Capital Punishment [Archive] - House of Politics

The_Giver

04-28-2007, 03:37 AM

Sorry, calling a thing by a name doesn't make that thing what you call it. Murder is defined as one human being taking it upon him or herself to kill another human being. Capital punishment doesn't fit that description no matter how hard you try and spin it.

Capital punishment is punishment duely carried out in accordance with out legal system and calling it murder is no more than liberal hand wringing.

And more important than the possibility of an innocent individual being executed after exhausting the full appeals process built into the legal system is the very real number of innocent people who have been killed by killers who were released from the system only to kill more people. Had they been executed, they would not have found a loophole or a hand wringing liberal to let them out into society again.

Humans are not infallible--why should we negate the right for someone to "punish" someone else when the government is allowed to do this and get away with it? You are not God, you dont have the right to kill me as I do not have the right to kill another. No matter how well you try to pamper this you know quite well that deep down, NO ONE has the right to decide who lives or who dies. You brush off the whole punishing" of an innocent men so easily? Is the "conservative rhetoric" that "sh*t happens"?

I don't know why you assume I am some crazy liberal... I just stand by what seems just and you thinking "government sponsored killing" is something to support is somthing I don't undertand.... you the palerider who claims government has too much power.... guess what? This is one more thing they have power over.. the minute your life ends.

I am not religious, but I am quite surprised by the hypocrisy I can see in this thread. Please indicate where you are granted the right to "punish" someone because they "punished" someone else?

r0beph

05-01-2007, 11:45 PM

I myself don't like capital punishment. Premeditated murder requires a certain type of person. The problem is punitive justice systems. Corrective justice would be more serving than punitive. Deterrence won't stop someone who is bent on committing crime, if it did there would be miraculously no crime. There is no proving a negative statement, one cannot show any data that can be accurate in saying, "this system deterred those who would have commited crime {X}" it simply isn't possible to prove or disprove, it's pure speculation and quite superlative. Corrective justice however can be proven, Criminal enters system (which has deterrent effects as well since it's still imprisonment) and is helped with specific programs tailored to their mental deficit that causes their criminal behaviors. Sociopathic behaviors tend to lend to murder/abuse/etc someone being imprisoned for abuse / assault / battery etc who is worked with psychological to help with his- let's say he's been determined to suffer from a generic sociopathic behavior disorder, this could be graphed to show number of a&b/abuse etc statistically align with the murder rate - increased or median results so no real help in this application or decrease would show it does work. Unfortunately we're more content with just locking them away, institutionalizing them or killing them, I know it may seem I've veered off topic but the fact remains VERY few murderers had a clean criminal record when they first committed the murder. They've previously been picked up, incarcerated, and so on. So if you can catch these behaviors early perhaps help a percentage even just small number, then perhaps the downhill path to murderous intent can be stifled early. I'm no psychologist so I can't really make any claims to the validity of this ideology however it just seems most logical to me, and logic is where it's at in my book.

Bunz

06-04-2007, 01:14 AM

Im gonna keep this short and to the point for the most part. Firstly it is up the the individual states whether or not they have the death penalty. Although it is usable under federal guidelines it is rarely used(I believe Tim McVeigh was the last one). My issue with the death penalty is not whether it exsists or not, it is how it is carried out in an arbitrary manner. Minorities are much more likely to be sentanced to death, and the wealthy vs. poor is even more alarming. So if your going to have a death penalty, everyone should get it if they commit and are convicted of the capital crime. Once there is irrefutable evidence that person X did commit the capital crime, the execution should be handed down within a much, much shorter period of time, lets say a week. You kill someone and are convicted of 1st degree murder, they shoot the criminal within the week, no questions asked. If the government is not willing to apply the same standards of capital punishment to all, then it shouldnt be applied to any.

9sublime

06-04-2007, 07:04 AM

My view is that you shouldn't have the death penatly, but life in prison. And by that I mean life in prison, not a life sentence (e.g. 30 years). At least then no innocent people will be killed as a punishment, and they have to live with what they did in god awful conditions (bread and water).

Coyote

06-04-2007, 08:14 AM

I oppose the death penalty for a variety of reasons.

For one - it is not a deterrant. In most cases the death penalty is not a deterrent in that most murders involve spur-of-the-moment passion. I honestly don't think most murderers think about the death penalty before they pull the trigger.

I tend to agree with Clarence Darrow (in the Leopold-Loeb Murder Trial of the late 1920's): "...it's better to lock the murderer up for life and study him in the hope of understanding ,and thereby preventing, some future murder."

In addition, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. The South accounts for 80% of US executions and has the highest regional murder rate.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/stategraph99.gif

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/MurderRateGraph.gif

This leads me to think that the death penalty has little effect on murder rates and more likely something else is driving that.

The other reason I totally disagree with the death penalty is that it is inequitable. If the death penalty were fairly applied across race and class and crime I might in theory support it. But the reality of it is that isn't and probably never will be.

Race, sex and ethnicity is a factor - whether it is the race of the victim, or the race or sex of the perpretrator. Statistics show that a black person is much more likely to have his case remanded to the death penalty phaze then a white person and a black person committing a crime on a white person is much more likely then a black on black crime. Likewise men are many more times likely to face the death penalty then women.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=5&did=184

Class plays a role in who gets the death penalty and who gets life. Poor people are much more likely to recieve the death penalty for the same crime as rich people.

Lastly - the question of executing an innocent person. More and more death row cases are being challanged with new evidence and exonerated. Of course, once their dead there is no longer much push to prove innocence so we have no idea how many innocent people might have been executed. Dead is dead. As long as there is any question whatsoever of innocence, I can not support the death penalty.

Frankly, why not life in prison - no parole - in reality, not theory?

vyo476

06-04-2007, 08:37 AM

I think we should resurrect the penal colony system and send them all to the moon.

Dave

06-04-2007, 09:12 AM

I support the death penalty because it is the only acceptable punishment for many murder cases. I firmly believe in the "eye for an eye" concept.

I hear many in the opposing camp saying "what if we make a mistake and punish someone that's innocent?" The same question could be asked of any punishment. By that logic there should be no prison system at all.

Coyote, I'm trying to find a nice way of saying this, but I think I'm going to get labeled as something I'm not regardless of how I put it. One thing I noticed about your graph is that just about every state that falls below the national average in homicide rates has ..um...no racial diversity. With the exception of New York, and to an extent Pennsylavania, these states don't have big cities and the crime that goes along with them. Your graph is a bit misleading on this point.

Coyote

06-04-2007, 10:17 AM

I support the death penalty because it is the only acceptable punishment for many murder cases. I firmly believe in the "eye for an eye" concept.

I hear many in the opposing camp saying "what if we make a mistake and punish someone that's innocent?" The same question could be asked of any punishment. By that logic there should be no prison system at all.

The same question? Not at all. Other options do not end a life if mistakes are made. Death is death and as far as I know - irrevocable.

Coyote, I'm trying to find a nice way of saying this, but I think I'm going to get labeled as something I'm not regardless of how I put it. One thing I noticed about your graph is that just about every state that falls below the national average in homicide rates has ..um...no racial diversity. With the exception of New York, and to an extent Pennsylavania, these states don't have big cities and the crime that goes along with them. Your graph is a bit misleading on this point.

They also don't have the death penalty. Also look at the graph showing death penalty states and their neighboring non-death penalty states - for example MA/CT where demographics are quite similar.

Dave

06-04-2007, 10:42 AM

The same question? Not at all. Other options do not end a life if mistakes are made. Death is death and as far as I know - irrevocable.

They also don't have the death penalty. Also look at the graph showing death penalty states and their neighboring non-death penalty states - for example MA/CT where demographics are quite similar.

So youve found a way to turn back time and give people those years of their life back that they spent in prison? Good to know.

Actually, if you look at the demographic information, CT is a little more "diverse" than MA. The only real flaw I've found in my argument is West Virginia and Virginia. West Virginia is about 95% white and has no death penalty. Virginia is much more diverse, more big cities, and has the death penalty. Virginia has a lower homicide rate.

I'd like to clarify my position a little. I'm not saying that non-white people cause crime. Far from it. I'm simply saying that historically, diversity causes tension and a segregating of people by race leads to certain races having more problems than others, and that leads to violence.

Coyote

06-04-2007, 12:45 PM

So youve found a way to turn back time and give people those years of their life back that they spent in prison? Good to know.

No, you can't do that - but you can free them. If they are dead...what then?

Actually, if you look at the demographic information, CT is a little more "diverse" than MA. The only real flaw I've found in my argument is West Virginia and Virginia. West Virginia is about 95% white and has no death penalty. Virginia is much more diverse, more big cities, and has the death penalty. Virginia has a lower homicide rate.

I'd like to clarify my position a little. I'm not saying that non-white people cause crime. Far from it. I'm simply saying that historically, diversity causes tension and a segregating of people by race leads to certain races having more problems than others, and that leads to violence.

I strongly suspect that homocide statistics have little to do with the application of the death penalty or not and more to do with demographics and economics. Poverty often drives crime and inflames racial tensions. So I would probably agree with you on that.

Dave

06-04-2007, 08:36 PM

No, you can't do that - but you can free them. If they are dead...what then?

I strongly suspect that homocide statistics have little to do with the application of the death penalty or not and more to do with demographics and economics. Poverty often drives crime and inflames racial tensions. So I would probably agree with you on that.

My point is that all forms of punishment are irreversable. If you whip someone they will still have scars. If you imprison them they will still have lost those years they are in prison. If someone is found innocent, you can free them and maybe give them a few dollars for their time, but you can't undo the punishment, you can only lessen it. I would think that a monetary compensation for wrongful death would work for the families of people put to death.

One more thing I found in the study you posted was the issue of Michigan and Ohio. Similar demographics in the same area, but Ohio has lower homicide statistics. Ohio has the death penalty, Michigan does not.

But that's not really what I base my argument on. I base it on the fact that death is the only acceptable punishment for murder. I can't look a victims family in the eye and tell them that a jury has found someone guilty of killing their loved one, but we are going to show him better treatment than he showed his victims. I support the death penalty because it is simply the right thing to do.

Blue

06-23-2007, 02:09 PM

Capital punishment isn't a deterrent, it is punishment.

I agree with you. But I have some reservations. I can't accept some crimes like serial assault or killing many people.

If we mention about these kinds of guilts, I don't think that another punishment is useful. Because there is a destruction of others' lives. In this point deterrence is not important I think.

Coyote

06-23-2007, 03:43 PM

My point is that all forms of punishment are irreversable. If you whip someone they will still have scars. If you imprison them they will still have lost those years they are in prison. If someone is found innocent, you can free them and maybe give them a few dollars for their time, but you can't undo the punishment, you can only lessen it. I would think that a monetary compensation for wrongful death would work for the families of people put to death.

But you are STILL alive - in all those examples, you are STILL alive. You may have scars but you still have your life. And no amount of money can ever compensate for a wrongful death - just ask a murder victims family.

JavaBlack

06-25-2007, 10:51 AM

I am anti-death penalty.
I have several reasons:
1. I do not believe it has a major deterrent effect (there is a study that suggests otherwise, but I feel it is a product of poor methodology... not only that but if it's correct, it basically suggests we need regular executions to keep the effect in place... a demand for executions seems pretty disturbing to me).
2. People can find spiritual awakening in prison and do good works... even if they will never be allowed out of prison again.
3. When you execute an innocent, you cannot pardon him later.

#3 is my main argument, and as such I am able to accept the death penalty in rare occurrences... when the crime is disturbing, the murderer shows no remorse, and the murderer has an overwhelming amount of evidence against him, including a confession.
I can also see the point in executing certain figures, ie dethroned dictators, who might be dangerous from behind bars in inspiring more violence. But obviously this is not a common thing.

USMC the Almighty

06-26-2007, 02:44 AM

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in being pro-abortion, anti-death penalty?

JavaBlack

06-26-2007, 08:57 AM

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in being pro-abortion, anti-death penalty?

No more than being pro-death penalty, anti-abortion.
Frankly I'm not fond of either practice. I can tolerate the death penalty on rare occasions. I don't think criminalizing abortion really helps to stop them and there are some rare occasions where abortion is not so bad.

For people who are pro-choice and anti-death penalty, it's a matter of individual autonomy. Fetuses are not seen as living humans in their own right, while developed humans in prison are.

USMC the Almighty

06-26-2007, 09:02 AM

No more than being pro-death penalty, anti-abortion.

So killing innocent unborns is fine, but convicted rapists and murders -- they have a right to live?

JavaBlack

06-26-2007, 09:49 AM

So killing innocent unborns is fine, but convicted rapists and murders -- they have a right to live?
If you believe in human rights and do not consider unborns to be fully developed humans, then yes.
But very few people are actually 100% pro-choice and 100% anti-death penalty. There are extreme differences between the two issues:
1. The death penalty is a state action. It's easy to stop. Just don't let the state do it. There. Solved.
Abortion, on the other hand, does not stop when criminalized. It is a more complex issue that requires paying attention to why abortions occur. Most people who lean pro-choice see abortions as awful... but believe criminalization will actually create bigger problems.
2. A state-sanctioned killing is a killing using the tax money of people who are against it.
3. People don't always see abortion as a killing of a life. It is seen as a prevention of life by some... which makes it only marginally different from use of contraception.

For all these reasons there are people who will believe in one and not the other.
It's for reason #1 chiefly that I am against the death penalty completely while being more gray on abortion. I'd rather stop the demand for abortion than attempt to police it.

Coyote

06-26-2007, 09:54 AM

Do you not see the inherent contradiction in being pro-abortion, anti-death penalty?

It's the same contradiction that exists in being pro-death penalty, anti-choice.

USMC the Almighty

06-26-2007, 11:37 AM

It's the same contradiction that exists in being pro-death penalty, anti-choice.

No it's not. There's a difference between unborn, innocent people who have never committed a crime and those guilty of premeditated, cold-blooded murder.

BTW -- nice touch with the "anti-choice". I guess that makes you anti-life.

Coyote

06-26-2007, 12:09 PM

No it's not. There's a difference between unborn, innocent people who have never committed a crime and those guilty of premeditated, cold-blooded murder.

BTW -- nice touch with the "anti-choice". I guess that makes you anti-life.

Excuse me, but I chose my words in direct reaction to your choice of words: pro-abortion rather than pro-choice.

Death penalty is the taking of human life.

In practice - innocent people can and likely have been executed.

The death penalty works on the principle that if a few innocent people are killed, it's ok because the majority are guilty so greater good is more important then the individual.

Not to different then pro-life.

USMC the Almighty

06-26-2007, 12:15 PM

Excuse me, but I chose my words in direct reaction to your choice of words: pro-abortion rather than pro-choice.

No, a direct reaction to my choice of words would've been calling me "anti-abortion".

The death penalty works on the principle that if a few innocent people are killed, it's ok because the majority are guilty so greater good is more important then the individual.

Where do you get this idea?

Coyote

06-26-2007, 12:18 PM

No, a direct reaction to my choice of words would've been calling me "anti-abortion".

Not at all.

The positive words for our respective positions are:

Pro-life
Pro-choice

The perforative words are:
Pro-abortion
Anti-choice

I am not pro-abortion.

Where do you get this idea?[/QUOTE]

Because that is the way it works in practice.

USMC the Almighty

06-26-2007, 12:21 PM

Not at all.

The positive words for our respective positions are:

Pro-life
Pro-choice

The perforative words are:
Pro-abortion
Anti-choice

I still don't agree. I'm Pro-Life. You're Pro-Choice. If you were to rephrase my position in a negative fashion, you would make your position "anti-choice". Likewise, I would do "anti-life".

Pro/anti-abortion is entirely different.

OPGhostdog

06-26-2007, 12:26 PM

Damn...It seems to me that the two subjects (Abortions & The Death
Penalty) is being confused. Sure even if they both is a mark of death.
They are completely different. There's NO WAY none of you are going
to sit on your butts, and tell me that if something should happen to
your loveones...you won't react.

I support any form of punishment as long as it serves its purpose,
and I feel good regardless whatever the outcome was. Years ago,
a so-called friend broke into my house while my girlfriend and I was
sleeping. My lady friend heard the noise before I did so she went
downstairs to investigate. As she was about to come back upstairs
he shot her, and after hearing the shots I woke up.

Back then I always kept my sidearm under my pillow, and that was
the first thing I grabbed after realizing my girl wasn't in the bed.
As I was coming down the stairs he fired off three rounds (which
two missed me, but the third one hit my left leg) I fired back hitting
him just above the heart, and that took him out.

I am NOT sharing this to be bragging, but I am saying that we will
talk that crap until it hits home, and just out of human instinct
we are going to react. To this day I have no shameabout what I
did, and I feel that I served the ass*** with justifiable capital
punishment.

I still have my sidearm and weapon permit, and after having that
experience I am one bitter person that supports the death penalty.

Coyote

06-26-2007, 12:29 PM

I still don't agree. I'm Pro-Life. You're Pro-Choice. If you were to rephrase my position in a negative fashion, you would make your position "anti-choice". Likewise, I would do "anti-life".

Pro/anti-abortion is entirely different.

Well...I choose words to reflect what I feel the real position is - and if someone chooses a word I feel is perjorative, I'll do the same...I apologize if I offended you. I happen to consider my position pro-choice because I might not choose abortion.

palerider

06-26-2007, 12:55 PM

It's the same contradiction that exists in being pro-death penalty, anti-choice.

Every single individual who is executed gets the full benefit of the legal system and is convicted of a crime and sentenced to execution by a jury of his or her peers. Exactly what does each unborn get by way of a day in court? Don't try and claim that anything about capital punishment and abortion are the same.

Coyote

06-26-2007, 07:33 PM

Every single individual who is executed gets the full benefit of the legal system and is convicted of a crime and sentenced to execution by a jury of his or her peers. Exactly what does each unborn get by way of a day in court? Don't try and claim that anything about capital punishment and abortion are the same.

It makes no difference if that executed individual got his day in court but was innocent. None what so ever. He's still just as dead and just as innocent.

Castle

06-26-2007, 08:21 PM

It makes no difference if that executed individual got his day in court but was innocent. None what so ever. He's still just as dead and just as innocent. True, which is why I have my reservations about the death penalty. However, a few facts about abortion disturb me as well. Late term abortions are performed everyday in the US. These so called abortions could survive outside the womb if it was so desired. These babies are absolutely innocent without the need of a trial and their deaths are carried out with these facts in mind. This gives me pause. You?

-Castle

steveox

06-27-2007, 12:10 AM

Im 100% For the death penalty but against legal injection process. JUST BRING BACK THE CHAIR AND THE GAS CHAMBER.

Coyote

06-27-2007, 05:05 AM

True, which is why I have my reservations about the death penalty. However, a few facts about abortion disturb me as well. Late term abortions are performed everyday in the US. These so called abortions could survive outside the womb if it was so desired. These babies are absolutely innocent without the need of a trial and their deaths are carried out with these facts in mind. This gives me pause. You?

-Castle

I don't support late term abortions except in rare cases when the mother's life is in danger. The death penalty - I could support in theory, but not in practice because it is drastically flawed in practice.

Beetle Bailey

06-27-2007, 07:01 AM

Every single individual who is executed gets the full benefit of the legal system and is convicted of a crime and sentenced to execution by a jury of his or her peers. Exactly what does each unborn get by way of a day in court? Don't try and claim that anything about capital punishment and abortion are the same.

Trying to establish some moral equivalency between execution and abortion doesn't really work. Although it is the kind of simplistic, knee jerk logic that appeals to a certain limited mentality.

USMC the Almighty

06-27-2007, 08:15 AM

Trying to establish some moral equivalency between execution and abortion doesn't really work. Although it is the kind of simplistic, knee jerk logic that appeals to a certain limited mentality.

There is no moral equivalency between killing convicted murderers and inncoent unborns.

USMC the Almighty

06-27-2007, 08:18 AM

The death penalty - I could support in theory, but not in practice because it is drastically flawed in practice.

Why? Maybe 20 years ago, but today when in order for there to be the death penalty there needs to be a body and DNA evidence, not to mention motive, means, and opportunity?

And you could make the same argument for regular jailtime. I'm sure there have been people who were sentenced to life and died in prison who were innocent. Does that mean our justice system is "drastically flawed in practice" and should be abolished?

Coyote

06-27-2007, 09:35 AM

Why? Maybe 20 years ago, but today when in order for there to be the death penalty there needs to be a body and DNA evidence, not to mention motive, means, and opportunity?

And you could make the same argument for regular jailtime. I'm sure there have been people who were sentenced to life and died in prison who were innocent. Does that mean our justice system is "drastically flawed in practice" and should be abolished?

The standards of evidence neededto remand to the death penalty phase vary from state to state. There is no requirement to review all the current death penalty cases and check them against modern technology nor is there any current legislation requiring that it meet the most stringent standards of evidence.

The other objection I have to the death penalty is it's inequity in practice - both in terms of the types of crimes for which the death penalty is recommended and in terms of the inequity in race, gender, and class when it is applied.

Are you saying that loss of freedom is the same as loss of life?

USMC the Almighty

06-27-2007, 09:54 AM

Are you saying that loss of freedom is the same as loss of life?

No, but I have often heard opponents of the death penalty use the argument "well life in prison is worse than the death penalty anyway". And given the fact that innocent people have certainly died during the course of the life prison sentence, should we then abolish prisons because there is the potential for an innocent person to be sentenced to a lifetime in jail?

Coyote

06-27-2007, 10:36 AM

No, but I have often heard opponents of the death penalty use the argument "well life in prison is worse than the death penalty anyway". And given the fact that innocent people have certainly died during the course of the life prison sentence, should we then abolish prisons because there is the potential for an innocent person to be sentenced to a lifetime in jail?

I have never heard that argument in opposition to the death penalty.

I have no problem with life in prison - as long as life means life - there are certain crimes where the offender is so dangerous to society there is no alternative. I don't regard it as worse than death. My feeling is, if their names are ever cleared - at least they may well still be alive and compensation can be made. Once they are executed - they can not be brought back to life and an innocent person is killed.

OPGhostdog

06-27-2007, 10:57 AM

Coyote

06-27-2007, 11:05 AM

This is a very serious issue that we're talking about here,
and it seems like its a divided issues. There is a bunch of
facts concerning the death penalty that's being overlooked.
What I can't understand is how is life in prison worse then
the Death Penalty?

To me is topic is just like talking about Pro-life issues, and
Pro-life issues isn't capital punishment (Don't confuse the
two).

If anything I am against a person serving life in prison for
taking someone's life. Do any of you have a clue about
the cost per day to house a prisoner on death roll for
years. Now just picture the cost to have a prison serving
time for killing someone, and living the life in prison off of
the tex payers dollars... Juice their asses.

Well, here is what it comes down to.

The current death penalty is inequitable - race, gender, and class influence which cases get remanded to the death penalty phase. In addition innocent people have been exonerated on death row in increasing numbers. This means it's quite likely that innocent people have been executed.

Innocent is innocent and dead is dead. You can't bring them back to life.

If you support the death penalty as it currently stands then that means you agree that it is ok to kill a few innocent people since most of them are guilty anyway. The greater good outweights the individual good.

USMC the Almighty

06-27-2007, 11:52 AM

Well, here is what it comes down to.

The current death penalty is inequitable - race, gender, and class influence which cases get remanded to the death penalty phase. In addition innocent people have been exonerated on death row in increasing numbers. This means it's quite likely that innocent people have been executed.

Innocent is innocent and dead is dead. You can't bring them back to life.

If you support the death penalty as it currently stands then that means you agree that it is ok to kill a few innocent people since most of them are guilty anyway. The greater good outweights the individual good.

This was true in the past and I would even be okay with removing those not convicted with DNA evidence off death row, but since the mid-90s, DNA evidence has become a requirement in order for capital punishment to be handed down -- there won't be any more death row exonerations once those who were convicted pre-DNA era die off.

USMC the Almighty

06-27-2007, 11:59 AM

I have never heard that argument in opposition to the death penalty.

A quick google search reveals otherwise.

Coyote

06-27-2007, 12:00 PM

A quick google search reveals otherwise.

That doesn't change the fact that I'd never heard that argument before nor do I agree with it.

USMC the Almighty

06-27-2007, 12:02 PM

That doesn't change the fact that I'd never heard that argument before nor do I agree with it.

Fine, but that's still a common argument.

Coyote

06-27-2007, 12:03 PM

This was true in the past and I would even be okay with removing those not convicted with DNA evidence off death row, but since the mid-90s, DNA evidence has become a requirement in order for capital punishment to be handed down -- there won't be any more death row exonerations once those who were convicted pre-DNA era die off.

Has it become a requirement across the board - I ask this because I assumed that in state death penalty cases, it was up to each state?

Once all the inequities are evened out, I might - in reality - support the death penalty for the most heinious offenders.

Rokerijdude11

06-27-2007, 12:49 PM

eye for an eye

Biblical justice?

Coyote

06-27-2007, 12:56 PM

eye for an eye

Biblical justice?

Until everyone is blind.

numinus

07-05-2007, 09:20 AM

Why do you (or why don't you) agree with enforcing the Death Penalty?

Because there is nothing more fundamental to human existence than the right to life, and from which all other rights derive.

Because the state, exercising all the powers inherent in the sovereign will, need not kill to punish.

dahermit

07-05-2007, 11:36 AM

Admittedly there are people who are wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. The trial system needs improvement.

That said, in Michigan there is no death penalty. And, just because a person is sent to prison does not mean that the citizens of Michigan are safe from them. For instance, Jack Budd (I knew him personally and his sister who suffered much from his death), and (cannot remember her first name, McCullough were Michigan prison guards that were killed in recent history. It would appear that if you are already a lifer, you do not have much to lose for additional crimes against guards. My step daughter is a guard, as is her husband, as are many people from my community.

Therefore, "putting someone away for life..." is not always a good substitute for a good long drop on a short rope. Given a life sentence, they are free to victimize other prisoners less vicious than them selves and the guards.

steveox

07-05-2007, 12:43 PM

Go see States like Texas and Florida how theyre dealing with murderers.

dog_canyon

07-06-2007, 04:24 PM

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/execute.jpg

Notice the striking correlation between executions and murders. The more executions, the fewer murders. The fewer executions, the more murders. Just look at when the time period the brief suspension of the death penalty in the U.S. from 1972-1976, the murder rate doubled. Then look at the rise of executions during the 1990s. Notice how this is inversely proportional to the murders occurring during the same time. This is just too obvious to ignore. The death penalty works, and the proof is right in front of your eyes.

Then all you need to do is execute everyone. Voila! No more murders!

ChairmanMeow

08-07-2007, 06:37 PM

The United States is one of the, (if not, the last) western nation to still have capital punishment, other nations who still have the policy include: Egypt, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Laos. . .

I think that says something!

heyjude

08-09-2007, 04:23 PM

Coupled with the extremely high imprisonment rate, the high infant mortality rate, the high poverty rate, and the number of people who have no health insurance and almost no workers protections, what it says is that Americans are a bunch of hard ass red necks.

arbitor

04-09-2008, 06:11 PM

life is precious. so precious that if you take a life in cold blood than its only fair that you give up your own. allowimg someone to kill and not face justice is a disgrace to the value of life. another reason death penalty is good is that we dont have to use our tax dollars to feed and clothe rapists and murders. and it would send a clear message to possible murderers that they will suffer consequences thus greatly lowering homicide rates. it would save countless lives.

9sublime

04-10-2008, 04:45 AM

Haha your signature is are hilarious

arbitor

04-10-2008, 04:45 PM

whatever. those are my enemies. am I not allowed to have enemies? I am a christian thus I am an enemy of atheism. what is wrong with that?

9sublime

04-11-2008, 02:02 AM

Sounds like a radical Muslim... my enemies are the non believers... suppose your not so different after all. Why can't you just keep your religion to yourself and pray for my repentence like you should do according to your texts? Chrisitans aren't supposed to have enemies unless you take your stance from the Crusades or something.

You can have your faith, I'll have mine... or is that asking too much tolerance?

So - lets go through your enemies if you don't mind. Abortion, I don't see how thats an enemy to you. Crime, drugs, gangs, dictatorship, yeah fair enough.

I don't see a real threat being posed by anarchy or communism, and I don't see how in hell you can regard gay marriage, something that wouldn't ever effect you personally but make lots of other people very happy, an enemy.

Abortion, thats hardly something that can be an enemy, and terrorism is a pretty loose word banded around to fit your governments agenda and give it permission to do whatever the hell it wants.

Gun control? So everyone can have a gun, no controls or anything?

Do I know my enemies? Yeah, people who hate everything and everyone that doesn't fit their own personal beliefs and faiths is a good starting point.

arbitor

04-11-2008, 05:43 PM

1)i hate the ideas. i dont hate the person.
2)abortion is mass murder and im not really a fan of that kind of thing.
3) i said atheism is my enemy. i never said i wanted to lead a crusade. i will pray for you and other non beleivers but thats not the only thing i am intended to do. obviously i need to help in the fight against it.
4) when i say gun control i mean the liberals who want to take all our guns away
5)anarchy isnt a threat but it is a seed of rebellion that must be crushed in its early stages.

9sublime

04-12-2008, 04:12 AM

Why does it bother you so much if gays want to get married then?

Abortion is always going to happen, either legally or illegally, and when its backstreet it gets far more messy. Regardless, its not murder when the foetus is barely developed but thats a matter we are never going to be able to resolve.

Anarchy isn't a threat... yet its a seed of rebellion that must be crushed. Sounds like it is a threat to you - and an irrational and nonexistent one at that.

arbitor

04-12-2008, 12:51 PM

1) gay marrige decimates the all marrige stands for. its just another step leading us down this road to moral obolivion
2) if abortion where illegal it would go down saving countless lives. even in its early stages the fetus is a functioning being. it is irrealevent when they abort it. life is life. it doesnt matter how complex. it isnt just any living thing, its a human. not an insect or a clump of cells or an inanimate object.
3) anarchy might be a threat, it might not. but better safe than sorry.

The Scotsman

05-06-2008, 05:04 AM

Sorry for the intrusion and all, but I was reading an article which gobsmacked* me. Apparently Georgia is going to execute a rather loving human being, one William Earl Lynd by lethal injection at a prison in Jackson today. His crimes are legion and nasty yadda yadda yadda .......RIP and all that jazz, anyway...

Now you guys probably all know about this but I nearly choked on my sandwich when I read the following.... coz I've never heard anything this bizzaar....

If Lynd's execution goes ahead, it will be the first since the U.S. Supreme Court on April 16 rejected a challenge to the lethal three-drug cocktail used in most U.S. executions, which opponents had claimed inflicted unnecessary pain.

To quote John McEnroe - YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!! - the death penalty inflicts unnecessary pain!!??? Well sheeeeeit we have an expert on the bleeding obvious. Anyway, people that are about die probably have a tad more on their minds than a prick in the arm!!

Oh boy :rolleyes:

Oh yeah you can feast your eyes on the article, click the linky thingy here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080506/us_nm/usa_execution_dc;_ylt=AlGpQWUlLoCrQU2PfIvRkmAXIr0F )

*Gobsmacked - adjective - to be struckdumb through sheer lunacy

Libsmasher

05-06-2008, 07:18 AM

Coyote

05-06-2008, 07:25 AM

1) gay marrige decimates the all marrige stands for. its just another step leading us down this road to moral obolivion.

Why?

What is "moral oblivion"?

The Scotsman

05-06-2008, 07:57 AM

....All this probably seems to be ridiculously fine points since the person is going to die, ........

Thanks for the background and couldn't agree more but I guess the lawyers need to earn a crust.....hey what I like is that before they inject they dab the arm with the disinfectant :rolleyes:

vyo476

05-06-2008, 09:33 AM

Where the objection comes from is that the US constitution forbids "cruel and unusual" punishment. (There have been endless debates over whether the "and" means "and" or "or"). Some say "cruel" is interpretable by the 18th century standards of the document, in which eg hanging wasn't cruel. Others claim that the standard that should be applied is that contemporary to a particular execution. All this probably seems to be ridiculously fine points since the person is going to die, and it was justice Blackmun who said he was ""no longer tinkering with the machinery of death" (highly ironic, since he was also the author of the Roe. v. Wade decision that resulted in 50 million abortions). This is one issue I have never been able to make my mind up about.

I'm in a similar situation in regards to capital punishment. I did a lot of research on it in high school and it is highly practical in every sense - costs less than imprisonment, doesn't take up the space a prisoner does, prevents that criminal from escaping or even parolling and committing more crimes (a statistical probability), and it's a proven deterrant, both in theory and in practice. For everything it seeks to do, capital punishment is effective.

But that doesn't make it right.

vyo476

05-06-2008, 09:34 AM

Why?

What is "moral oblivion"?

It means that he doesn't believe in any morality except his own.

arbitor

05-07-2008, 09:58 AM

im talking about a society where there are no set morals and everyone does what say see fit. a world where there are no solid beliefs of right and wrong anymore.

Coyote

05-07-2008, 12:39 PM

im talking about a society where there are no set morals and everyone does what say see fit. a world where there are no solid beliefs of right and wrong anymore.

What society would that be? The only one that would seem to fit would be a lawless society or anarchy.

arbitor

05-09-2008, 09:35 AM

Libsmasher

05-09-2008, 09:49 AM

I'm in a similar situation in regards to capital punishment. I did a lot of research on it in high school and it is highly practical in every sense - costs less than imprisonment, doesn't take up the space a prisoner does, prevents that criminal from escaping or even parolling and committing more crimes (a statistical probability), and it's a proven deterrant, both in theory and in practice. For everything it seeks to do, capital punishment is effective.

But that doesn't make it right.

Of the many arguments against capital punishment, I've been impressed by only two:

1. It is a punishment that can never be undone if a person is later found to be innocent. Although nobody can expect a perfect justice system, imprisonments, the only other penalty in the US, can at least be compensated for with money and the erroneously imprisoned person freed.

2. The carrying out of an execution is degrading to a society, independent of whether or not someone deserved it.

arbitor

05-09-2008, 11:02 AM

Of the many arguments against capital punishment, I've been impressed by only two:

1. It is a punishment that can never be undone if a person is later found to be innocent. Although nobody can expect a perfect justice system, imprisonments, the only other penalty in the US, can at least be compensated for with money and the erroneously imprisoned person freed.

some crimes cannot be repaid with money. if someone murders somebody no amount of money will heal the loved ones. you cant release them becuase they are obviously too dangerous. murderers are too dangerous to release back into society.

2. The carrying out of an execution is degrading to a society, independent of whether or not someone deserved it.

i dont see how a country having the balls to do what needs to be done to maintain order is degrading. it is a detterent. you can compare charts of raising hommice rates and lowering death peanalty rate are related. the less we exercise it the more we lose control and the more lives that are lost.

these arguements are meager at best. as you can see we pro-death peanalty people can easily counter the arguements of anti-death peanalty people

arbitor

05-09-2008, 11:03 AM

dang it! why wont the quotes seperate? can someone tell me how to do this?

arbitor

05-09-2008, 11:05 AM

there is this short story you guys should check out.its called "the question" by Stanley Ellin. its a real eye opener.

Mare Tranquillity

05-10-2008, 06:20 PM

perhaps. maybe not lawless but more like a society where moral standards are so small you might as well not have laws. of course legalizing gay marrige wont cuase that by itself but it is simply a step.

Canada? No moral standards? They have gay marriage and they have lower crime stats than we "holy" people.

arbitor

05-12-2008, 11:00 AM

uuh, maybe thats becuase they have about an eighth of our population and its spread out farther. you cant compare us to them. there many factors you are overlooking. that is not even a decent point and you know what? i would really, really, really like to get back to the topic of capital punishment, if thats not too much to ask of you.

The Scotsman

05-12-2008, 12:25 PM

I wish we had capital punishment!

Mare Tranquillity

05-12-2008, 07:39 PM

I wish we had capital punishment!

Capital punishment only has one valuable aspect: it cuts down on recidivism. Other than that it's useless, worse than useless, it's a barbaric anachronism.

numinus

05-13-2008, 10:21 AM

i dont see how a country having the balls to do what needs to be done to maintain order is degrading. it is a detterent. you can compare charts of raising hommice rates and lowering death peanalty rate are related. the less we exercise it the more we lose control and the more lives that are lost.

these arguements are meager at best. as you can see we pro-death peanalty people can easily counter the arguements of anti-death peanalty people

Easily counter, eh?

You wouldn't mind explaining to everyone, then, why a society that considers the right to life INALIENABLE can condone the death penalty?

arbitor

05-13-2008, 11:06 AM

becuase unlike some people we find that life is valuable. so valuable, in fact, that if you take a life than you must give up your own. also, to deny that the death peanalty is a detterant is simply a denial of reality. you cant deny that the death peanalty would make you less likely to commit homcide. in this way it preserves life. you liberals have obviously never been close enough to a rapist or murderer to smell the evil within him. you are so high and rightous you cant imagine anyone not being as high and rightous as yourselves. im sure you would say "why can we exercise the power to take a life?" you know, you could ask that question and we could argue back and forth until the end of time but while we're argueing we have murders and rapists all over our society and endangering our children. my answer to that question is: it has to be done

The Scotsman

05-13-2008, 11:14 AM

Capital punishment only has one valuable aspect: it cuts down on recidivism. Other than that it's useless, worse than useless, it's a barbaric anachronism.

It also allows society to exact vengence which is a very primative and very very powerful emotion and sometimes needs to be vented because .

Over the weekend in South London Jimmy Mizen, a young 16 lad goes into a bakers to buy a roll for his lunch with his older brother. Some guy he's never laid eyes on in his life.... never seen before walks in after him and challenges him to a fight. Jimmy is understandably a bit afraid and says no he just want to buy his lunch and leave. The 19 year old goes outside, gets an advertising board and comes back into the shop and proceeds to smash up the shop in a frenzy of destruction and then with a piece of broken glass slashes Jimmy's throat. Minutes later the 16 year old dies in his brothers arms.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=565821&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

They've just arrested the 19 year old today. I hope someone kills him, slowly...deliberately..... causing so much pain that the bastard screams to be put out of his misery! And then I hope they torture him some more, finally when he's dead I wish they'd just throw the bastards body onto a council scrap heap and let the animals eat what's left of it!

But you're right capital punishment is a barbaric crime and people would never stoop to being so barbaric themselves would they because we live in a utopia!

Mare, unfortunately I am a member of the hang-em-high brigade because I think that some people are just not worth keeping alive at the expense of taxpayers. I believe that some people are just worthless pieces of humanity that do not deserve there place on this planet. I believe that that some people should be swiftly and decisively put out of society's misery because they and inherently evil.

You will quite rightly take issue with that, however, ..... I really don't care!

Sorry rant over but this really touched a nerve!

9sublime

05-13-2008, 11:33 AM

I love it how conservatives invariably support the death penalty, but get wound up about the idea of 4 undeveloped cells in a mothers womb being terminated.

Mare Tranquillity

05-13-2008, 07:35 PM

It also allows society to exact vengence which is a very primative and very very powerful emotion and sometimes needs to be vented because .
You present a strong emotional argument, I can't argue with your emotions--they're yours. I can disagree with you conclusions though.

Killing people who kill people to teach people not to kill people has been proven not to work, arbiter is wrong, the death penalty is not a deterent and never has been shown to be one.

There are alternatives to the death penalty and my favorite one is this: there are islands in the South Pacific large enough to hold a good-sized prison population, I think we should take one of those islands that is a long way from anyplace else and put incorrigible criminals there to prey on each other. Give them tools with which to garden and raise their own food, but remove any trees big enough to make a raft. Station a couple of gun boats to go 'round and 'round the island just in case. The only people who would go to this island are the ones who demonstrate that they cannot be allowed to live in civilized society, the ones who cannot be rehabilitated or do not wish to be. This would be considerably more humane than decades of imprisonment or release back into a vlunerable society. Anyone on the island who didn't wish to be there could swim out and drown or be eaten by sharks--a merciful choice when compared to some of the things they have visited on the rest of us.

Mare Tranquillity

05-13-2008, 07:37 PM

I love it how conservatives invariably support the death penalty, but get wound up about the idea of 4 undeveloped cells in a mothers womb being terminated.

It's a case of that "judgment" that the Bible says we cannot make, those 4 cells are innocent, but the criminal is guilty. Funny how they skip over all the innocent people who have been executed.

The Scotsman

05-14-2008, 12:43 AM

There are alternatives to the death penalty and my favorite one is this: there are islands in the South Pacific large enough to hold a good-sized prison population, I think we should take one of those islands that is a long way from anyplace else and put incorrigible criminals there to prey on each other. Give them tools with which to garden and raise their own food, but remove any trees big enough to make a raft. Station a couple of gun boats to go 'round and 'round the island just in case. The only people who would go to this island are the ones who demonstrate that they cannot be allowed to live in civilized society, the ones who cannot be rehabilitated or do not wish to be. This would be considerably more humane than decades of imprisonment or release back into a vlunerable society. Anyone on the island who didn't wish to be there could swim out and drown or be eaten by sharks--a merciful choice when compared to some of the things they have visited on the rest of us.

Yup - a viable alternative in my book.

Gruinard Island an island in the Inner Hebrides off Western Scotland gained fame in the 40s and 50s as Military used it to test chemical and biological weapons. I think to this day it is still extremely dangerous to humans - its nick name is "Antrax Island". A candidate for your colony perhaps :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Gruinard_Island.jpg/800px-

9sublime

05-14-2008, 01:57 AM

There are alternatives to the death penalty and my favorite one is this: there are islands in the South Pacific large enough to hold a good-sized prison population, I think we should take one of those islands that is a long way from anyplace else and put incorrigible criminals there to prey on each other. Give them tools with which to garden and raise their own food, but remove any trees big enough to make a raft. Station a couple of gun boats to go 'round and 'round the island just in case. The only people who would go to this island are the ones who demonstrate that they cannot be allowed to live in civilized society, the ones who cannot be rehabilitated or do not wish to be. This would be considerably more humane than decades of imprisonment or release back into a vlunerable society. Anyone on the island who didn't wish to be there could swim out and drown or be eaten by sharks--a merciful choice when compared to some of the things they have visited on the rest of us.

That sounds like an epic waste of tax payers money which those individuals do not deserve.

The Scotsman

05-14-2008, 04:48 AM

That sounds like an epic waste of tax payers money which those individuals do not deserve.

Which individuals are you refering to Sub? Those victims of the crimes who pay their taxes or the ones that commit the crimes?

Without wanting to delve to deeply into the fiscal side of Mare's idea (although we could recruit KPMG if required) it would seem that it's tax beneficial! I don't have the figures at hand, however, the costs incurred in keeping those hard done by prisoners in bed and munchies for years at a time costs a wee bitty more that shoving them on an island I suspect. Tools and equipment provided for their self sufficiency would be a minimal cost and letting them fend for themselves incurrs no further burden upon the tax payer - win win situation if you ask me and carbon neutral!!! We could fulfil our Kyoto obligations at little cost to the economy.... briliant doncha think!!!

And the ever sticky question of Human Rights! Well, its their Island and can do what they like on it surely. These gentlemen, finally living in the kind of environment they wanted, would have on problem communicating grievences to other inmates thus, if one's not happy with Big Nosher smacking you round the head on a more than regular basis or indeed find it a bit inconvinient having anal sex with 20 unshaven, hairy arsed beasties in one go, well then politely suggest that they refrain and discuss alternative avenues of entertainment....basket weaving for example!

Mare Tranquillity

05-14-2008, 04:52 AM

That sounds like an epic waste of tax payers money which those individuals do not deserve.

It would be cheaper than what we have now by a factor of at least 10. No guards, no super-max prisons, no cost for food, clothing, shelter, or medical care, no supervision, only a couple of gun boats and maybe with satellite imaging we could do away with those. It's fantastically expensive to keep incorrigible inmates in prison--more expensive than sending kids to college, plus we always have the chance of escape or parole with their attendant possiblility of reoffense.

It would also remove the issue of capital punishment from the political discourse, we would not have to take the responsibility of killing people. It would be up to the incorrigibles on the island who would live and who would die--and on their head be it.

arbitor

05-14-2008, 09:36 AM

I love it how conservatives invariably support the death penalty, but get wound up about the idea of 4 undeveloped cells in a mothers womb being terminated.

I love it how liberals are too dumb to understand the difference between an inocent child and a murderous felon.

numinus

05-14-2008, 10:12 AM

becuase unlike some people we find that life is valuable. so valuable, in fact, that if you take a life than you must give up your own.

Not really.

The constitution operates on the principle that there are certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS. These rights are NOT granted by the state. They exist INSEPARABLE FROM THE HUMAN PERSON.

First among these inalienable rights is the RIGHT TO LIVE.

So again -- how do you reconcile state murder with this principle?

also, to deny that the death peanalty is a detterant is simply a denial of reality. you cant deny that the death peanalty would make you less likely to commit homcide. in this way it preserves life.

Actually, I do deny that it is a deterrent.

What deters crime is the INEVITABILITY OF CAPTURE, which has something to do with the efficiency of law enforcement, rather than PUNISHMENT.

And since you happily go about spouting deterrent, would you mind citing some credible study to back that up?

you liberals have obviously never been close enough to a rapist or murderer to smell the evil within him.

Actually, I don't consider myself a liberal. And I have been close enough to a murder. Occupational hazzard.

you are so high and rightous you cant imagine anyone not being as high and rightous as yourselves. im sure you would say "why can we exercise the power to take a life?"

Mere contemplation of the law should suffice. You should try it some time.

you know, you could ask that question and we could argue back and forth until the end of time but while we're argueing we have murders and rapists all over our society and endangering our children. my answer to that question is: it has to be done

So, why don't you answer the question?

numinus

05-14-2008, 10:15 AM

That sounds like an epic waste of tax payers money which those individuals do not deserve.

The operation of law isn't about saving money -- it is about dispensing justice according to PRINCIPLES that apply to everyone.

All human beings deserve this.

9sublime

05-14-2008, 11:26 AM

I love it how liberals are too dumb to understand the difference between an inocent child and a murderous felon.

Please explain to me how 4 undeveloped cells gain the tag innocent?... and that its also ok to potentially kill an innocent person if they are wrongly convicited of a capital offence?

Mare Tranquillity

05-14-2008, 12:20 PM

I love it how liberals are too dumb to understand the difference between an inocent child and a murderous felon.

I love how Christians ignore the admonishment "judge not" in the Bible. Arbiter, do you know how many murderous felons have been executed only to be prove innocent later?

arbitor

05-15-2008, 09:39 AM

Not really.

The constitution operates on the principle that there are certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS. These rights are NOT granted by the state. They exist INSEPARABLE FROM THE HUMAN PERSON.

First among these inalienable rights is the RIGHT TO LIVE.

So again -- how do you reconcile state murder with this principle?

you know, there are some rights that are granted to the state that are not listed in the constitution. also you forgeting that this criminal already took away those inalienable from someone else. therefore their right is forfiet becuase there is no way to give back the right they took away.

Actually, I do deny that it is a deterrent.

What deters crime is the INEVITABILITY OF CAPTURE, which has something to do with the efficiency of law enforcement, rather than PUNISHMENT.

tell me, how is the weather in the little fantasy world you live in? they are afraid to be cuaght, not punished? that makes SO much sense. so youre saying nobody is afraid to die?

So, why don't you answer the question?

i just did moron. it has to be done. thats my anwser.

arbitor

05-15-2008, 09:53 AM

Please explain to me how 4 undeveloped cells gain the tag innocent?... and that its also ok to potentially kill an innocent person if they are wrongly convicited of a capital offence?

4 undeveloped cells? are you serious? you need to learn some science. they are made of millions of cells idiot. and those "cells" have a heartbeat and a nervous system. they are as human as you or me. im sure you would say "theyre tiny they arent fully developed" well heres a news flash. NEITHER ARE CHILDREN UNTIL NEAR THE END OF THEIR TEEN YEARS. while youre at it why dont you take away midgets rights. theyre not as big as you therefore they are less of a human right?

is it ok to kill a innocent person? duuuhhhhhhh let me think for a second............................... of course it isnt! dont ask such stupid rhetorical questions. guess what? the world isnt a perfect place ok? some people may be innocently convicted but thats life. you cant just destroy death peanalty for those rare cases. if you want someone to blame then blame the people on the jurry. i feel like im talking to a child here.

9sublime

05-15-2008, 10:03 AM

4 undeveloped cells? are you serious? you need to learn some science. they are made of millions of cells idiot. and those "cells" have a heartbeat and a nervous system. they are as human as you or me. im sure you would say "theyre tiny they arent fully developed" well heres a news flash. NEITHER ARE CHILDREN UNTIL NEAR THE END OF THEIR TEEN YEARS. while youre at it why dont you take away midgets rights. theyre not as big as you therefore they are less of a human right?

No need for calling me an idiot - especially as you've only shown yourself to be one. Upon conception, believe in ensoulment. However, upon conception the foetus is only made up of the sperm and the egg, 1 second before they join neither of them are regarded as innocent or ensouled - please tell me how this quick change deserves the tag innocent and ensouled?

Of course children aren't fully developed, but they can feel pain and experience emotions unlike the cells that are created straight after a sperm and an egg join. A few cells in a mothers womb are not worthy of the same rights as a child or a fully grown human on death row.

is it ok to kill a innocent person? duuuhhhhhhh let me think for a second............................... of course it isnt! dont ask such stupid rhetorical questions. guess what? the world isnt a perfect place ok? some people may be innocently convicted but thats life. you cant just destroy death peanalty for those rare cases. if you want someone to blame then blame the people on the jurry. i feel like im talking to a child here.

So its OK to accept the word isn't a perfect place when it comes to capital punishment, but when it comes to abortion the idea that the mothers life may not be perfect goes straight out the window. Illogical hypocrisy.

Rather than saying duuuuhhhh and calling me an idiot try and formulate a proper argument with logical consitency, I think you are probably a child that is not fully formed.

arbitor

05-15-2008, 10:52 AM

No need for calling me an idiot - especially as you've only shown yourself to be one. Upon conception, believe in ensoulment. However, upon conception the foetus is only made up of the sperm and the egg, 1 second before they join neither of them are regarded as innocent or ensouled - please tell me how this quick change deserves the tag innocent and ensouled?

quick change? they are not aware of the pregnancy the moment the egg is fertilized first of all, so by the time they realize it, the baby is already starting to form. secondly, mabye YOU need a lesson on how the fetus is made. an egg is like a blank human shell. and the sperm is the genetic codes (eg. hair color, eye color ect.) seperate they are nothing but together they form a human. i know this a vague discription but its basicly the process in a nutshell.

Of course children aren't fully developed, but they can feel pain and experience emotions

oh i see. they cant feel it, therefore it is okay to kill them. so if you kill someone painlessly it is ok?

unlike the cells that are created straight after a sperm and an egg join.

arent you "straight after a sperm and egg join" too?

A few cells in a mothers womb are not worthy of the same rights as a child or a fully grown human on death row.

again with the "a few cells" thing. oh well. once a liar always a lair i suppose.

So its OK to accept the word isn't a perfect place when it comes to capital punishment, but when it comes to abortion the idea that the mothers life may not be perfect goes straight out the window. Illogical hypocrisy.

see, YOU are taking my words to an illogical extent. im saying the world isnt perfect so there will be flaws in the justice system and YOU are saying someone can do whatever they want becuase nothing is perfect. im not illogical or a hypocrite. you are the one being irrational

Rather than saying duuuuhhhh and calling me an idiot try and formulate a proper argument with logical consitency, I think you are probably a child that is not fully formed.

i did formulate valid arguement. i think you may be an adult but i doubt your mind is fully developed (not that it will ever be). and what do you expect me to say when you make all these ridiculusly ignorant comments?

9sublime

05-15-2008, 11:34 AM

So, instead of attack what I have said, maybe because your out of ammunition, you attakc me personally.

Check mate.

The Scotsman

05-15-2008, 02:31 PM

Hi Sub - handbags at 10 paces with the colonials I see....I'll see if I can rustle up a cuppa for you at half time ;)

Look mate all squabbling aside for a sec and forgetting the distraction of feotal cells and all that jazz.... why can't a population expect a degree of vengence from its penal code?

I think you have to sate that herd desire for justice and I mean justice with a capital JUSTICE...for example our wee island is packed to the gunnals and if somats not done about the black's in London knifing themselves to pieces everyday for example there will be vigilanties on the street pretty soon. I mean this turd Bigdy that was knifed in Oxford Street the other day deserved everything he got judging by the form he had. I can see that kind of street justice burgeoning!

I think liberalism is fine if everything is tickertyboo in the world but it ain't buddy...we're floundering around in a cesspit with so much tension and violence and weak ineffective leadership. Strong leadership mate, that's what's called for at the moment and if that means draconian laws for a while then it has to be! The quality of governance is lacking in our society we need to get it back.

numinus

05-16-2008, 07:41 AM

you know, there are some rights that are granted to the state that are not listed in the constitution.

What an idiot you are!

The rights you are talking about, privacy for one, NECESSARILY AND LOGICALLY FOLLOWS from the rights mentioned in the constitution.

also you forgeting that this criminal already took away those inalienable from someone else. therefore their right is forfiet becuase there is no way to give back the right they took away.

Only a complete dunce would mix up the principles of the american constitution with the code of hammurabi (eye for an eye).

tell me, how is the weather in the little fantasy world you live in? they are afraid to be cuaght, not punished? that makes SO much sense. so youre saying nobody is afraid to die?

i just did moron. it has to be done. thats my anwser.

More pleasant than in idiotsville where you live, I'm afraid.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w5268

Steven D. Levitt

NBER Working Paper No. 5268*
Issued in September 1995
NBER Program(s): PE

---- Abstract -----

A strong, negative empirical correlation exists between arrest rates and reported crime rates. While this relationship has often been interpreted as support for the deterrence hypothesis, it is equally consistent with incapacitation effects, and/or a spurious correlation that would be induced by measurement error in reported crime rates. This paper attempts to discriminate between deterrence, incapacitation, and measurement error as explanations for the empirical relationship between arrest rates and crime. Using a modified version of the techniques of Griliches and Hausman (1986) for dealing with measurement error in panel data, this paper first demonstrates that the presence of measurement error does not appear to explain the observed relationship between arrest rates and crime rates. To differentiate between deterrence and incapacitation, the impact of changes in the arrest rate for one crime on the rate of other crimes is examined. In contrast to the effect of increased arrests for one crime on the commission of that crime, where deterrence and incapacitation are indistinguishable, it is demonstrated that these two forces act in opposite directions when looking across crimes. Incapacitation suggests that an increase in the arrest rate for one crime will reduce all crime rates; deterrence predicts that an increase in the arrest rate for one crime will lead to a rise in other crimes as criminals substitute away from the first crime. Empirically, deterrence appears to be the more important factor, particularly for property crimes.

*Published: Levitt, Steven D. "Why Do Increased Arrest Rates Appear To Reduce Crime: Deterrence, Incapacitation, Or Measurement Error?," Economic Inquiry, 1998, v36(3,Jul), 353-372.

Duh?

numinus

05-16-2008, 07:45 AM

i did formulate valid arguement. i think you may be an adult but i doubt your mind is fully developed (not that it will ever be). and what do you expect me to say when you make all these ridiculusly ignorant comments?

You offered an argument that is NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND LOGIC --hence, INVALID.

Duh?

arbitor

05-16-2008, 09:41 AM

arbitor

05-16-2008, 09:43 AM

So, instead of attack what I have said, maybe because your out of ammunition, you attakc me personally.

Check mate.

how am i attacking you personaly? im attacking your comments. its not like im insulting your mother.

bododie

05-16-2008, 09:59 AM

I don't feel that I should have to feed someone who murdered someone else for the rest of his "life without parole" sentence. If you willfully take another life for greedy purposes, then why do YOU deserve to live? Of course it would be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers if everyone got a life sentence, and the length of that sentence was decided by who out of the kindness of their heart wanted to keep paying to feed you. When "donations" run out, so does your life sentence.

arbitor

05-16-2008, 10:12 AM

im supprised all the peolpe on this thread just keep on overlooking the fact that THIS PERSON KILLED SOMEONE FOR THEIR OWN SELFISH REASONS. do they have no sense of justice? why should someone who has taken someone else's right to life, be able to keep theirs? instead of punishing them we are FEEDING them and SHELTERING them. it is a perversion of justice. they just cant comprehend the fact that some people deserve to die.

palerider

05-16-2008, 01:06 PM

Canada? No moral standards? They have gay marriage and they have lower crime stats than we "holy" people.

They have far fewer liberal controlled metropolitian centers which are the source of most of the crime in both the US and Canada. Look out in the "sticks" where morals are not laughed at as "terribly provential" and you will find very low crime rates.

palerider

05-16-2008, 01:10 PM

Easily counter, eh?

You wouldn't mind explaining to everyone, then, why a society that considers the right to life INALIENABLE can condone the death penalty?

On the day when every unborn gets his or her day in court, is judged guilty of a capital offense by a jury and that unborn gets the requisite appeals and re appeals, then you won't hear a peep from most "pro lifers" on the subject of killing unborn human beings.

It is pathetic that you seem unable to differentiate between being convicted by the legal system and having all of the requisite appeals and waiting periods and allowing a woman to kill her child with no legal consequence for any or no reason.

At least you could attempt to make the appearance of an intellectually honest argument. You aren't mare after all.

palerider

05-16-2008, 01:13 PM

Please explain to me how 4 undeveloped cells gain the tag innocent?... and that its also ok to potentially kill an innocent person if they are wrongly convicited of a capital offence?

Are you arguing that abortions happen to unborns at the 4 cell stage? Not that it matters, but an unborn at that stage is as human as it will ever get. It will grow and mature if left alone, but become more human, sorry, it isn't going to happen.

Let me ask you a question and be honest. I know you can do it. Would you prefer a system where you got your day in court and took your chances that you might be convicted wrongly or would you prefer the sort of system that would allow someone to simply kill you for any or no reason at all and not even have a thought about possible legal consequences?

palerider

05-16-2008, 01:33 PM

I love how Christians ignore the admonishment "judge not" in the Bible. Arbiter, do you know how many murderous felons have been executed only to be prove innocent later?

Context mare. "Do not judge, lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1).

Jesus' comment is almost universally misunderstood (or mischaracterized) because of an inherent conflict in the condemnation of judging that goes unnoticed to almost everyone but Him.

The problem is that judgment always requires evaluation. Taken out of context, the statement poses a problem. The statement "You shouldn't judge" is self-refuting, being itself an example of judgment.

Jesus qualified His comment though.

And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?...You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:3, 5)

Jesus didn't say that we have no right to judge, he only condemned hypocritical judgment. Not all judgments fall into that category. In fact, even in this passage Jesus actually enjoins a different kind of judgment once the hypocrisy has been dealt with ("first take the log out of your own eye, then").

There are a couple of other kinds of judging descibed in the bible that are not condemned, but rather are, in fact, commanded. Some judgments are judicial, proper when done by proper authorities. Judges judge. They pass sentence. That's their job. (Matthew 18:15-20, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, Galatians 6:1).

If you study the bible in context, you will see that Jesus did not come initially for this kind of judgment. He offered mercy, not sentencing (John 3:17, 12:47) - but He will certainly return with this kind. Appointed by the father as final judge (John 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42, 17:31), He will spare no one.

All sorts of judgments are advised. Appraisals of right or wrong, wise or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational. Those sorts of judgments are not forbidden; and in fact, are commanded. Jesus' instructions "Do not give what is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6) require this kind of judgment.

Some judgements are moral. Paul charges us with this kind of judgment: "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them" (Ephesians 5:11). This is to be done not "according to appearance," but by "righteous" standards (John 7:24)

A judicial action, a factual assessment, a hypocritical arrogance - each is a type of judgement. Only the hypocritical arrogance, that is, pointing out the speck in your brother's eye when there is a log in your own) is disqualified by Jesus. The first two are actually virtues in their proper settings, and therefore commanded by Scripture.

Intellectual dishonesty doesn't serve your purpose mare. If you are going to argue using the bible, then you could at least try to get it right and save me all this typing.

9sublime

05-16-2008, 01:41 PM

Are you arguing that abortions happen to unborns at the 4 cell stage? Not that it matters, but an unborn at that stage is as human as it will ever get. It will grow and mature if left alone, but become more human, sorry, it isn't going to happen.

Let me ask you a question and be honest. I know you can do it. Would you prefer a system where you got your day in court and took your chances that you might be convicted wrongly or would you prefer the sort of system that would allow someone to simply kill you for any or no reason at all and not even have a thought about possible legal consequences?

Palerider, in this instance I am simply questioning how you can support the death penalty but not abortion. Don't you see the logical flaw in risking an innocent mans life because of a false conviction and allowing the abortion of an "inoccent" few cells?

palerider

05-16-2008, 01:49 PM

Palerider, in this instance I am simply questioning how you can support the death penalty but not abortion. Don't you see the logical flaw in risking an innocent mans life because of a false conviction and allowing the abortion of an "inoccent" few cells?

No, I don't see a logical flaw. One is the result of a painstaking legal system and the other is nothing more than a decision by a single individual to kill another individual.

I would like to see stricter standards of evidence in order to get a conviction for capital punishment, but tere are those who simply do not deserve to live out thier lives.

numinus

05-17-2008, 07:10 AM

On the day when every unborn gets his or her day in court, is judged guilty of a capital offense by a jury and that unborn gets the requisite appeals and re appeals, then you won't hear a peep from most "pro lifers" on the subject of killing unborn human beings.

It is pathetic that you seem unable to differentiate between being convicted by the legal system and having all of the requisite appeals and waiting periods and allowing a woman to kill her child with no legal consequence for any or no reason.

At least you could attempt to make the appearance of an intellectually honest argument. You aren't mare after all.

What is pathetic is your inability to adhere to a principle in a manner that is logical and consistent.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Inalienable

The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a theoretical set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be SURRENDERED. They are by definition, rights retained by the people. Inalienable rights may be defined as natural rights or human rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable.

numinus

05-17-2008, 07:18 AM

No, I don't see a logical flaw. One is the result of a painstaking legal system and the other is nothing more than a decision by a single individual to kill another individual.

I would like to see stricter standards of evidence in order to get a conviction for capital punishment, but tere are those who simply do not deserve to live out thier lives.

It was made clear in the abortion thread that you simply do not have any comprehension regarding the idea of the NATURAL RIGHTS OF MAN -- the idea that lends validity to the american constitution itself.

If a law can be made to justify state murder, against the very principles on which the constitution stands, then it would be a simple matter to give a woman permission to terminate her pregnancy, no? After all, rules of court are merely forms, NOT SUBSTANCE, of the judicial system.

Therein lies the LOGICAL FLAW, if it wasn't apparent enough for you the first time.

numinus

05-17-2008, 07:54 AM

all that paper was saying is "arrest rates lower crime." wow. holy ****. i would have never thought of that.(rolls eyes) if you arrest people than they cant commit crimes....... becuase they are in jail! that doesnt mean that people will be less likely to murder someone if we remove the death penalty.

You just conceded the debate, moron!

Arrest rates indicate the effeciency of law enforcement.

Arrest rates (not execution rates) reduce crime rates.

Duh?

i fail to see how that little report, that you stole from someone else, helps to back up your arguement that the death penalty isnt a detterent.

The study was amply footnoted. So you really can't say I stole it, now, can you?

It said:

"..Empirically, deterrence appears to be the more important factor, particularly for property crimes."

The study was differentiating between deterrence and incapacitation. The form of punishment (as in capital punishment) is incapacitation.

Duh?

maybe the death penalty would be more of an effective detterent if all you liberals wouldn't keep us from using it. death penalty rates have dropped over the years considerably. also homicide rates have risen over the years. if it isnt an effective detterent than look in the mirror and you will see who is to blame

Do you feel the need to label people as 'liberal' and 'conservative' to make a point? Or do you just resort to it when your argument is ABSOLUTELY BEREFT OF FACTS AND LOGIC, hmmm?

numinus

05-17-2008, 07:58 AM

palerider

05-17-2008, 10:34 AM

It was made clear in the abortion thread that you simply do not have any comprehension regarding the idea of the NATURAL RIGHTS OF MAN -- the idea that lends validity to the american constitution itself.

If a law can be made to justify state murder, against the very principles on which the constitution stands, then it would be a simple matter to give a woman permission to terminate her pregnancy, no? After all, rules of court are merely forms, NOT SUBSTANCE, of the judicial system.

Therein lies the LOGICAL FLAW, if it wasn't apparent enough for you the first time.

Capital punishment is self defense on the part of the state. There is no logical flaw other than your own. And you made nothing clear in the abortion thread other than that you were unable to defend your position.

palerider

05-17-2008, 10:56 AM

Whether you deserve to live or not isn't for the state to determine.

That is what 'unalienable' means -- a word i'm sure you have been made familiar with in highschool civics.

I suppose you didn't do very well in high school civics. Clearly you don't have a grasp of what the word meant to the men who acknowledged those unalienable rights.

There is only one unalienable right and that is the right to be free from aggression. That is, you have a right to not have force initiated against you. The unalienable rights described by the founders all flow from this one unalienable right. When someone is murdered, someone else initiated force against their life. When someone is enslaved, someone else initiated force against their liberty, and theft is an initiation of force against someones personal property (the pursuit of happiness refers to property rights).

Capital punishment is a defensive force, but rather than aggression, it is a just and valid response to it. When we kill those who have been aggressors against us (murderers) we are not violating any unalienable right that they can claim. We are not violating their right to be free from aggressive force, rather we are protecting our own right to be free from that force. The punishment of the law is a response to aggressive force, not an initiation of it. Defense and punishment in proportion to the crime committed in no way violates an aggressors unalienable right to be free from the initiation of force.

If you favor locking away criminals then you are just as guilty of violating their (in your view) unalienable rights as those who favor the death penalty because the right to be free is as unalienable as the right to live.

numinus

05-18-2008, 01:08 AM

Capital punishment is self defense on the part of the state. There is no logical flaw other than your own.

Nonsense.

The social contract is the perfect union of the body politic and its individual members. Self-defense cannot be invoked against one's self.

You are groping for logic when it is ostensibly ABSENT in your argument.

And you made nothing clear in the abortion thread other than that you were unable to defend your position.

You're reason in the abortion thread, as I recall, was the legal dictionary's definition of person.

My reason was dependent on the political theory of the natural rights of man -- a theory that has been concieved long before the american constitution.

You have no claim to intellectual honesty if you cannot even admit to these simple facts.

numinus

05-18-2008, 01:30 AM

I suppose you didn't do very well in high school civics. Clearly you don't have a grasp of what the word meant to the men who acknowledged those unalienable rights.

There is only one unalienable right and that is the right to be free from aggression. That is, you have a right to not have force initiated against you. The unalienable rights described by the founders all flow from this one unalienable right. When someone is murdered, someone else initiated force against their life. When someone is enslaved, someone else initiated force against their liberty, and theft is an initiation of force against someones personal property (the pursuit of happiness refers to property rights).

Capital punishment is a defensive force, but rather than aggression, it is a just and valid response to it. When we kill those who have been aggressors against us (murderers) we are not violating any unalienable right that they can claim. We are not violating their right to be free from aggressive force, rather we are protecting our own right to be free from that force. The punishment of the law is a response to aggressive force, not an initiation of it. Defense and punishment in proportion to the crime committed in no way violates an aggressors unalienable right to be free from the initiation of force.

Let me refresh your memory of highschool civics, if I may be permitted:

"Inalienable" (or "unalienable") is a term borrowed from English common law. Some property rights were alienable (they could be sold or granted) and some were inalienable (they could only be inherited according to fixed rule).

History

The idea that certain rights are inalienable was found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler "the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being." Islamic rulers could not take away certain rights from their subjects on the basis that "they become rights by reason of the fact that they are given to a subject by a law and from a source which no ruler can question or alter. These ideas may have influenced John Locke's concept of inalienable rights through his attendance of lectures given by Edward Pococke, a professor of Arabic studies.

In 17th-century England, philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, and identified them as being "life, liberty, and estate (or property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. These ideas were claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."

The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights was introduced by Francis Hutcheson in his A System of Moral Philosophy (1755) based on the Reformation principle of the liberty of conscience. One could not in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions) regardless of any external contracts or oaths to religious or secular authorities so that right is "unalienable." In discussions of social contract theory, "inalienable rights" were said to be those rights that could not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign. Such rights were thought to be natural rights, independent of positive law. Natural rights date back at least to the Roman Empire, and were recognized during medieval times, but in this context are an element of the classical liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries. Classical Liberal thinkers reasoned that each man is endowed with rights, of which the rights to life, liberty and property were thought to be fundamental. However, they reasoned that in the natural state only the strongest could benefit from their rights. Each individual forms an implicit social contract, ceding his or her rights to the authority to protect his or her right from being abused. For this reason, almost all classical liberal thinkers, for example, accepted the death penalty and incarceration as necessary elements of government.

"Jefferson took his division of rights into alienable and unalienable from Hutcheson, who made the distinction popular and important."[4] In the The 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson famously condensed this to:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights. . ." This was changed to unalienable by John Adams at the time of printing the Declaration.

In the nineteenth century, the movement to abolish slavery seized this passage as a statement of constitutional principle, although the U.S. constitution recognized and protected slavery. As a lawyer, future Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase argued before the Supreme Court in the case of John Van Zandt, who had been charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act, that:

"The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property."

Many scholars now argue that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, enacted after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, wrote the principles of equality and natural rights into the Constitution for the first time. However, it can also been argued that the axiom of inalienable rights was written into the Bill of Rights as the Ninth Amendment rights “retained by the people”.

Obviously, you are WRONG.

If you favor locking away criminals then you are just as guilty of violating their (in your view) unalienable rights as those who favor the death penalty because the right to be free is as unalienable as the right to live.

LMAO.

There is a difference between natural rights, personal rights and civil rights. From wiki:

Liberty

Liberty is divided into four types : natural, personal, civil and political. The first two are inalienable, the latter two are government granted. Natural liberty is absolute freedom, limited only by the laws of nature. It is exercised upon one's private property or upon unclaimed property (anywhere else would be a trespass). Personal liberty is the right of locomotion, the freedom to travel upon public roads and waterways; limited only by the requirement to not infringe another's right to travel. Civil liberty is the permission from government to do that which would otherwise be a trespass, a tort or not allowed by law. A license to practice medicine is an example of a civil liberty (inflict injury without criminal liability). Political liberty is the permission to vote and hold office. In countries with socialist / communist governments that abolish private property rights, natural and personal liberty do not exist. Permission (license) is required for most activities and actions.

So, what type of right do you suppose is the state witholding from a convict as punishment for his crime, hmmm?

palerider

05-18-2008, 04:43 AM

Nonsense.

The social contract is the perfect union of the body politic and its individual members. Self-defense cannot be invoked against one's self.

You are groping for logic when it is ostensibly ABSENT in your argument.

There are two sides to every contract. Members of a socety, as opposed to a natural person, yield thier right to be free from agression to the authority so that the authority may protect that right vs the natural individual standing against all aggressors personally with no expectation for aid from outside sources. The agressor (murderer) has violated the contract, is no longer a party to the social contract and is therefore subject to defensive action on the part of the society

There is a failure of logic here, but it is clearly on your part.

You're reason in the abortion thread, as I recall, was the legal dictionary's definition of person.

My reason was dependent on the political theory of the natural rights of man -- a theory that has been concieved long before the american constitution.

We are, in fact, operating under the American Constitution rather than the theories you argued which is precisely why your argument failed. We operate under a set of defined rules and if you want to change them, then there are methods. Simply arguing theory is pointless in the presence of structured institutions.

palerider

05-18-2008, 04:45 AM

Let me refresh your memory of highschool civics, if I may be permitted:

So you have proved that you can google up a subject and cut and paste. You have also proved that you don't really understand what you brought here. If you violate the social contract, you are no longer protected by it.

numinus

05-19-2008, 06:17 AM

There are two sides to every contract. Members of a socety, as opposed to a natural person, yield thier right to be free from agression to the authority so that the authority may protect that right vs the natural individual standing against all aggressors personally with no expectation for aid from outside sources. The agressor (murderer) has violated the contract, is no longer a party to the social contract and is therefore subject to defensive action on the part of the society

There is a failure of logic here, but it is clearly on your part.

You obviously are ignorant of the subject you are pretending to argue.

I have already demonstrated that killing your attacker IS NOT ALWAYS A VALID SELF-DEFENSE.

How in heaven's name can you justify SELF-DEFENSE BY CAPITAL PUNISHMENT when the convict is already incarcerated, eh?

We are, in fact, operating under the American Constitution rather than the theories you argued which is precisely why your argument failed. We operate under a set of defined rules and if you want to change them, then there are methods. Simply arguing theory is pointless in the presence of structured institutions.
LOL

In the first paragraph, you argue on the basis of locke's social contract. On the next, you completely dismiss it.

Is it to much to ask for some logical consistency in your argument, hmmm?

The fact is, almost all legal precedents in the us borrows its validity fromTHE NATURAL RIGHTS OF MAN, as expounded in locke's political philosophy. When LOGICALLY AND CONSISTENTLY APPLIED, the reasons against abortion are fundamentally the same with the reasons against capital punishment -- an inalienable right to live, hence INVIOLATE.

So, you might as well put your legal dictionary away, since it wouldn't help you at all in this debate.