potential murderers to back out because of the potential of the death penalty for themselves. This concept has no basis in any empirical evidence. The South has had the highest number of executions in the nation since 1976, but the murder rate in that region is a full 1.2% higher than the national murder rate. Furthermore, the murder rate in the south is 2.7% higher than the murder rate of the Northeast, which has had the lowest number of executions since 1976. Deterrence is not applicable, which makes it practicality as a public policy to be entirely moot.
Furthermore, some more food for thought...118 death row inmates since 1973 have been exonerated from their crime. The death penalty is an irreversible punishment...how can we live with ourselves after we know that we executed an innocent person?
I once spent a year in high school studying the death penalty for a debate team, going to the local county judges, the courthouse, the library - and I'm convinced that rraley is right on one thing - deterrence does not work for violent criminals. Actually *NOTHING* works for violent criminals. Not rehabilitation, nothing. When they get out of jail - and they almost always do - the recidivism rate is very high.
Which brings me to my main point - if you don't incarcerate violent criminals for life, you absolutely guarantee that another innocent person will pay the price for the lack of action on the part of the state. The death penalty is not a deterrent for violent criminals - but it *ABSOLUTELY* stops THAT criminal from ever committing it again.
Our penal system provides many means for lowering crime, and whether it is the stated premise, or not, only one of them is deterrence. There are others. One is the public's need for justice. Another is one I believe in - *punishment*. Commit a crime, and we will hurt you back. I don't care if it deters, or not. Justice is getting what you deserve, guilty - *OR* innocent. A third is rehabilitation, one that I don't strongly believe in, but - it does happen. And lastly, isolation. If you pose a danger to the rest of us, we will put you where you can do the least harm. If you can't stop hurting others, we will have to get rid of you.
And it's that simple. I believe in the death penalty because, when all else fails, letting a dangerous man back on the street IS murdering an innocent, rather than "murdering" the guilty. To me, THAT is the higher road - protecting the innocent.
Which brings me to my main point - if you don't incarcerate violent criminals for life, you absolutely guarantee that another innocent person will pay the price for the lack of action on the part of the state. The death penalty is not a deterrent for violent criminals - but it *ABSOLUTELY* stops THAT criminal from ever committing it again.
Our penal system provides many means for lowering crime, and whether it is the stated premise, or not, only one of them is deterrence. There are others. One is the public's need for justice. Another is one I believe in - *punishment*. Commit a crime, and we will hurt you back. I don't care if it deters, or not. Justice is getting what you deserve, guilty - *OR* innocent. A third is rehabilitation, one that I don't strongly believe in, but - it does happen. And lastly, isolation. If you pose a danger to the rest of us, we will put you where you can do the least harm. If you can't stop hurting others, we will have to get rid of you.
And it's that simple. I believe in the death penalty because, when all else fails, letting a dangerous man back on the street IS murdering an innocent, rather than "murdering" the guilty. To me, THAT is the higher road - protecting the innocent.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I had hoped to not be...
...handed a textbook reply.
I'm really not sure where this argument gains any credence at all. Listen up, this is not my line but it says all you need to understand; we do not put down rabid dogs as a warning to other dogs. Make note. You will see this material again.
You call Malvo 'jueveniile'. I call him multiple murderer. His punishment FOR WHAT HE DID should be the loss of his life. Not for what someone else may do, but for what he DID.
Next, you completely misread me as required by the text book. There is NO payback for what this kid did. I stated that executing him is as close as we can come to making him pay for his crimes. We value what is lost by the penalty imposed.
As far as that goes, wait until you get robbed the first time. You car stereo, the whole car, maybe mugged. The sense of violation is something that can never be 'paid' back. Imagine being murdered. That'll really ruin your day.
I never used the term '"equitable" punishment'. There is, again, none. There is only the price we, as a society, extract from a criminal. By limiting what we are willing to take, we are, by definition, limiting the value of what was taken.
Can I make that any clearer?
Further...
If you are certain, you are again wrong. Many victims families forgive and forget and move on. The victims just stay dead. Some think as you do, that making a criminal pay for his crime makes them a criminal. Keep this in mind; the punishment is NOT about the victim. It is about the criminal, the price we say he must pay based on a judge and jury. I'm repeating myself here until it is clear.
Rabid dog.
Next, you enter into a textbook definition of 'conflicted':
How can you 'hate' a policy? Disagree, fine, but hate? Why the emotion? Then you claim a 'higher road', that you'd not take the 'lower road' and seek vengeance. You are stuck on a notion I will continue to try and move you from.
What that is is selfish. Societal punishment, again, is NOT about the victim. A deliberate, emotionless, orderly process of judge and jury and representation is the 'higher' road. You seek to limit their authority for personal reasons, emotional reasons, the very thing the deliberative nature of the process is designed to exclude.
Again, the rabid dog.
I'm gonna ignore that because you're smart enough to know that is claptrap goo. I would hope you are willing to kill to defend yourself and loved ones if it ever came to that.
Next...
John Malvo; victim. I have no reply.
Executing criminals=perpetuating the cycle of death. Your sense of right and wrong is, umm...well...messed up.
Next page...
And there we have it. The next to last, thin straw that breaks the back of the anti death penalty theory.
There is, perhaps, no worse job in the history of mankind than that of jailer. It dehumanizes. It demoralizes. It depresses. It destroys. You wish to saddle your fellow man with a job you would never do and if you did, you would not do it for long.
All because of some 'high road' you belive in that makes executing a man, making him pay the ultimate price for the ultimate crime is distasteful to you.
Life in jail, life caged, is far more inhumane than anything else you can come up with save being the people who end up zoo keeper. Oh yeah, one thing is worse; murdering an innocent human being.
It has already been mentioned by 2A; the super criminals that emerge from these gladiator schools.
And then the final straw which is the first page in the anti-death penalty handbook; The 100 man rule.
You claim 118 people have been spared since 1973. The presumption is that they are innocent. That they are you and me, walking down the street one fine sunny day and then sent off to die, suddenly, randomly.
First off, I don't believe for one second these people are 'innocent' and neither do you. They may be not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that is fine. The system worked. Hooray is the proper response to this. I am all for making things better.
Since 1973 do you know how many people have been murdered?
In excess of 600,000 people.
Do you know how many have been executed since death penalty reinstatement in 1976?
949
One of these figures is statistically singificant. The other is not.
I would suggest that poor murder conviction rates are of far more concern than some mythical innocent man being executed. In most big cities conviction rates are around 60% these days. 4 out of 10 go unpunished at all.
I would suggest that crime schools, aka 'jails' are of far more concern than the blessed 100 man rule.
If the anti death penalty faith has brought about this profound fairness to murderers, then, job well done.
You ask how we can live with ourselves killing an innocent man.
I answer; we'd learn to live with it, if it ever happens, just like we've learned to live with a system horriblly tilted in favor of...
Rabid dogs.
It's about Crime and Punishment.
Not crime and revenge.
...handed a textbook reply.
I'm really not sure where this argument gains any credence at all. Listen up, this is not my line but it says all you need to understand; we do not put down rabid dogs as a warning to other dogs. Make note. You will see this material again.
You call Malvo 'jueveniile'. I call him multiple murderer. His punishment FOR WHAT HE DID should be the loss of his life. Not for what someone else may do, but for what he DID.
Next, you completely misread me as required by the text book. There is NO payback for what this kid did. I stated that executing him is as close as we can come to making him pay for his crimes. We value what is lost by the penalty imposed.
As far as that goes, wait until you get robbed the first time. You car stereo, the whole car, maybe mugged. The sense of violation is something that can never be 'paid' back. Imagine being murdered. That'll really ruin your day.
I never used the term '"equitable" punishment'. There is, again, none. There is only the price we, as a society, extract from a criminal. By limiting what we are willing to take, we are, by definition, limiting the value of what was taken.
Can I make that any clearer?
Further...
If you are certain, you are again wrong. Many victims families forgive and forget and move on. The victims just stay dead. Some think as you do, that making a criminal pay for his crime makes them a criminal. Keep this in mind; the punishment is NOT about the victim. It is about the criminal, the price we say he must pay based on a judge and jury. I'm repeating myself here until it is clear.
Rabid dog.
Next, you enter into a textbook definition of 'conflicted':
How can you 'hate' a policy? Disagree, fine, but hate? Why the emotion? Then you claim a 'higher road', that you'd not take the 'lower road' and seek vengeance. You are stuck on a notion I will continue to try and move you from.
What that is is selfish. Societal punishment, again, is NOT about the victim. A deliberate, emotionless, orderly process of judge and jury and representation is the 'higher' road. You seek to limit their authority for personal reasons, emotional reasons, the very thing the deliberative nature of the process is designed to exclude.
Again, the rabid dog.
I'm gonna ignore that because you're smart enough to know that is claptrap goo. I would hope you are willing to kill to defend yourself and loved ones if it ever came to that.
Next...
John Malvo; victim. I have no reply.
Executing criminals=perpetuating the cycle of death. Your sense of right and wrong is, umm...well...messed up.
Next page...
And there we have it. The next to last, thin straw that breaks the back of the anti death penalty theory.
There is, perhaps, no worse job in the history of mankind than that of jailer. It dehumanizes. It demoralizes. It depresses. It destroys. You wish to saddle your fellow man with a job you would never do and if you did, you would not do it for long.
All because of some 'high road' you belive in that makes executing a man, making him pay the ultimate price for the ultimate crime is distasteful to you.
Life in jail, life caged, is far more inhumane than anything else you can come up with save being the people who end up zoo keeper. Oh yeah, one thing is worse; murdering an innocent human being.
It has already been mentioned by 2A; the super criminals that emerge from these gladiator schools.
And then the final straw which is the first page in the anti-death penalty handbook; The 100 man rule.
You claim 118 people have been spared since 1973. The presumption is that they are innocent. That they are you and me, walking down the street one fine sunny day and then sent off to die, suddenly, randomly.
First off, I don't believe for one second these people are 'innocent' and neither do you. They may be not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that is fine. The system worked. Hooray is the proper response to this. I am all for making things better.
Since 1973 do you know how many people have been murdered?
In excess of 600,000 people.
Do you know how many have been executed since death penalty reinstatement in 1976?
949
One of these figures is statistically singificant. The other is not.
I would suggest that poor murder conviction rates are of far more concern than some mythical innocent man being executed. In most big cities conviction rates are around 60% these days. 4 out of 10 go unpunished at all.
I would suggest that crime schools, aka 'jails' are of far more concern than the blessed 100 man rule.
If the anti death penalty faith has brought about this profound fairness to murderers, then, job well done.
You ask how we can live with ourselves killing an innocent man.
I answer; we'd learn to live with it, if it ever happens, just like we've learned to live with a system horriblly tilted in favor of...
Rabid dogs.
It's about Crime and Punishment.
Not crime and revenge.
Mr. Gude you make some good points for your belief system, but no matter what you say, you will not convince me that the death penalty is justified because I will always consider a criminal a human being, not a rabid dog. It is a question of personl values; yours is centered in the concept of fair punishment for criminals while mine is centered in the concept of fairness to humanity.
I cannot really rebut your arguments because they are so purely belief-centered that facts won't be able to sway either one of us. What I will say is that I disagree with your statement regarding the lack of emotion in the jury, judge process of deciding a convict's fate...just look at this news development from today...
Wow, sounds like that is unemotional. Matters of life and death are very emotional matters, sir, and I am very emotional about this issue because I believe that our government is sanctioning the murder of human beings and perpetuating a cycle of death that we ought to seek to end.
Just my two cents...
I cannot really rebut your arguments because they are so purely belief-centered that facts won't be able to sway either one of us. What I will say is that I disagree with your statement regarding the lack of emotion in the jury, judge process of deciding a convict's fate...just look at this news development from today...
Wow, sounds like that is unemotional. Matters of life and death are very emotional matters, sir, and I am very emotional about this issue because I believe that our government is sanctioning the murder of human beings and perpetuating a cycle of death that we ought to seek to end.
Just my two cents...
Larry Gude
Strung Out
rr...
...I'm not about convincing your that the death penalty is justified. A criminal is a human being, yes, and so is a fetus.
I don't know how you feel about abortion but it would be nice if you are consistent in your high regard for human life.
The monumental difference is in the line crossed. I am trying to plant an idea in your mind that either will or won't grow in time. Much of the anti death penalty absurdity is rooted in a belief in social responsibility for the acts of the murderer; but the issue is not clothing style, it is murder.
As you age and you grow more congnizant of just what goes into a life, the learning, the growing, the loving, fighting, the care, the success'. the hurt, the dissapointments, you will likely value it, life, ever higher.
The criminal destruction of a life, the ending of it, is irreparable. It is final. The judge was not being emotional, he was being factual. He did not know the deceased. Any 'emotion' he may have in his work is for a stranger.
Scott killed his wife and child. He murdered them. He is cruel. As she begged for her life he took it. He is obviously uncaring for her or the child. He is heartless as we understand the word and callous that he could choose to dispose of two human beings for the simple reason that they were interfering with his leiasure time.
Would you feel less botheres by 'emotion' if the judge had simply said 'Scott, you're not very nice'? This sparing over adjectives is trivializing what was done to this woman and her child.
In the end, your concern, as you say, is for the society and that it speaks ill that we would put anyone to death for any reason. You even go so far as to call execution murder. It is one thing to argue a punishement to harsh. It is another to label punishment as crime. You turn the world upside down.
My ' belief system' is that it speaks well of our society that we value innocent human life so highly that, in some cases, the taking of the killers life is the moral thing to do. Yes, moral.
As far as 'rabid dog' goes, just go back over my posts and replace it with the word 'murderer' if the analogy bothers you.
After all, the dog didn't choose to get sick.
...I'm not about convincing your that the death penalty is justified. A criminal is a human being, yes, and so is a fetus.
I don't know how you feel about abortion but it would be nice if you are consistent in your high regard for human life.
The monumental difference is in the line crossed. I am trying to plant an idea in your mind that either will or won't grow in time. Much of the anti death penalty absurdity is rooted in a belief in social responsibility for the acts of the murderer; but the issue is not clothing style, it is murder.
As you age and you grow more congnizant of just what goes into a life, the learning, the growing, the loving, fighting, the care, the success'. the hurt, the dissapointments, you will likely value it, life, ever higher.
The criminal destruction of a life, the ending of it, is irreparable. It is final. The judge was not being emotional, he was being factual. He did not know the deceased. Any 'emotion' he may have in his work is for a stranger.
Scott killed his wife and child. He murdered them. He is cruel. As she begged for her life he took it. He is obviously uncaring for her or the child. He is heartless as we understand the word and callous that he could choose to dispose of two human beings for the simple reason that they were interfering with his leiasure time.
Would you feel less botheres by 'emotion' if the judge had simply said 'Scott, you're not very nice'? This sparing over adjectives is trivializing what was done to this woman and her child.
In the end, your concern, as you say, is for the society and that it speaks ill that we would put anyone to death for any reason. You even go so far as to call execution murder. It is one thing to argue a punishement to harsh. It is another to label punishment as crime. You turn the world upside down.
My ' belief system' is that it speaks well of our society that we value innocent human life so highly that, in some cases, the taking of the killers life is the moral thing to do. Yes, moral.
As far as 'rabid dog' goes, just go back over my posts and replace it with the word 'murderer' if the analogy bothers you.
After all, the dog didn't choose to get sick.
For your information Mr. Gude I am anti-abortion.
Thank you for planting the idea but I still do not see executing criminals as being the moral thing to do. I believe that a worthy punishment is throwing people in jail for the rest of their lives without possibility for probation.
Thank you for planting the idea but I still do not see executing criminals as being the moral thing to do. I believe that a worthy punishment is throwing people in jail for the rest of their lives without possibility for probation.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Good for you!
Intelectual consistency is good.
The seed is a metaphor. If you ever change your mind, it'll be because you've decided to.
So, life in jail. Is there anything more dehumanizing than to live in a cage?
Intelectual consistency is good.
The seed is a metaphor. If you ever change your mind, it'll be because you've decided to.
So, life in jail. Is there anything more dehumanizing than to live in a cage?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok...
So, is the question wether or not execution is punishment?
So, is the question wether or not execution is punishment?
But those dying are humans too aren't they? Why do you care more for the criminal then the soldier? Just playing the devil's advocate here.rraley said:
As to the death penalty as a deterrent, couldn't the death penalty be used in such a manner that it would deter others from taking lives to begin with. The problem now is that the process is so drawn out and convoluted that in all likelihood a person contemplating a heinous act isn’t threatened by what the state might or might not do to them. They appeal for 20 or so years and in all probability have the sentence commuted.
I think that when there is direct and absolute proof that a person murdered another the death penalty should be an option and exercised. If a case is circumstantial or lacks direct physical evidence then it should not.
Will or can mistakes be made, sure, as anything with human interaction is rarely or ever perfect. But there is no reason to keep an appeals process running for what sometimes is longer then the life of the victim. With technology of today it is fairly easy to rule someone out if there is DNA attached to a crime. Without such evidence or a confession there probably shouldn’t be a death option.
I doubt seriously you would feel the same way if it had really been your mother or father or brother that had been killed by some 13 - 17 year old or even a 50 year old. Maybe, but I doubt it, and there is no way you can convince me, because it, I hope, has not happened to you. If it really did and you still felt this way, you would certainly be a more tolerant person than I.rraley said:
2A, I see where you are coming from...I most likely would want the person's head initially but I pray that God would give me the ability to forgive in that situation.
Just to talk a little about Mr. King's devil's advocate statements regarding war and its relation to the concept of the value of human life as I have stated...
This issue of the value of human life, as we have clearly shown, involves much more than the single issue of either abortion, the death penalty, or war. Sadly too many in our political culture would like to discuss the "value of life" and then proceed to execute 130 human beings. Others will discuss how they hate the death penalty and then would proceed to discuss how abortion is somehow a good act for purposes of population control or how a fetus is not life or even potential life. Others say that they hate abortion and the death penalty while advocating for elective wars that are not necessary for the betterment of mankind.
To be truly "pro-life," I believe that several criterion have to be met:
1) opposition to the death penalty in principle and supportive of measures to reduce its application
2) opposition to abortion in most cases but supportive of the right to have one in cases of rape or when the mother's health and life are in danger
3) opposition to "elective" wars that do not increase the security of the nation or the safety of an oppressed people
In the case of number one, my points have been stated several times in this thread.
In the case of number two, I believe that it is hard to justify calling yourself "pro-life" when you would seek to tell a woman that she cannot have a medical procedure performed that would save her life. Rapes that cause pregnancies are highly traumatic and could severely harm the woman emotionally and women in such situations should be provided the choice as to whether have an abortion or not. What is absolutely morally reprehensible is the use of abortion as birth control: that has and never should be accepted.
As for number three, the United States should not engage in wars that are not executed with the greatest respect to protecting life. The Iraqi invasion caused the end of a regime under which 60,000 lives were lost every year because of international sanctions. How is it not "pro-life" to allow a regime that butchered its people to continue? What we should be doing right now is take a greater role in the Darfur conflict in Sudan...there is serious potential there to cause substantial death and we should not stand by and watch. To do that would be to act without the value of life in mind.
There are other issues that involve the value of life and respect for it (such as helping the poor and protecting the environment), but those are issues for another thread and another time...
Just to talk a little about Mr. King's devil's advocate statements regarding war and its relation to the concept of the value of human life as I have stated...
This issue of the value of human life, as we have clearly shown, involves much more than the single issue of either abortion, the death penalty, or war. Sadly too many in our political culture would like to discuss the "value of life" and then proceed to execute 130 human beings. Others will discuss how they hate the death penalty and then would proceed to discuss how abortion is somehow a good act for purposes of population control or how a fetus is not life or even potential life. Others say that they hate abortion and the death penalty while advocating for elective wars that are not necessary for the betterment of mankind.
To be truly "pro-life," I believe that several criterion have to be met:
1) opposition to the death penalty in principle and supportive of measures to reduce its application
2) opposition to abortion in most cases but supportive of the right to have one in cases of rape or when the mother's health and life are in danger
3) opposition to "elective" wars that do not increase the security of the nation or the safety of an oppressed people
In the case of number one, my points have been stated several times in this thread.
In the case of number two, I believe that it is hard to justify calling yourself "pro-life" when you would seek to tell a woman that she cannot have a medical procedure performed that would save her life. Rapes that cause pregnancies are highly traumatic and could severely harm the woman emotionally and women in such situations should be provided the choice as to whether have an abortion or not. What is absolutely morally reprehensible is the use of abortion as birth control: that has and never should be accepted.
As for number three, the United States should not engage in wars that are not executed with the greatest respect to protecting life. The Iraqi invasion caused the end of a regime under which 60,000 lives were lost every year because of international sanctions. How is it not "pro-life" to allow a regime that butchered its people to continue? What we should be doing right now is take a greater role in the Darfur conflict in Sudan...there is serious potential there to cause substantial death and we should not stand by and watch. To do that would be to act without the value of life in mind.
There are other issues that involve the value of life and respect for it (such as helping the poor and protecting the environment), but those are issues for another thread and another time...