The Death Penalty

callen

JimmyV wrote:

[quote="PJ_Soul"

I think it makes no sense because punishing murder by committing murder puts the punisher on the same level as the punished. It sends a VERY bad message, and is morally inept.

So what do we do with kidnappers who imprison their victims in basements or cages? Do we not lock them up? Of course we do, and no one would reasonably argue that the government was on the same level as the kidnapper.[/quote]
All things are not always equal (I know you realize that)

They are not always equal, I absolutely agree. This is why I believe that trying, convicting, sentencing, hearing all appeals, and then finally executing someone who murders a child does not put the government on the same level as the murderer.[/quote]
If we strap down a human and put a needle in their arm with societies backing we are worse.

lukin2006

How about hard labour for some of these creeps? or is that inhuman as well.

PJ_Soul

callen wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Totally disagree. Are you guys actually serious?? You think that comparing jailing people for kidnapping and murdering people for murdering as equal issues is reasonable when talking about a modern justice system? Gimme a break.

You said (I'm paraphrasing) that executing a murderer places society on the same level as the murderer. He said (paraphrasing again) then why is it acceptable to imprison a kidnapper when it places society on the same level.

We weren't comparing kidnapping to murder at all. We were speaking to the point you made.

If we kill and are wrong...you can't bring them back...if they are imprisoned for life without possiblility of parole than we can let them go free. Or if a government wants to silence...and create a solid case..once those in power are removed maybe they can also be freed. Imprisonment to protect the public is rational...killing them is not. Big difference.

Now that is a strong point.

callen

PJ_Soul wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Totally disagree. Are you guys actually serious?? You think that comparing jailing people for kidnapping and murdering people for murdering as equal issues is reasonable when talking about a modern justice system? Gimme a break.

You said (I'm paraphrasing) that executing a murderer places society on the same level as the murderer. He said (paraphrasing again) then why is it acceptable to imprison a kidnapper when it places society on the same level.

We weren't comparing kidnapping to murder at all. We were speaking to the point you made.

If your referring to that POS in Ohio ... he's also using up a nice resource air ... he doesn't want to die thats why he accepted the plea ... once that state knew that they should have took him down hard ... really kidnapping 3 people and putting him through what he did deserve something more than a just a jail cell.
Again I disagree. I think it's pretty fucking easy to be dead. Living in prison forever is way harder.

I can't shake the feeling a human must go through if wrongly convicted and they are strapped to a gurney...sick.

JimmyV

PJ_Soul wrote:

Ah, well that's where I disagree. Murder is murder. Killing another human being is wrong unless it's in self-defense. Period.

Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.

If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 wrote:

How about hard labour for some of these creeps? or is that inhuman as well.

I definitely think that all prisoners should be made useful if possible... I think in those complete lock down places they think it's too dangerous to have them our and about doing labour.... But anyway, I think that having to stay locked in a tiny room 23 hours a day is way worse than getting out and moving around and doing some work, if it's revenge we're after. Daily labour seems like a better option to me, but only because I don't think that the corrections system should be about revenge.

PJ_Soul

JimmyV wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Ah, well that's where I disagree. Murder is murder. Killing another human being is wrong unless it's in self-defense. Period.

Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.

If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.

I think that capital punishment is always murder. Not sure how one can call strapping someone down and killing them can be called anything else.

chadwick

PJ_Soul wrote:

Ah, well that's where I disagree. Murder is murder. Killing another human being is wrong unless it's in self-defense. Period.

good.. throw 'em in the pit for self defense lessons
http://youtu.be/_42qmKBSC3g

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

We weren't comparing kidnapping to murder at all. We were speaking to the point you made.

I do understand what's going on here, but thanks. As I said, all things are not equal. That's why one is acceptable and one is not, and what is annoying is that both of you know this but are acting like it's a valid argument.

Hold on a second...

You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?

Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?

They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.

callen

JimmyV wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Ah, well that's where I disagree. Murder is murder. Killing another human being is wrong unless it's in self-defense. Period.

Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.

If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.

It will never be fixed....there will always be people wrongly convicted. So are you okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen wrote:

If we strap down a human and put a needle in their arm with societies backing we are worse.

No. We're better. In the true 'eye for an eye' model... we'd be forced to do much worse to many. Our 'clinical' executions that serve as justice, remove the threat and offer peace to the survivors (among other things) are what separates us from those that have committed the most heinous of offences.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

We weren't comparing kidnapping to murder at all. We were speaking to the point you made.

I do understand what's going on here, but thanks. As I said, all things are not equal. That's why one is acceptable and one is not, and what is annoying is that both of you know this but are acting like it's a valid argument.

Hold on a second...

You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?

Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?

They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.

I'm not failing to see anything. I fully understand what point you are trying to make. My issue is that it is completely irrelevant. I didn't say it wasn't deductively logical ... But this isn't an argument we're trying to work through in PHIL 101. We're discussing real life.

callen

callen wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Ah, well that's where I disagree. Murder is murder. Killing another human being is wrong unless it's in self-defense. Period.

Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.

If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.

It will never be fixed....there will always be people wrongly convicted. So are you okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix?

And this is not directed at you as I don't know your feelings but in general seems those that hate the government and think they are inefficient have no problem with the government being in charge of who gets put to death.

JimmyV

callen wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Ah, well that's where I disagree. Murder is murder. Killing another human being is wrong unless it's in self-defense. Period.

Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.

If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.

It will never be fixed....there will always be people wrongly convicted. So are you okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix?

No, if it is used properly then that problem will cease. Being wrongly convicted and being sentenced to death are not the same thing. If there is even a shadow of doubt then the death penalty should not apply.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul wrote:

I'm not failing to see anything. I fully understand what point you are trying to make. My issue is that it is completely irrelevant. I didn't say it wasn't deductively logical ... But this isn't an argument we're trying to work through in PHIL 101. We're discussing real life.

So, in this particular case, you wish for your dramatic 'comparison' to stand to suit your purposes... but do not wish to accept it when someone uses a similar comparison to counter what you have said?

If we are discussing 'real life'... then why are you calling legal executions as a form of punishment for a crime 'murder'? And how does executing the rapist and murderer of a 6 month old infant 'sinking to his level'?

Come on, man.

PJ_Soul

JimmyV wrote:

callen wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.

If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.

It will never be fixed....there will always be people wrongly convicted. So are you okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix?

No, if it is used properly then that problem will cease. Being wrongly convicted and being sentenced to death are not the same thing. If there is even a shadow of doubt then the death penalty should not apply.

They have been operating under the assumption that the have no doubt about those on death row or in prison for life, and currently assume that ... yet innocent people are still getting convicted once in a while.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I'm not failing to see anything. I fully understand what point you are trying to make. My issue is that it is completely irrelevant. I didn't say it wasn't deductively logical ... But this isn't an argument we're trying to work through in PHIL 101. We're discussing real life.

So, in this particular case, you wish for your dramatic 'comparison' to stand to suit your purposes... but do not wish to accept it when someone uses a similar comparison to counter what you have said?

If we are discussing 'real life'... then why are you calling legal executions as a form of punishment for a crime 'murder'? And how does executing the rapist and murderer of a 6 month old infant 'sinking to his level'?

Come on, man.

So you think murder was invented by the government, or what? Just because the government decides it's not breaking the law, it doesn't mean it's not murder. The government didn't invent the term. I think I've already explained myself on the rest.

pdalowsky

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

We weren't comparing kidnapping to murder at all. We were speaking to the point you made.

I do understand what's going on here, but thanks. As I said, all things are not equal. That's why one is acceptable and one is not, and what is annoying is that both of you know this but are acting like it's a valid argument.

Hold on a second...

You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?

Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?

They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.

Excellent point and as always well made. The parallels were there to see and some felt it necessary to be derisory to this plain as day logic.

And to the point that putting a needle in an arm of a monster makes us worse?? WORSE -??? That comment is so bizarrely poor I can't even start to work out the logic that brought it to being typed. Society doesn't seek to murder those people in a deranged way that they inflicted themselves - and that's the only way such events could be truely considered like for like.

Believe me - I'm anti DP. But some of the comments in the last few pages have just beggared belief

PJ_Soul

pdalowsky wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I do understand what's going on here, but thanks. As I said, all things are not equal. That's why one is acceptable and one is not, and what is annoying is that both of you know this but are acting like it's a valid argument.

Hold on a second...

You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?

Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?

They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.

Excellent point and as always well made. The parallels were there to see and some felt it necessary to be derisory to this plain as day logic.

And to the point that putting a needle in an arm of a monster makes us worse?? WORSE -??? That comment is so bizarrely poor I can't even start to work out the logic that brought it to being typed. Society doesn't seek to murder those people in a deranged way that they inflicted themselves - and that's the only way such events could be truely considered like for like.

Believe me - I'm anti DP. But some of the comments in the last few pages have just beggared belief

I still think it's a terrible point.
I NEVER said that thing about the government being worse, to be clear. I simply said that murder is murder. It's not more right when the government does it than when some private citizen does it.

JimmyV

PJ_Soul wrote:

They have been operating under the assumption that the have no doubt about those on death row or in prison for life, and currently assume that ... yet innocent people are still getting convicted once in a while.

Agreed, but because states like Texas and Georgia cannot get their shit together does not mean that the shit cannot be gotten together. I would estimate that at least 80% of the time when the death penalty is currently used it should not be. Because the crime does not warrant it, or there is a smidge of doubt, etc. Those instances need to be eliminated. That does not mean that there are not guilty criminals deserving to die for their crimes.