Eventually death penality abolished

[Rincewind]

this always seems to devolve into semantics.

if you kill in self defense, the agressor dies. you made a chioce that your life was worth more than his. you had to make an instant decision, but someone dies.

I disagree. An automatic reaction to a stimulus, like raising your forearm in defence when about to be struck, or blinking when something suddenly comes at your eyes, is not a premeditated action. You haven't had time to think about your response to an attack; your body has reacted automatically; there is no choice involved, nor decision made about the relative worth of yours and your attacker's life.

 

In the case of delayed retaliation, you have had time to think and come to a reasoned decision about your response. This is what makes us civilised, that we can consciously choose a path of forgiveness or, at least, lesser harm than has already been done. In choosing not to retaliate in kind when we have had time to think about it, thus allowing the perpetrator of a violent action to experience mercy (possibly for the first time in his or her life), we are working towards a more civilised society.

 

If you respond to violence with violence, then you are perpetuating violence; if you respond to violence with mercy, then you transform evil to good. I prefer to be an agent for good in society, or, at least, argue for it until I become a victim of my philosophy. :confused:

[questor]

Rince, i'm sure that murderers are much happier now in societies where they know

they will not be executed no matter how vicious the crime. these societies are those who feel more compassion for the killer than for the victim, and oddly enough people who feel this way are frequently the anti-religious. if we are to be non-judgemental, why should we have police or courts ?

[Fishteacher73]

Rince, i'm sure that murderers are much happier now in societies where they know

they will not be executed no matter how vicious the crime. these societies are those who feel more compassion for the killer than for the victim, and oddly enough people who feel this way are frequently the anti-religious. if we are to be non-judgemental, why should we have police or courts ?

 

I guess thats why they don't really go on murderous rampages there.

 

Actually the origins of the anarchist movement lie in a devoutly religous group that felt that god's laws were absolute and man did not need a gov't to uphold them, nor did they feel the cumpunction to follow laws that were not god's.

 

Somehow you feel that killing someone to remove the threat of them works better than life imprisonment. I fail to see any logic behind the statement. CP has show to be a very ineffective deterrent, and has even been reference to cause escalation of crimes (ie someone commits what they feel might be a capital offense, they will continue to do so to avoid capture).

 

WE have a secular constitution in the states, but for most the butressing of CP is theological in nature , eye for an eye(ie the converse is equally if not more touted, Thou shall not kill for example, or turn the other cheek.)

 

Of the countries that still practice the death penalty most fall into "Bush's axis of evil". We are the only first world nation that still intentionally kills its citizens.

[Rincewind]

Well, I hardly know where to begin on that load of fœtid dingoes' kidneys.

Rince, i'm sure that murderers are much happier now in societies where they know

they will not be executed no matter how vicious the crime.

So how do you explain, for instance, the outrageously higher violent crime rate in a country which has capital punishment compared to a country that doesn't? The quality of mercy is reflected in the society at large. A brutal régime that executes its criminals engenders a more brutal society. The statistics show this to be true.

these societies are those who feel more compassion for the killer than for the victim,

What a load of rubbish. Where on Earth did you get that idea from? That idea is so wrong that I don't even know how to respond to it.

and oddly enough people who feel this way are frequently the anti-religious.

Your line of argument just keeps on getting worse. Does that actually mean anything? I assure you that most people who actually read for themselves and follow the teachings of the founder of their religion, rather than blindly believing the present-day leaders of their chosen religion, oppose killing in any form -- be it State-sanctioned or otherwise.

if we are to be non-judgemental, why should we have police or courts ?

We have police and courts to enforce and uphold the law of the land, and to provide judgement upon those who transgress those laws. Where did you get the idea that I think we should have Anarchy? There actually is a very broad middle ground between Anarchy and killing offenders.

 

*Edit to remove stray asterisks.*

[questor]

Rince, are you an expert on American crime statistics ? if so please tell me who commits

the majority of violent crime ? do you find any correlations to income, gender, race,

ethnicity ? when a person wants to prevent an execution of a violent criminal, and the victims family wants justice, how do you reconcile those opposing views ?

[Rincewind]

Rince, are you an expert on American crime statistics ? if so please tell me who commits

the majority of violent crime ? do you find any correlations to income, gender, race,

ethnicity ?

No, I'm not an expert on your crime statistics, but I am aware of the fact that murder rates in America far exceed those in Australia, despite the violent deterrent your country provides for within the law. See http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap and http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/homicide.htm

 

Who commits the majority of violent crime? People who have experienced violence themselves, especially in childhood; in other words, victims of violence. I don't think murdering more victims achieves anything worthwhile in society.

 

And, yes, underprivileged people, and those of a race/ethnicity who have most to fear in the way of discrimination, violence and being harshly dealt with in society and at law would tend to be more highly represented amongst those perpetrating violent crimes.

 

when a person wants to prevent an execution of a violent criminal, and the victims family wants justice, how do you reconcile those opposing views ?

Justice is meted out by the law. You don't have to murder someone to have justice done for a violent crime.

 

Where is the opportunity for the victim family to find healing for themselves if there is no opportunity for them to find forgiveness within themselves for those that have done them a grievous wrong? How do they ever get over what has been done to them if they are unable to experience the healing power of showing mercy?

 

Justice is well served by incarceration.

[Edge]

I have nothing against Death Penalty. The only thing I can ask about it is that they should be actually 100% sure that the person put on a death row is guilty.

 

I have seen the replies in here about the morals, etc. However, I ask, how moral was the killer when he took the life of all his victims? What would you prefer: Having him killed once and for all or having him in prison with a chance of escaping or just sucking up your taxes?

 

I'd say kill him. There's no case with letting a killer be alive for more time.

 

Also, I find kinda curious that most liberals are against death penalty because no one can take a life, yet they are for abortion? So, it's OK to take the life of a baby for whatever reasons involved, yet it is wrong to take the life of a criminal who didn't have respect for the rights of others. Kinda contradictory... or maybe I need this explained from a liberal point of view.

[goku]

I have nothing against Death Penalty. The only thing I can ask about it is that they should be actually 100% sure that the person put on a death row is guilty.

absolutely!

Also, I find kinda curious that most liberals are against death penalty because no one can take a life, yet they are for abortion? So, it's OK to take the life of a baby for whatever reasons involved, yet it is wrong to take the life of a criminal who didn't have respect for the rights of others. Kinda contradictory... or maybe I need this explained from a liberal point of view.

that's :friday: liberals :friday: in a nut shell

[Rincewind]

I have seen the replies in here about the morals, etc. However, I ask, how moral was the killer when he took the life of all his victims?

I see morals as absolute and personal. By that, I mean that each person's personal morals are not dependent on the morals of other people, but are those that you decide for yourself. It is irrelevant what the morals of the killer are. We should not seek to lower our moral standards to that of a murderer, either personally or as a society. How you live your life should not be on the basis of a competition to see who can come out with the lowest moral standards at the end of the day.

 

What would you prefer: Having him killed once and for all or having him in prison with a chance of escaping or just sucking up your taxes?

Likewise, we should not be basing our moral decisions of life and death on how many dollars it costs. It is important to act morally and right, and financial considerations have no place in moral decision making.

 

Also, I find kinda curious that most liberals are against death penalty because no one can take a life, yet they are for abortion? So, it's OK to take the life of a baby for whatever reasons involved, yet it is wrong to take the life of a criminal who didn't have respect for the rights of others. Kinda contradictory... or maybe I need this explained from a liberal point of view.

The abortion debate is a completely separate issue, and has no place in this debate, as the parallels you are attempting to draw here are unsafe, and therefore irrelevant. It is widely accepted fact that criminals are living, conscious human beings, whereas it is not widely accepted that a zygote or fœtus is a living conscious human being.

 

There are many opinions as to when life actually begins, ranging from the moment of conception to the drawing of the first breath, and even up to a week or two after birth in some belief systems; but they are just that -- belief systems. There is no proof available of exactly at what point a zygote or fœtus can be considered to be a life, and therefore a subject for murder -- that is opinion, and should not be confused with fact.

 

The abortion debate is taking place in another thread. Let's keep it there.

[Rincewind]

absolutely!

 

that's :friday: liberals :friday: in a nut shell

Very good. I always say, if you don't actually have an argument, or can't be bothered making a proper one, then just give those who hold a view that disagrees with your own a label, and say that they're are evil.

 

Very convincing.

 

NOT!

[goku]

Very good. I always say, if you don't actually have an argument, or can't be bothered making a proper one, then just give those who hold a view that disagrees with your own a label, and say that they're are evil.

monkey see, monkey do :friday:

yea yea i know, liberals are people to

the main thing is to stay calm :friday:

[Rincewind]

monkey see, monkey do :friday:

yea yea i know, liberals are people to

the main thing is to stay calm :friday:

Oh, I'm always calm (well, as much as a parent of three (actually two, now -- eldest is 21 (although you wouldn't know it)) teenagers can be), thanks, Goku, even though I may get a little, shall we say, strident, in expressing myself in debate, and despite my insistence that those I debate with actually present a thought-out argument rather than just mounting a meaningless attack on those they disagree with (i.e. me). :friday:

[goku]

can this person ever be changed?

will jailling the person for life cause undue burden upon tax payers?

two questions that are important when deciding the fate of said person, i think.

[rockytriton]

what about this question: this person has been convicted, but is he actually guilty?

 

The only problem that I have with the death penalty is that it's so damn final. I've heard many cases where years later (after this person wasted 10 or 20 years of their life in jail) they find proof that they are actually innocent. Of course this is probably more like some 0.01% of cases but still...

[Tarantism]

...I find kinda curious that most liberals are against death penalty because no one can take a life, yet they are for abortion? So, it's OK to take the life of a baby for whatever reasons involved, yet it is wrong to take the life of a criminal who didn't have respect for the rights of others. Kinda contradictory... or maybe I need this explained from a liberal point of view.

 

well, technically speaking, a human fetus is not alive, nor consious of anything, so its not taking a life.

[rockytriton]

oh God, let's not get into that debate here please!

[Tarantism]

sorry, didnt mean to cuase trouble, i jsut thought that posting that fact would keep that out of the question anyway, dont take it as im trying to start trouble :shrug: