Theocracy alive and well in Utah (and considerations of the death penalty)

I'm not sure that a firing squad isn't such a bad idea. While I guess I support more humane forms of execution, execution is execution right, as long as it is quick and not drawn out? Anyone who kills someone has forfeited his right to life because he does not acknowledge another's right to life.But I think that the power the Mormon Church has in Utah Gov't a much more pressing matter. It's a serious issue when the government has to ask permission of a private institution and especially a religious instituion------------------

oops. Accidentally posted twice. see next post.[This message has been edited by xwhydoyoureyesx, 09-09-2003]

quote:

---

Then what do we do with the executioner? And the guy who kills the executioner? And the guy who kills the guy who kills the executioner? And so on?

​

Regardless, this is a silly argument. A burglar doesn't forfeit his right to property, does he?

---

The victim of the murderer deserves justice. Execution should only be used after a lengthy trial a mandatory waiting period. If found guilty of not acknowledging another's right to life by means of murder, he has no right to life. Therefore the executioner is not violating anyone's right to life. I don't think it's sillyLife is not something quantifiable and so the only proper justice for murder is the death penalty. As property is something quantifiable it can therefore be punished with fines, jail and other such sentences that fit the crime.[This message has been edited by xwhydoyoureyesx, 09-09-2003]

quote:

---

Your argument assumes a perfect legal justice system. Are you still anxious to support execution given that a percentage of those we send to their deaths will be innocent of their crime?
And if you support the execution of those who wrongly take a life, will you march yourself into the gas chamber when it turns out you've supported the murder of an innocent person?

​

To me it's unacceptable for even a single person to be executed wrongly. So I can't support a practical use of the death penalty.

---

My Argument does Not assume that there is a perfect justice system, please read my comments thoroughly. I believe I said that not speedy, but lengthy trials were necessary. Also I think I said that there should be a lengthy waiting period of say 10 years before the actual execution which gives enough time to run through appeals, etc. If I assumed a perfect legal justice system there would be No waiting period.However, I do agree with you. 1 dead innocent man does not justify 100 executed criminals. This is why we must be sure of guilt before sentencing a man to death.

In the refusal to recognize another's right to life he has forfeited his own. I thought I made this clear. I believe that the only proper punishment for murder is the death penalty. Others may believe life sentences are adequate.I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this well enough. If so, please clarify your question. That statement was a reply to the question you posed about the burglar's right to property. I was setting up a comparison between murder and theft.haha funny, Although I believe there's an amendment to the constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The issue is not so much the punishment fitting the crime in termes of eye for an eye, but rather to get proper justice not revenge. I'm sure plenty of rape victims would love to have a big hulking beast of a man rape their attackers back, but that's not really constitutional. I believe that some cases of extremely violent rape deserve the death penalty, but like I said before, theft doesn't necessarily warrant fines. It could be a jail sentence instead.

I guess yeah, says me. Some people think that life sentences are the answer but i can't really reconcile the two. The victim is still dead, and as a side note It costs money (but this should not be counted as a reason for support of the death penalty.) I suppose it boils down to opinion.

Ok, I will agree that perhaps a longer waiting period is necessary, that is on high profile cases where a jury is involved. But will you agree that proven killers should be executed?

A hypothetical situation. Just because Mr. B believes Mr. A did it does not make it fact. Under the law Pervert Mr. A has not committed a crime and therefore the murder of him by Mr. B should be punished with the death penalty. A lot of people think and believe things, but that doesn't make them facts. Take creationism for example. : )
I see what you're saying about the technicality though. It is unfortunate and perhaps amendments can be made to the system? It's not set in stone.

quote:

---

Why not just wait until they die naturally? (and why do you think low-profile accused murderers are somehow less deserving of protections? That's where the most innocents get sent to the chair, the low-profile murders.)

---

because that would be, in my opinion, inadequate. i misspoke. my apologies. "In cases where guilt is not sure which involve a jury."

quote:

---

I don't believe that a "proven killer" could exist. There's just no way to prove. After all, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is still short of "no doubt whatsoever."

---

If you believe that then why even sentence them with jail time? I'm pretty sure that when you are found holding the gun, with gunpowder residue on your shirt, a proper blood splatter trajectory, it's pretty much proven. There are plenty of other way's to prove crime that I won't go into.

of course, i don't think it can either. The whole point is that the murderer has taken away someone's life and therefore is not deserving of his own. Its an opinion. I don't know what else to say, but I'll try to explain further as I attempt to clarify my position on theft. How can you take away a right in incremants? Are you saying he would be doomed to the barter system all his life if he stole money from an atm machine? Would you define life as quantifiable? I wouldn't. And as property is something that can be returned, unlike life, the burglar may pay his sentence in fines or if he is unable - jail time. The victim's life can't be returned willy nilly either. The issue is not need, it is justice. But, like I said before, I suppose it comes down to opinion. You think that life in prison is an adequate punishment, I do not. I did not say that we can eliminate the risk. I believe it can be reduced. This is especially true now a days which you have shown. With the development of new DNA testing, the risk is being decreased even more. I see what your saying. But still those people will never have those years back. So its still a tragedy that must be stemmed at the trial level.[This message has been edited by xwhydoyoureyesx, 09-11-2003]

*Rrhain* yep. like I said, still just opinion. you keep saying this. Well, based on Dan Carrol's and Crashfrog's arguments which I can no longer disagree with, I will make an amendment to my philosophy. The death penalty should only be used when guilt is absolutely assured. Crashfrog says that we can never be sure. I disagree with this point. Life sentences may be given in cases with a jury. But if during their sentence guilt is ever proven, then they should be executed.As to Rrhain's comment. I did not know that. Why exactly does it cost more to kill someone than to house them for the rest of their lives?

Well, after considering your points, I have changed my opinion. I still believe that the murderer deserves the death penalty, however unless there is a way to have a jury arrive at a "no doubt" verdict, the life sentence must be the ultimate punishment in order to prevent the execution of innocent men. Perhaps, in the future there will be a way to do this, but as of yet I do not see how it is possible.[This message has been edited by xwhydoyoureyesx, 09-12-2003]

seems you updated while i was editing. go to previous post