toldailytopic: Should all humans have legal protection against being killed?

[The Barbarian]

I think we should allow executions wholesale for people who commit any kind of violent crime...

So if your son is cussed out by some jerk and he punches the jerk in the nose, you think your son should be executed "wholesale?"

along with with holding medical care for a lot of people that are living off of government assistance.

Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

You're a "Social Darwinist", a corrupted version of evolutionary theory.

It's not that I do not have compassion for these people, its just that I think that the costs 'of doing the moral thing' are bankrupting us culturally and financially.

Two facts: first, it costs more to excute a person than to send him to life in prison. The reason is, we spend a lot of effort to make sure we got the right person, and so there's a lot of appeals. But as you should know, scores of innocent people are alive today only because they were able to string out the appeals process long enough to find evidence of their innocence.

It's probably no coincidence that those with the most enthusiasm for capital punishment also want to reduce the length of time a condemned prisoner can do appeals. Too many of them are being proved innocent.

We are stuck in analysis paralysis while the meter is running and we are terrified that we might do the wrong thing in one out off a million instances.

Turns out, it's a lot more than one in a million. And those are only the ones lucky enough to be able to find evidence clearing them. We don't know how many others were innocent, but didn't succeed in showing their innocence.

 

[HisServant]

So if your son is cussed out by some jerk and he punches the jerk in the nose, you think your son should be executed "wholesale?"

If my son punches someone and the law states that the penalty for that is being removed from society and being deprived of his life, than that is the choice he made, and it makes me a bad parent.

Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

You're a "Social Darwinist", a corrupted version of evolutionary theory.

Nope, survival of the fittest is not my goal... the goal is that we, as a society, make the tough decision as to what we want to become and what resources we are willing to waste on those that oppose our goals. IF we decide to save everyone, while fully being aware that it will eventually bankrupt us, then let us be forthright and sober about it and accept the reality that we have destined for ourselves.

Two facts: first, it costs more to excute a person than to send him to life in prison. The reason is, we spend a lot of effort to make sure we got the right person, and so there's a lot of appeals. But as you should know, scores of innocent people are alive today only because they were able to string out the appeals process long enough to find evidence of their innocence.

And I find that to be morally wrong and financially irresponsible. There are no innocent in our society.. it's just shades of gray.

It's probably no coincidence that those with the most enthusiasm for capital punishment also want to reduce the length of time a condemned prisoner can do appeals. Too many of them are being proved innocent.

And it is usually through new technology or whatever... the technology available at the time of their original crime and trial should only be allowed to be used.

Turns out, it's a lot more than one in a million. And those are only the ones lucky enough to be able to find evidence clearing them. We don't know how many others were innocent, but didn't succeed in showing their innocence.

Doubtful, there have been quite a few people proven innocent, and when you compare that to the number of people in jail, its statistically insignificant.

Our society is riddled with so much crime now, because people know they can get away with it, or spend a short time in jail. If they knew their bad choices could end their lives in a short amount of time, I think things would be much different.

 

[xAvarice]

I think we should allow executions wholesale for people who commit any kind of violent crime... along with with holding medical care for a lot of people that are living off of government assistance.

It's not that I do not have compassion for these people, its just that I think that the costs 'of doing the moral thing' are bankrupting us culturally and financially.

We are stuck in analysis paralysis while the meter is running and we are terrified that we might do the wrong thing in one out off a million instances.

This looks like the kind of post you'd expect from someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Zeke]

If my son punches someone and the law states that the penalty for that is being removed from society and being deprived of his life, than that is the choice he made, and it makes me a bad parent.



Nope, survival of the fittest is not my goal... the goal is that we, as a society, make the tough decision as to what we want to become and what resources we are willing to waste on those that oppose our goals. IF we decide to save everyone, while fully being aware that it will eventually bankrupt us, then let us be forthright and sober about it and accept the reality that we have destined for ourselves.



And I find that to be morally wrong and financially irresponsible. There are no innocent in our society.. it's just shades of gray.



And it is usually through new technology or whatever... the technology available at the time of their original crime and trial should only be allowed to be used.



Doubtful, there have been quite a few people proven innocent, and when you compare that to the number of people in jail, its statistically insignificant.

Our society is riddled with so much crime now, because people know they can get away with it, or spend a short time in jail. If they knew their bad choices could end their lives in a short amount of time, I think things would be much different.

I think you just like having someone to look down on like every neocon. The crimes in the country for the most part is caused by the so called war on drugs and manditory nonsense!

Every where I have lived in this country the places that had few laws and didn't have bunch of manditory crap to wade through were far better than the ones that did, less crime and less stress on the populace with the inforcement being very rationaly applied without ninja joe showing up like some comic book thug, when liberty reigns the problems are far less.

People like you are the reason for the problems we have, little religious dictators needing someone to feel superior to.

 

[Tambora]

toldailytopic: Should all humans have legal protection against being killed?

No.
But they should have protection from being killed without cause.

 

[PureX]

I'd be more agreeable to the death penalty, if there weren't so many "Oops."
cases where we condemned an innocent person.

Nearly 40% wrongly convicted on death row in Illinois, when someone finally got around to checking into it. I'd be afraid to even think how many people have been wrongly executed in places like Texas and Florida, where they really don't much seem to care whether they got the right guy or not, as long as someone dies.

 

[HisServant]

I think you just like having someone to look down on like every neocon. The crimes in the country for the most part is caused by the so called war on drugs and manditory nonsense!

Every where I have lived in this country the places that had few laws and didn't have bunch of manditory crap to wade through were far better than the ones that did, less crime and less stress on the populace with the inforcement being very rationaly applied without ninja joe showing up like some comic book thug, when liberty reigns the problems are far less.

People like you are the reason for the problems we have, little religious dictators needing someone to feel superior to.

Who says I am religious?... I'm quite the opposite, I hate religion, but love faith.

And no, I look down on no one... no one is worse or better than me, we are all just trying to find our way through this world.

The issue I have is those who would oppress others by violence, be it the government or individuals. I don't want to have to worry about the safety of my grand children.. they live in fear when they hear about the tragedies in Connecticut and Colorado. They shouldn't have to.

Our laws should be strong enough and value life and property enough that to run afoul of the law should be punished swiftly and justly.

Like I always tell my kids.. don't do the crime if you aren't willing to pay the time.

As far as nonsense laws, I agree, the legal code has gotten so complex and is applied so unfairly (due to type of crime, class and ethnicity) that most criminals know they can work the system and plead to a lesser crime and walk.

 

[Jacob]

The Bible says there is a sin not leading to death (1 John 5:16 (NASB), 1 John 5:17 (NASB)), but I don't know what it means when it says that.

It makes me think of Romans 3:23, and Romans 6:23, that death is the consequence of sin, as God told Adam it would be (and it was).

But that it is appointed for man to die once and after this the judgment (Hebrews 9:27) is not speaking of capital punishment or the death penalty. However, it is speaking of the judgment that matters after this life.

So, an absolute no to murder. If killing is not murder, what is it? It is hard to say that any killing could be justified.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Is there something different in this in regard to the New Covenant and loving others as God has loved us?

 

[Stripe]

Y'know what would be a good way to execute murderers? Use 5m of chain to secure their hands behind their backs and drop them from 10m by the chain. Then unhook the chain.

Stones to finish off any survivors. :up:

 

[HisServant]

Pretty soon, we will all be required to take mood altering substances and everything will be made out of nerf for our own protection.

And people think THX1138 was just a fairy tale... it was only the beginning.

 

[The Barbarian]

If my son punches someone and the law states that the penalty for that is being removed from society

It doesn't. That was what you wanted it to be.

and being deprived of his life, than that is the choice he made, and it makes me a bad parent.

I don't know what to make of a parent who would kill his child for merely hitting someone.

Nope, survival of the fittest is not my goal...

That's what you're advocating when you want to let the unfortunate shift for themselves.

the goal is that we, as a society, make the tough decision as to what we want to become and what resources we are willing to waste on those that oppose our goals.

Sounds more like national socialism to me.

IF we decide to save everyone, while fully being aware that it will eventually bankrupt us

During the Reagan years, we saved everyone (Reagan called it the "safety net") and we didn't go bankrupt. In fact, just after Reagan, Clinton actually cut spending enough to have a surplus for a couple of years. So the "bankrupt" thing is merely an excuse, not a realistic objection.

And I find that to be morally wrong and financially irresponsible. There are no innocent in our society.. it's just shades of gray.

That was the motto of "Black September", justifying the murder of children.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out, it's a lot more than one in a million. And those are only the ones lucky enough to be able to find evidence clearing them. We don't know how many others were innocent, but didn't succeed in showing their innocence.

Doubtful

It's a matter of public record. Last time I checked about 20 in Texas alone. No point in denying the truth.

there have been quite a few people proven innocent, and when you compare that to the number of people in jail, its statistically insignificant.

It would probably be more significant to you, if you were the one falsely condemned to die for something you didn't do. How many innocent people would you be willing to execute, to make sure we killed all the murderers?

Our society is riddled with so much crime now

In fact, crime has been declining for several decades. Would you like to learn about it?

 

[Delmar]

Nearly 40% wrongly convicted on death row in Illinois

I am quite skeptical.

 

[The Barbarian]

Forty percent seems outlandishly high. Even Texas isn't that bad.

(Barbarian checks)

A disturbingly high number, but apparently not 40%. I'd be interested in hearing, from a death penalty advocate, how many innocent people executed would be justified, if it lead to killing more guilty people.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Nearly 40% wrongly convicted on death row in Illinois, when someone finally got around to checking into it. I'd be afraid to even think how many people have been wrongly executed in places like Texas and Florida, where they really don't much seem to care whether they got the right guy or not, as long as someone dies.

cite?

 

[Nick M]

No. This man deserves to die.

http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-man-sexually-assaulted-baby-seeks-mercy-063748827.html

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Condemned killer Steven Smith's argument for mercy isn't an easy one. Smith acknowledges he intended to sexually assault his girlfriend's 6-month-old daughter but says he never intended to kill the baby.

The girl, Autumn Carter, of Mansfield, died because Smith was too drunk to realize his sexual assault was killing the child, Smith's attorneys planned to tell the Ohio Parole Board on Tuesday. And Ohio law is clear, they say: a death sentence requires an intent to kill the victim.

 

[resurrected]

Not at all Nick

According to barbie's "logic", this man should be released from prison because some black people were wrongly convicted in Texas. :dizzy:

According to the "logic" of another poster, this represents proof that the US judicial system is just swell and shouldn't be criticized.



What do you suppose God says about this?

 

[Stripe]

It'd take 16 years to see him executed even if sentenced to die. What a waste.

 

[resurrected]

Yeah, but that's sixteen years for lawyers to justify their existence and make payments on their Mercedes Benz's

 

[Lighthouse]

It'd take 16 years to see him executed even if sentenced to die. What a waste.

Agreed

Yeah, but that's sixteen years for lawyers to justify their existence and make payments on their Mercedes Benz's

Sad, isn't it?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Murdered, yes. And to you Libertarians out there, murder is not a states rights issue.

State's rights and libertarianism aren't really directly related.