|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Theocracy alive and well in Utah (and considerations of the death penalty) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Well, it could have been worse...but is this how we want government to work?
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Hang on... they still use firing squads?
They do have things like electricity and indoor toilets in Utah, right? I mean... ten minutes ago I would have assumed they did, but now I'm not so sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Un-friggin-believable!
Does the New York legislature ask the Hasidim if it's OK to not circumcise baby boys? Does the Texas legislature ask the Southern Baptists if it's OK to let kids dance at the prom? Obscenity is the only further comment I could offer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Sadly, to the people here in the great Gem State (Idaho, in case you are wondering), this is all to familiar ground. There is a strong Mormon influence here, and it has been surging in the last ten years. In fact, every five years or so a Prohibition bill is put to a vote. That's just the tip of the iceberg. I'm still surprised that Creationism in some pseudo-science guise isn't taught in the schools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
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 ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
oops. Accidentally posted twice. see next post.
[This message has been edited by xwhydoyoureyesx, 09-09-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
quote: 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 silly Life 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
xwhydoyoureyesx writes:
quote: Says who? You? Why is there no other way to establish justice? Be specific. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: So how, exactly, has the murderer lost his right to life?
quote: You're gonna have to explain the jump in logic there. How do you get from A to B on that one?
quote: If the issue is the punishment perfectly fitting the crime, I should ask... are you in favor of not sending rapists to prison? Should we rather penetrate them against their will, and then send them on their way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
So how, exactly, has the murderer lost his right to life? 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.
You're gonna have to explain the jump in logic there. How do you get from A to B on that one?
quote: If the issue is the punishment perfectly fitting the crime, I should ask... are you in favor of not sending rapists to prison? Should we rather penetrate them against their will, and then send them on their way? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. But we can never be sure. That's the problem. Even your waiting period assumes that the appeals process is sufficient to remove doubt about sentencing. It's not. At least in a life sentence you get to stick around to argue your case some more. You've still got a chance. Execution robs even that chance.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024