Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are.

Interesting data. Do these correlations hold up when we examine the statistics for states with the death penalty? What do these trends look like in states that did not have the death penalty? Or perhaps you didn't compile those.

Sorry, Troy. I didn't mean for my post to sound as it did. I meant it to imply that I understood that you only have so much time on your hands. The data you have supplied is pretty provocative -- I may have to do some research myself. When I have time. (I'm the dude who's grading your homework and tests.)

quote:

---

If it was indeed perfect, I would have become a pro-CP a long time ago.

---

Really? Even if it could be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that capital punishment reduced murder rates, I would still oppose it on moral grounds.And I doubt that I am unique in this. My guess is that most (and I mean most, not all) people who are are pro-capital punishment support it not really because it supposedly deters crime, but because murder, rape, disagreeing with a conservative president, and other crimes are heinous enough to justify capital punishment on principle alone.That's why I am not spending a lot of time seeing if I can verify or refute your data, Troy -- to me, it's largely irrelevant. (Especially when I know there are other people on this board who are much better than me in hunting down data and presenting it.)

quote:

---

The pro-execution demonstrator, looking like an average middle-aged middle-income American woman, stated: "Look, a cop was killed in our community. Somebody has to pay."

​

Justice wasn't important to these execution supporters - they simply wanted a sacrifice.

---

That is amazing! I have always said that those who are pro-death penalty are so rabid that they are willing to do away with the formalities of due process that prevent the innocent of being convicted, that it is almost as if the death penalty is just an old tribal ritual that is meant to appease the gods with a blood sacrifice, without regard to whose blood it really is.I thought I was making a bitter joke -- but now it seems to be a reality.

I am against the death penalty for purely ethical/moral/emotional reasons. I feel that taking a life is such a heinous act that no one, not even a democratically controlled state acting on the concensus of its citizens, should be allowed to do so. The only exception is the case of immediate self-defense or defense of another whose life or body is in imminent danger.I am not against the death penalty because I believe that abolishing it will have practical benefits, nor because I deny that implementing the death penalty does not lead to a reduction in crime. I am opposed to capital punishment because I want to live in a society that places such a high value on human life that it will not even saction official state actors to premeditatively take anyone's life for any reason.I am also against the use of the judicial process or the penal system to exact revenge. The sole legitimate purpose, I feel, for the penal system is to restrain dangerous individuals who pose a threat to others, and to, as far as possible, to rehabilitate, re-educate, and to retrain them so that they may then resume a normal place in society. And I believe that once an individual is judged safe enough to return to society that individual should be allowed to return to society. I am against any punishment or sentence that automatically lasts for the entire life of the convicted -- I am against life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.Again, I do not claim that society will be better off by acting the way I want it to, except in my subjective opinion society would simply be a better society if it acted in this manner.

quote:

---

We have different positions but they are not really open to debate since they spring from different moral centers, not factual ones.

---

It depends on how you define a "debate". We both have our own ideas of what would make a better society, and we each would like to see our present society become better. I would like to convince the majority of my fellow citizens that I am right, you would like to convince a majority that you are right. I wish you would agree with me; I assume that you wish I agree with you. There is always a place for a debate, although, as you point out, not one based entirely on facts and data. I suppose if I were politically active, I would try to understand more about what common ground our values and ethics have, and then try to convince you that abolishing the death penalty is more consistent with your own core values -- exactly the way any debate about values and morals takes place. But I'm not very politically active, and my training is more in mathematics -- I'm afraid that I am out of my depth when it comes to debating values. So I am more interesting in just finding out what other people think, explain how I feel, and, when possible, just try to set a good example that the people who know me personally may be inclined to emulate.-

quote:

---

If a rabid dog, or let's say a feral and quite hostile animal of some kind, was caught and caged, would you feel it is still correct to kill the animal rather than trying to stay safe while continuing to feed it until it dies of natural causes?

---

I still have not yet found a solution to this moral dilemma. I would not simply "put down" a human being who has rabies (although it may be possible to convince me that it would be a kindness), and I have already stated that I am against killing a human being that has willingly committed a heinous crime, like murder. That makes it difficult for me to advocate such actions against these animals as well. I suppose that I could come up with a justification for putting down a rabid dog but not a rabid human being, but I don't think that is your point. I believe your point is to get me to ask myself if my values are self-consistent, and I acknlowledge that you have presented an ethics problem that I have not yet resolved.--

quote:

---

However unlike you I do not believe that rehabilitation is always possible, and that it can be known it is unlikely, or likely not productive.

---

I also recognize that not all criminals will be rehabilitated. I have stated that I am against life imprisonment without parole. However, I do believe that some people are guilty of such crimes in such circumstances that there must be an evaluation as to whether the person is ready to be released from confinement, and even then may be subject to constant supervision. I am not advocating automatic parole, at least not for violent crimes -- I am only advocating automatic consideration of parole. I have read nothing, for example, that Charles Manson should be released from prison, and I do not criticize that decision.Perhaps it is because I used to be a born-again Christian, but I cannot escape the feeling that an extreme transformation and even redemption is always a possibility for anyone, however slim. This is emotional, not based on any facts except my own personal, anectdotal experience, but there you have it.If I may ask you a question, pertinent to your rabid dog question, suppose that a person committed a capital crime due to severe mental illness, that this illness was incurable, it was very unlikely an effective treatment would ever be discovered, and this person will always be dangerous. Would you be in favor executing such an individual?--

quote:

---

...An insult (justice wise) to the families of their victims (not to mention the victims).

---

I don't feel able to respond to this right now -- I need some time to think about how to say how I feel about this. I have just deleted a couple of paragraphs because I am afraid of seeming to be insensitive to the victims of violent crimes. I know you probably wouldn't read more into it than I intend, but there are others who are reading this.

You seem to advocate some sort of communism, which has never worked as it goes against human nature.Actually, most of the so-called "primitive" societies are communist. And they all seem to have worked well enough until the imperial powers came in and mucked things up.--

quote:

---

The modern world could not exist without private property.

---

Yes, and Medievel European society could not exist without a strong centralized Church. But European society moved beyond that and is much better for it. Medievel Japanese society could not exist without the warrior samurai class. But modern Japan has moved beyond that and is much better for it.

quote:

---

I stand by my statement that communism goes against human nature, because the rewards of your efforts are not visable.

---

Well, that may very well be true, but I find it an odd thing to simply assert that a social organization that seems to have been a part of the human condition over most of its evolutionary history could be "against human nature". I would expect that humans would evolve so that "human nature" and a near universal method of organizing society would pretty much coincide.No doubt that you can provide some justification for you views. One thing that I learned from my reading and my travels abroad that its pretty common for people to assume that their society is superior to all others.--

quote:

---

What kind of society do you envision that we could move on to and how could it work if people didn't own things?

---

I don't understand your question. We both agree, it seems, that past societies were communist and that they worked pretty well.

Oops, sorry. I started writing before your message was posted.

Actually my high school teachers were quite clear that communism accurately describes a wide variety of indigenous cultures. And the earliest Christians, too.

You might be right. I vaguely recall, from conversations months ago, that contracycle is a very classical Marxist. In fact, I get the impression that he's a Leninist, but I might be wrong.