Thoughts on the Death Penalty

[Mr. Shaman]

Say you've got a man who rapes and murders 6 young girls, DNA evidence says he did, he says he did it, a jury says he did it. In other words, there is absolutely no doubt, in fact this guy is proud of what he has done and laughs about it.

Are you telling me he has "an inalienable right" to live? Give me a break. He has, by his own actions forfeited his right to live.

I agree with Bunz, it should be done quickly.

Yeah.....let's simply throw-away one-more-symptom of the worst society has to offer....rather than taking-advantage of existing-technology to find-out what drives such behavior, right?

Hell.....how can we possibly satisfy the needs of those who figure they have some Divine Right to revenge, and make this country more-safe by (actually) solving the issue of violent-behavior??

 

[vyo476]

If you look real close you will see there are QUOTATION MARKS around that word, as I was quoting you. I, personally don't feel there is an inalienable right to live for such a test case as I outlined, which, I notice, you failed to address.

An inalienabale right to life is in the Declaration of Independence. However, the full text of the statement (now rather famous), is "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We deny people liberty when they commit crimes. So we're back at square one.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

This is one reason to eliminate the death penalty.

Do you trust the government to have power of life and death over an individual?

No. That is one of the primary reasons I oppose it.

Anyone who is adamantly for the death penalty should watch the documentary After Innocence - a film about several innocent people who were convicted of horrible crimes that they were eventually cleared of.

 

[Coyote]

No. That is one of the primary reasons I oppose it.

Anyone who is adamantly for the death penalty should watch the documentary After Innocence - a film about several innocent people who were convicted of horrible crimes that they were eventually cleared of.

What is frightening is that once a person is dead - there is little incentive (or money) to try and clear his name. So how given how many are being exonerated based on new techniques - how many innocent people have been killed?

 

[Bunz]

Hell.....how can we possibly satisfy the needs of those who figure they have some Divine Right to revenge, and make this country more-safe by (actually) solving the issue of violent-behavior??

For me, I would not consider it at all a "Divine Right to Revenge" It is about recognizing what thier actions did and the pain caused and the lives ruined and the punishment for that is forfieting ones own life. Its not revenge, it certainly doesnt have any divinity, it is punishment.

I read the acticle you posted, it is always wise to further science. What is described in the article is generally focused on one of the many different factors of why people murder others. I dont think violence can ever be removed from humanity.

Anyone who is adamantly for the death penalty should watch the documentary After Innocence - a film about several innocent people who were convicted of horrible crimes that they were eventually cleared of.

While I dont doubt the film you described is moving and eye opening. I would imagine a just as eye opening film could be made or probably already exists concerning the horrible crimes that were perped against them or a family member etc about whatever dastardly deeds were done by the jacka$$ who just got out on parole while thier family member remains in a grave.
I dont doubt it is a good movie, I am just saying the other side of that argument is also justifiable.

So how given how many are being exonerated based on new techniques - how many innocent people have been killed?

Interesting thought there pup. I dont think anyone knows the answer, especially going back before the US suspension in 73.
I would be comfortable saying I believe the far far majority have been guilty of the crimes they were accused of.
For me the issues are ensuring an innocent person is not found guilty. That goes from murder to shoplifting.
The application of punishment is fair, equal, and swift across the board.

 

[numinus]

If you look real close you will see there are QUOTATION MARKS around that word, as I was quoting you. I, personally don't feel there is an inalienable right to live for such a test case as I outlined, which, I notice, you failed to address.

What you 'personally feel' has nothing to do with it.

If, as you say, there is no inalienable right to live, then, all other inalienable rights that ensue from this, either explicitly or what logically follows from it, doesn't exist as well. Are you with me so far?

The law therefore, which was meant to PROTECT these inalienable rights, is a matter based on nothing but sentiment - hence ARBITRARY. A law that is arbitrary, by definition, is a TYRANNICAL LAW - a condition CONTRARY to human existence and dignity.

As for your test case, the reasoning follows quite clearly. Inalienable right exists hence necessitating the political association to protect them with the common force. The political association remains the most natural and logical refuge of human existence. What arises from the political association are civil rights - those that pertain to our obligations toward society (and vice versa), while keeping our inalienable rights inviolate.

It stands to reason from the foregoing that for people who represents a clear danger to the political association, their civil rights may be revoked (through the penal system) while still respecting their inalienable rights.

So you see, there is absolutely no reason for the state - the embodiment of sovereign will and power, with the whole of the common force at its disposal - to execute a criminal as an exercise of justice.

 

[numinus]

An inalienabale right to life is in the Declaration of Independence. However, the full text of the statement (now rather famous), is "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We deny people liberty when they commit crimes. So we're back at square one.

Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that can only follow from a fundamental right to live. They are not absolute rights as compared to the right to live or the right of thought - and are naturally curtailed by the processes of civil society.

And if they are not absolute to begin with, and are themselves conditional in civil society, there is no reason for the state not to curtail them further as punishment.

 

[numinus]

For me, I would not consider it at all a "Divine Right to Revenge" It is about recognizing what thier actions did and the pain caused and the lives ruined and the punishment for that is forfieting ones own life. Its not revenge, it certainly doesnt have any divinity, it is punishment.

ven·geance (věn'jəns) Pronunciation Key
n. Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution.

How can something not be what it is, eh?

 

[TruthAboveAll]

What is frightening is that once a person is dead - there is little incentive (or money) to try and clear his name. So how given how many are being exonerated based on new techniques - how many innocent people have been killed?

A whole lot less than there used to be. Primarily due to long wait/appeal periods, scientific improvements in interpreting evidence, and even confessions from or evidence against a different perp.

Personally, I've mixed feelings about CP. I know there are people convicted due to poor representation. Due to planted evidence. Due to emotional manipulation of jurors. And so much more.

But at the same time, I want to see certain people pay the ultimate price for the atrocious crimes they've committed, like the Jessica Lunsford rape and murder in Florida. The evidence is rock-solid. This is not a case where mitigating circumstances or possibility of rehabilitation should even cross the radar scope. There is a part of the U.S. Justice System that needs to be remembered - justice. And in some cases, it should be swift as originally intended.

I realize that some of the posts in this thread have had many links in them. Here is one for Death Penalty Information Center. I've not explored it thoroughly, but it appears to be quite an objective site, without their own predisposition for or against clouding the info. At least, so far....

 

[vyo476]

Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that can only follow from a fundamental right to live. They are not absolute rights as compared to the right to live or the right of thought - and are naturally curtailed by the processes of civil society.

And if they are not absolute to begin with, and are themselves conditional in civil society, there is no reason for the state not to curtail them further as punishment.

Then why bother including them at all? Basically, you're saying that while the rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness can't be fully taken away, they can be limited as much as society wants. Should society limit them to the point where they might as well not exist, are they still "inalienable"?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So how given how many are being exonerated based on new techniques - how many innocent people have been killed?

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*Especially in Texas.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I read the acticle you posted, it is always wise to further science. What is described in the article is generally focused on one of the many different factors of why people murder others. I dont think violence can ever be removed from humanity.

We're talkin' individuals' violent-beahvior, here (as-opposed-to the Lemming March To War).

We're never gonna find-out, if we never try.

Hell, epileptics were burned-at-the-stake (for being "possessed"), at one time.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I would be comfortable saying I believe the far far majority have been guilty of the crimes they were accused of.

Tucker Carlson readily admits he (always) felt the same (about people being incarcerated)..............until he was accused of rape.

 

[angeltrexx]

well for me then death penalty is has been a hot issue for more people since we are supposed to be a christian country. many people believe that death peanalty is not good since we are putting the life of a criminal into our hands hence that we didnt owned thier life then.. i mean only god can take it away from you..but i guess that death peanlty would be okay too.. there is a lot of crimes that commited that until now there is no justice..just like rape, murder and may others.. well i just hope that this issue will resolve now since presedential election is upcomming..well i hope the interview of the Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards. As a former presidential candidate and United States senator, Bill Bradley brings a rare insight and knowledge to the interviewer’s chair. Bradley and Edwards also share an optimistic view of the potential of what this country can accomplish if united under strong and compassionate leadership. Well im kinda in to political issiues right now since the US election is near..oops incase you don’t know Senator Bradley’s interview with John Edwards will air December 10 today at 5:00 am, 7:00 am, 12:00 pm, 2:00 pm, and 11:00 pm. All times ET in Sirius radio in satellite radio…..

many thanks!
aNgeLtRexx

 

[numinus]

Then why bother including them at all?

You do not see the necessity of including them?

The declaration of independence wasn't written for the purpose of answering this particular question - it was written as the guiding principles for the establishment of a nation.

What I am saying logically follows from these principles.

Basically, you're saying that while the rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness can't be fully taken away, they can be limited as much as society wants. Should society limit them to the point where they might as well not exist, are they still "inalienable"?

Correct.

What you have in the state of nature - that is, existence outside the confines of civil society - is a PERFECT liberty to do whatever you wish and pursue whatever happiness you can acquire through the strenght of your own force alone - without regard for others.

When you enter civil society, you give up your perfect liberty, since by definition, your perfect liberty cannot co-exist with the perfect liberty of another. What you are given, in return, is CIVIL LIBERTY (which is an imperfect liberty), and a vastly multiplied common force to ensure it.

And exactly why do you suppose must anyone enter the state of civil society? Is it not to preserve your life, which you have an inalienable right to? And with it, those rights necessary to live your life in human dignity? It is so self-evident, I find it absurd that anyone would even question it.