|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9208 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,436 Year: 6,693/9,624 Month: 33/238 Week: 33/22 Day: 6/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 3202 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
But doesn't it make you want to deny him that particular propaganda tool? It doesn't matter what I want. The death penalty is already a functioning tool for punishment. It's older than the Bible. Denying them this tool of propaganda only makes them shift over to another tool for propaganda. It solves nothing really.
I was talking about the execution of toppled dictators, not arbitrary assassinations. I was talking about examples like Saddam or Milosevic. In such cases the removal of the former dictator ends their pernicious influence and thus provides a clear social benefit, by drawing a permanent line under their regime. I would, for example be reluctantly in favour of executing Assad, were he toppled. I would not be in favour of a western power assassinating Assad whilst he is still in office; the benefit is far less clear cut, mostly due to the dangerous precedent it would set. These are separate issues.
Right, but that is being in favor of the death penalty but all you're doing is stating when YOU favor it. Ok, so that's when you favor it. But there would still need to be a death penalty in existence for that to be carried out. So the death penalty remains an effective tool of disposing of certain individuals. You have your list of people you would favor being executed, and I have mine.
That's just semantics. Meeting a social necessity is the same as providing a social benefit. No it is not.
Execution is not a social necessity. But yet you feel it necessary for certain dictators? So it's only necessary when YOU feel it is? How convinient.
You do though. We have the option of not killing them, but you want to go ahead and kill them anyway.
I don't want to do anything. The death penalty exist whether I agree with it or not.
I get that you're not chomping at the bit out of blood lust, but the fact remains; you could choose to spare these people, but instead you choose to kill them. That is the outcome that you want. When did I decide this? I must have been drugged the day I was sent in to vote on the death penalty, or maybe I was a judge once and I totally forgot about it?
It's not up to us to deny them that choice. What choice did they give their victim for you to feel the need to extend them that courtesy?
My problem here is that in allowing the state to kill its citizens, we hand a potentially oppressive state the ultimate tool for eliminating dissenters. We arm oppressive regimes with the tools to commit crimes that cannot be rectified and we allow incompetent regimes to make mistakes that cannot be repaired. By comparison, if imprisonment is the maximum penalty, then innocent people can, at least in principle be released. I disagree in the same areas that I've been disagreeing since the start. But I, as usual, respect your opinion.
On this at least, we are in perfect agreement. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 3202 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
What is it you think your feelings justify? Are you giving me some therapy questions?
Thankfully not. That would be ridiculous wouldn't it?
Of course it would be. So why do you keep asking me what my reasons are, when it only pushes the comic in me to get more and more ridiculous with my reasons? The question is what the states reasons are.
I am referring to the act of resorting to "It's my opinion, it's my opinion. I can hold whatever opinion I like" when reasoned argument fails and the position being taken has been shown to be inconsistent. You can't prove inconsistency when I've already admitted to being inconsistent.
Then you should be able to tell me what objective criteria are being applied in a consistent manner in order to evaluate the extent of a crime and then justify the death penalty for it. I'm not that well versed in the law, nor do I care to dig that deep into it. Serial killing seems to be one, mass murder another, torturing and killing people too, raping and killing kids is a good one, blowing up a building and killing people another, etc... Are you saying though that the state is sentencing people to death for any frivolous case? If so, then please provide one example of that. Just one.
But all I am getting in response is effectively "Coz Oni thinks so". You're getting from it what you're putting into it. Believe me.
I don't think it is me making the conflation. I merely asked what criteria you were applying. Why on earth do you keep asking me what my criteria is Straggler when I have never sentenced anyone to death, other than a roach or the occasional mosquito?
I am being honest. I don't think killing another person except in the defence of self or others can be morally justified. Cool. You seem to then keep a very consistent opinion on it. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 289 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined:
|
It doesn't matter what I want. The death penalty is already a functioning tool for punishment. It's older than the Bible. This is a pointless thing to say. It does matter what you want. You seem to be suggesting that we just throw up our hands and despair of ever changing the status quo. That is a poor attitude in a democracy. It is an even poorer attitude in a debate. In debating which solutions we favour, we need not be restrained by what already exists. We can suggest our own solutions. Otherwise, what's the point?
Denying them this tool of propaganda only makes them shift over to another tool for propaganda. It solves nothing really. It solves the problem of being killed for the sake of some shithead's gubernatorial campaign.
Right, but that is being in favor of the death penalty but all you're doing is stating when YOU favor it. Ok, so that's when you favor it. Yes, obviously.
But there would still need to be a death penalty in existence for that to be carried out. Generally speaking, lack of a statutory death penalty is rarely a problem in regimes that have been under the control of dictators. This is not a co-incidence. This lack of co-incidence seems to favour my assertion that the death penalty is a useful tool of oppression for dictators.
So the death penalty remains an effective tool of disposing of certain individuals. You have your list of people you would favor being executed, and I have mine. Yes. My list is restricted to a tiny handful of dictators and yours is general enough that it might include any one of us. That is indeed the juncture at which we disagree. Your point?
Granny writes: That's just semantics. Meeting a social necessity is the same as providing a social benefit. onifre writes: No it is not. Then how do you define a social necessity? Clearly, it's not by actual necessity, since Europe does very well without the death penalty. So what is it?
But yet you feel it necessary for certain dictators? I would not say that it is a necessity, nor have I made any such claim. I have said that I feel that killing dictators brings a sufficient social benefit to merit their deaths. You are the one who is using the word "necessity" and I feel that you are mistaken in doing so. The death penalty is not necessary. this is obvious from the number of countries that don't have it.
I don't want to do anything. The death penalty exist whether I agree with it or not. There's no point in debating at all if you're going to take this attitude. You talk as thought the death penalty were some immutable law of nature. It's not. Plenty of countries manage to struggle by without it. If American public opinion were to turn against the death penalty, it could be brought to an end. This is exactly what just happened in Connecticut. Fatalism is no argument for anything.
When did I decide this? Gah! You accept in in arguing for that outcome. I'm not trying to blame you for the contents of US statute books, I'm trying to get you to defend your position in a debate. What's on the statutes is irrelevant.
What choice did they give their victim for you to feel the need to extend them that courtesy? You're asking why I would extend someone the courtesy of not killing them? Really? I extend them that courtesy because the right to life is the most fundamental human right and it's not up to me to take it from them. It doesn't matter what they did. Human rights aren't earned by merit. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Oni writes: The question is what the states reasons are. OK. What are the sate's reasons? Are these reasons applied consistently? Are these reasons able to be morally justified without contradiction? What are you reasons for supporting the state's reasoning on this matter?
Straggler writes: Then you should be able to tell me what objective criteria are being applied in a consistent manner in order to evaluate the extent of a crime and then justify the death penalty for it. Oni writes: I'm not that well versed in the law, nor do I care to dig that deep into it. Serial killing seems to be one, mass murder another, torturing and killing people too, raping and killing kids is a good one, blowing up a building and killing people another, etc... Are you saying though that the state is sentencing people to death for any frivolous case? I'm asking what objective criteria are being applied. Or is it just whatever outrages enough people at any given time?
Oni writes: You seem to then keep a very consistent opinion on it. Not killing people is derived from the golden rule, which is about as close to objective morality as we are likely to achieve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined:
|
Not killing people is derived from the golden rule, which is about as close to objective morality as we are likely to achieve I agree. I also feel that the death penalty is final, no amount of new evidence that may exonerate the defendant matters after the sentence is carried out. Justice systems are flawed and many innocent people have been set free based on new evidence (better DNA test ect...). One innocent man being put to death is one too many. ABE... List of exonerated death row inmates - Wikipedia Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ― Edward R. Murrow "Yeah, I know. I'm guilty. I understand that. I knew it was a crime, and I did it anyways. Shit, why argue? I'm a fucking criminal, look at me." - Raoul Duke
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I agree. I also feel that the death penalty is final, no amount of new evidence that may exonerate the defendant matters after the sentence is carried out. To be precise: it can exonerate him, it just can't resurrect him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
To be precise: it can exonerate him, it just can't resurrect him. LOL.... You are right. As far as the defendant goes it is a moot point though. A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ― Edward R. Murrow "Yeah, I know. I'm guilty. I understand that. I knew it was a crime, and I did it anyways. Shit, why argue? I'm a fucking criminal, look at me." - Raoul Duke
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 2193 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
I usually try to steer clear of these types of discussions, but I couldn't resisting adding my own two cents here.
It is my humble opinion that taking the life of one innocent individual is one too many. This is the fatal flaw in the death penalty system, and there really isn't any way around it. Sure, DNA evidence might be able to demonstrate someone's innocence (you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty of course), but that's not infallible. In the first place, the DNA evidence might only be found after the verdict and after the execution. Secondly, DNA evidence isn't always available. Etc. I imagine that one of the very worst possible feelings is knowing you're going to be executed for a crime you never committed... Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 863 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Unless, of course, you read the commentary.. it is actually a prohibition against excessive.. it would be better translated at 'no more than an eye for an eye, and no more than a tooth for a tooth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2620 From: massachusetts US Joined: |
Ramoss writes:
it is actually a prohibition against excessive.. it would be better translated at 'no more than an eye for an eye, and no more than a tooth for a tooth Interesting to recall this Bob Dylan verse here: "Took an untrodden path once, where the swift don't win the race,It goes to the worthy, who can divide the word of truth. Took a stranger to teach me, to look into justice's beautiful face And to see an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I and IIn creation where one's nature neither honors nor forgives. I and I One says to the other, no man sees my face and lives." - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024