The Death Penalty

Thirty Bills Unpaid

catefrances said:

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

you know it really isnt a tricky subject... either you agree with killing people for revenge or you dont.

Said in cleanest smoking jacket while puffing on a pipe fireside.

catefrances

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

catefrances said:

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

you know it really isnt a tricky subject... either you agree with killing people for revenge or you dont.

Said in cleanest smoking jacket while puffing on a pipe fireside.

jeffbr

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

Since I don't subscribe to the all life is sacred club, that part isn't an issue for me. There are some lives that have more value to me, and others that have no value to me or to society in general. Sacred implies some sort of metaphysical, mystical belief that doesn't make sense to me.

catefrances

jeffbr said:

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

Since I don't subscribe to the all life is sacred club, that part isn't an issue for me. There are some lives that have more value to me, and others that have no value to me or to society in general. Sacred implies some sort of metaphysical, mystical belief that doesn't make sense to me.

hmmm as a atheist i dont subscribe to the 'all lives are sacred' b.s. vis a vis religion. however i do not believe we have the right to take another life simply because theyve taken one... that to me smacks of a lack of compassion, a God complex aka absolute arrogance, and a supreme lack of imagination. taking a life i imagine is a hell of a thing and something to be taken lightly. it is not justice, simply revenge, which makes us just as bad as the murderer.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

catefrances said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

catefrances said:

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

you know it really isnt a tricky subject... either you agree with killing people for revenge or you dont.

Said in cleanest smoking jacket while puffing on a pipe fireside.

Haha

Glad you knew I was just messing with you.

catefrances

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

catefrances said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

catefrances said:

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

you know it really isnt a tricky subject... either you agree with killing people for revenge or you dont.

Said in cleanest smoking jacket while puffing on a pipe fireside.

Haha

Glad you knew I was just messing with you.

i always know... plus if im gonna smoke, its gonna be a cohiba. lol

jeffbr

catefrances said:

jeffbr said:

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

Since I don't subscribe to the all life is sacred club, that part isn't an issue for me. There are some lives that have more value to me, and others that have no value to me or to society in general. Sacred implies some sort of metaphysical, mystical belief that doesn't make sense to me.

hmmm as a atheist i dont subscribe to the 'all lives are sacred' b.s. vis a vis religion. however i do not believe we have the right to take another life simply because theyve taken one... that to me smacks of a lack of compassion, a God complex aka absolute arrogance, and a supreme lack of imagination. taking a life i imagine is a hell of a thing and something to be taken lightly. it is not justice, simply revenge, which makes us just as bad as the murderer.

We definitely have a couple of insurmountable disagreements about this. First, your "lack of compassion" premise. My compassion and concern is not for the convict, but rather for innocents, and for society. So my compassion is there, it is just pointed a different direction from yours. Second point of contention - justice vs. revenge. You can make this claim, I can make the counter claim. Revenge presupposes a vindictive motive. The revenge claim could be used against any and all forms of punishment if you wanted to. So we're at an impasse. I've mentioned a few times in this thread that the DP makes me queasy, and should only be used in cases where there is absolutely no uncertainty. If one has committed a crime as horrific as Roof with the same evidence against him and is convicted, then we are left with a person with no redeeming value, and a continued risk for the rest of his life. The logical solution for the benefit of society is to make sure the rest of his life is as short as possible. Not vindictive, not vengeful, not emotional, just logical.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

jeffbr said:

catefrances said:

jeffbr said:

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

Since I don't subscribe to the all life is sacred club, that part isn't an issue for me. There are some lives that have more value to me, and others that have no value to me or to society in general. Sacred implies some sort of metaphysical, mystical belief that doesn't make sense to me.

hmmm as a atheist i dont subscribe to the 'all lives are sacred' b.s. vis a vis religion. however i do not believe we have the right to take another life simply because theyve taken one... that to me smacks of a lack of compassion, a God complex aka absolute arrogance, and a supreme lack of imagination. taking a life i imagine is a hell of a thing and something to be taken lightly. it is not justice, simply revenge, which makes us just as bad as the murderer.

We definitely have a couple of insurmountable disagreements about this. First, your "lack of compassion" premise. My compassion and concern is not for the convict, but rather for innocents, and for society. So my compassion is there, it is just pointed a different direction from yours. Second point of contention - justice vs. revenge. You can make this claim, I can make the counter claim. Revenge presupposes a vindictive motive. The revenge claim could be used against any and all forms of punishment if you wanted to. So we're at an impasse. I've mentioned a few times in this thread that the DP makes me queasy, and should only be used in cases where there is absolutely no uncertainty. If one has committed a crime as horrific as Roof with the same evidence against him and is convicted, then we are left with a person with no redeeming value, and a continued risk for the rest of his life. The logical solution for the benefit of society is to make sure the rest of his life is as short as possible. Not vindictive, not vengeful, not emotional, just logical.

Yup.

catefrances

jeffbr said:

catefrances said:

jeffbr said:

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

Since I don't subscribe to the all life is sacred club, that part isn't an issue for me. There are some lives that have more value to me, and others that have no value to me or to society in general. Sacred implies some sort of metaphysical, mystical belief that doesn't make sense to me.

hmmm as a atheist i dont subscribe to the 'all lives are sacred' b.s. vis a vis religion. however i do not believe we have the right to take another life simply because theyve taken one... that to me smacks of a lack of compassion, a God complex aka absolute arrogance, and a supreme lack of imagination. taking a life i imagine is a hell of a thing and something to be taken lightly. it is not justice, simply revenge, which makes us just as bad as the murderer.

We definitely have a couple of insurmountable disagreements about this. First, your "lack of compassion" premise. My compassion and concern is not for the convict, but rather for innocents, and for society. So my compassion is there, it is just pointed a different direction from yours. Second point of contention - justice vs. revenge. You can make this claim, I can make the counter claim. Revenge presupposes a vindictive motive. The revenge claim could be used against any and all forms of punishment if you wanted to. So we're at an impasse. I've mentioned a few times in this thread that the DP makes me queasy, and should only be used in cases where there is absolutely no uncertainty. If one has committed a crime as horrific as Roof with the same evidence against him and is convicted, then we are left with a person with no redeeming value, and a continued risk for the rest of his life. The logical solution for the benefit of society is to make sure the rest of his life is as short as possible. Not vindictive, not vengeful, not emotional, just logical.

if youre brother was facing the death penalty would you be ok with his execution? define justice? i dont see taking a life as justice. i see it as you took a life so we aregoing to take yours. the death penalty serves no purpose other than to satisy society that something is being done, when in atuality it isnt. i acknowledge that the death penalty makes yo queasy... thats as it should be. it should give everyone pause. i disagree that execution is logical. killing someone regardless of the reasoning is never bereft of emotion and so can never be totally logical. for humans, emotion is overwhelming. we fight because of it... we fuck because of it... we love because of it. we make decisions based on it. emotion requires no logic and that is its major fault.... we hate the rapist... we despise the killer... we want them gone from our societyp so we dont have to deal with them. but what if the killer.... the rapist is someone we love? would we want to see them dead? i sure as hell wouldnt... sure id hate what they did but that doesnt mean id hate them. i cant agree that the logical solution would be to make the killers life as short as possible... afterall there is so much state sanctioned killing that goes on that makes me think whats the difference?

PJfanwillneverleave1

I'm still on the fence after reading this if 50yrs is justice (in all likelihood she will die in a prison cell) or if it should have been the DP.
Either way I hope she rots.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/‘a-crime-so-horrific’-mom-gets-50-years-for-poisoning-burning-her-5-year-old-son/ar-AAnCmiA?li=AA59G3&ocid=spartandhp

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

catefrances said:

jeffbr said:

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

Since I don't subscribe to the all life is sacred club, that part isn't an issue for me. There are some lives that have more value to me, and others that have no value to me or to society in general. Sacred implies some sort of metaphysical, mystical belief that doesn't make sense to me.

hmmm as a atheist i dont subscribe to the 'all lives are sacred' b.s. vis a vis religion. however i do not believe we have the right to take another life simply because theyve taken one... that to me smacks of a lack of compassion, a God complex aka absolute arrogance, and a supreme lack of imagination. taking a life i imagine is a hell of a thing and something to be taken lightly. it is not justice, simply revenge, which makes us just as bad as the murderer.

We definitely have a couple of insurmountable disagreements about this. First, your "lack of compassion" premise. My compassion and concern is not for the convict, but rather for innocents, and for society. So my compassion is there, it is just pointed a different direction from yours. Second point of contention - justice vs. revenge. You can make this claim, I can make the counter claim. Revenge presupposes a vindictive motive. The revenge claim could be used against any and all forms of punishment if you wanted to. So we're at an impasse. I've mentioned a few times in this thread that the DP makes me queasy, and should only be used in cases where there is absolutely no uncertainty. If one has committed a crime as horrific as Roof with the same evidence against him and is convicted, then we are left with a person with no redeeming value, and a continued risk for the rest of his life. The logical solution for the benefit of society is to make sure the rest of his life is as short as possible. Not vindictive, not vengeful, not emotional, just logical.

But you haven't made a good case that it's logical. Just because you said he has no value and won't pose a risk doesn't make it logical. That sounds like an emotionally based decision dressed up to look like intellectualism.

jeffbr

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

catefrances said:

jeffbr said:

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

Since I don't subscribe to the all life is sacred club, that part isn't an issue for me. There are some lives that have more value to me, and others that have no value to me or to society in general. Sacred implies some sort of metaphysical, mystical belief that doesn't make sense to me.

hmmm as a atheist i dont subscribe to the 'all lives are sacred' b.s. vis a vis religion. however i do not believe we have the right to take another life simply because theyve taken one... that to me smacks of a lack of compassion, a God complex aka absolute arrogance, and a supreme lack of imagination. taking a life i imagine is a hell of a thing and something to be taken lightly. it is not justice, simply revenge, which makes us just as bad as the murderer.

We definitely have a couple of insurmountable disagreements about this. First, your "lack of compassion" premise. My compassion and concern is not for the convict, but rather for innocents, and for society. So my compassion is there, it is just pointed a different direction from yours. Second point of contention - justice vs. revenge. You can make this claim, I can make the counter claim. Revenge presupposes a vindictive motive. The revenge claim could be used against any and all forms of punishment if you wanted to. So we're at an impasse. I've mentioned a few times in this thread that the DP makes me queasy, and should only be used in cases where there is absolutely no uncertainty. If one has committed a crime as horrific as Roof with the same evidence against him and is convicted, then we are left with a person with no redeeming value, and a continued risk for the rest of his life. The logical solution for the benefit of society is to make sure the rest of his life is as short as possible. Not vindictive, not vengeful, not emotional, just logical.

But you haven't made a good case that it's logical. Just because you said he has no value and won't pose a risk doesn't make it logical. That sounds like an emotionally based decision dressed up to look like intellectualism.

Ok, your opinion is noted. You don't think I've made a valid, logical argument. I do. You think it is emotional. I don't. I apparently didn't persuade you with my position. You certainly haven't persuaded me with yours. Now what?

PJ_Soul

Now you hug it out.

jeffbr

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

catefrances said:

jeffbr said:

joseph33 said:

It's a very tricky topic. I'm against murder for murder. All life is sacred. But I'm also against the tax payer housing and feeding them the rest of their lives. What to do?

Since I don't subscribe to the all life is sacred club, that part isn't an issue for me. There are some lives that have more value to me, and others that have no value to me or to society in general. Sacred implies some sort of metaphysical, mystical belief that doesn't make sense to me.

hmmm as a atheist i dont subscribe to the 'all lives are sacred' b.s. vis a vis religion. however i do not believe we have the right to take another life simply because theyve taken one... that to me smacks of a lack of compassion, a God complex aka absolute arrogance, and a supreme lack of imagination. taking a life i imagine is a hell of a thing and something to be taken lightly. it is not justice, simply revenge, which makes us just as bad as the murderer.

We definitely have a couple of insurmountable disagreements about this. First, your "lack of compassion" premise. My compassion and concern is not for the convict, but rather for innocents, and for society. So my compassion is there, it is just pointed a different direction from yours. Second point of contention - justice vs. revenge. You can make this claim, I can make the counter claim. Revenge presupposes a vindictive motive. The revenge claim could be used against any and all forms of punishment if you wanted to. So we're at an impasse. I've mentioned a few times in this thread that the DP makes me queasy, and should only be used in cases where there is absolutely no uncertainty. If one has committed a crime as horrific as Roof with the same evidence against him and is convicted, then we are left with a person with no redeeming value, and a continued risk for the rest of his life. The logical solution for the benefit of society is to make sure the rest of his life is as short as possible. Not vindictive, not vengeful, not emotional, just logical.

But you haven't made a good case that it's logical. Just because you said he has no value and won't pose a risk doesn't make it logical. That sounds like an emotionally based decision dressed up to look like intellectualism.

Ok, your opinion is noted. You don't think I've made a valid, logical argument. I do. You think it is emotional. I don't. I apparently didn't persuade you with my position. You certainly haven't persuaded me with yours. Now what?

You're decision making process is the same as the emotionally driven, vengful person. You've just raised the requirement threshold. They have to be guilty and done something incredibly reprehensible. The person who wants every violent criminal put to death thinks the same thing.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

I'm still on the fence after reading this if 50yrs is justice (in all likelihood she will die in a prison cell) or if it should have been the DP.
Either way I hope she rots.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/‘a-crime-so-horrific’-mom-gets-50-years-for-poisoning-burning-her-5-year-old-son/ar-AAnCmiA?li=AA59G3&ocid=spartandhp

Not justice.

This was a woman scorned... so we should sit down with her... have some deep conversations... try to get at the root of her anger towards her ex husband... and then counsel her so that she can get back at it. She's a human. She has value. And there's nothing we can do now for her brutally murdered 5 year old son.

To imprison her is simply an emotional response that is rooted in bloodlust and a need for revenge.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

I'm still on the fence after reading this if 50yrs is justice (in all likelihood she will die in a prison cell) or if it should have been the DP.
Either way I hope she rots.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/‘a-crime-so-horrific’-mom-gets-50-years-for-poisoning-burning-her-5-year-old-son/ar-AAnCmiA?li=AA59G3&ocid=spartandhp

Not justice.

This was a woman scorned... so we should sit down with her... have some deep conversations... try to get at the root of her anger towards her ex husband... and then counsel her so that she can get back at it. She's a human. She has value. And there's nothing we can do now for her brutally murdered 5 year old son.

To imprison her is simply an emotional response that is rooted in bloodlust and a need for revenge.

TB, I think you know my position on the DP.
I would praise the justice system for giving her the death penalty. Just in some circumstances I think life in prison is better for some if they truly will realize everyday that they will die in a cage.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

^^^

Which in Canada hardly ever happens. People don't die in their cages- after a little while... they are released with Starbucks cards (if their crime was of the horrible variety they only get Tims cards). Plus social assistance and all that extra support to ease their transition into society.

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
What would be even cruller is if the Tims card was only good for black coffee.

JC29856

JC29856 said:

we come so far from those days, havent we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney

The execution of George Stinney was carried out at the South Carolina State Penitentiary in Columbia, on June 16, 1944. At 7:30 p.m., Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm, which he later used as a booster seat in the electric chair. [5] Standing 5 foot 1 inch (155 cm) tall and weighing just over 90 pounds (40 kg),[4] he was small for his age, which presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes. Nor did the state's adult-sized face-mask fit him; as he was hit with the first 2,400 V surge of electricity, the mask covering his face slipped off, “revealing his wide-open, tearful eyes and saliva coming from his mouth”...After two more jolts of electricity, the boy was dead."[8][9] Stinney was declared dead within four minutes of the initial electrocution. From the time of the murders until Stinney's execution, eighty-one days had passed.[5]

(still yawning)

#alt-white