Capital Punishment

[The Scotsman]

Modern jurisprudence borrows its validity from the natural rights of man.

That's an interesting phrase what does it mean?

 

[arbitor]

niminus, i think its funny the way you point the finger at pale, saying he is a hypocrite for being for death peanalty and against abortion when you are for abortion and against capital punishment. oh yeah.... you are TOTALY in a position to call him hypocritic.

since every other form of LOGIC has failed to convince you than how about this: shouldn't someone who commits an extreme crime recieve an equaly extreme punishment? you should rethink you ideas of justice. justice is defined as "the maintenance or administration of what is JUST by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited awards or PUNISHMENTS."
merited punishments, now what do you think that means? it is refering to punishment equal to the crime that has been commited. allowing someone to live after they kill someone is not only unjust but it is unamerican. i dont see how you can honestly say it is just to allow a murderer to live out the rest of his life. people like you are the reason jails are so populated. like i said before:maybe the death peanalty would be a more effective detterent if you liberals would let us use it more often. whether it is a detterent or not it is still needed for the mere fact it is the ONLY suitable punishment for a murderer.

 

[palerider]

Oh, I've proven it alright. When you cannot prove personhood beyond what a legal dictionary says indicates a general ignorance quite clearly, thank you.

I have proven personhood over and over. What is lacking is your ability to prove something other than personhood.

The simple fact is that a person is the kind of creature you are, not the degree to which you manifest your potential. You may do all manner of things to make yourself a better or a worse person than someone else, but there is nothing you can do, including age, that will make you more of a person.

 

[numinus]

That's an interesting phrase what does it mean?

It means that questions arising from the text of the constitution are expounded from the idea of the natural rights of man.

The second ammendment, for instance, prohibits the state from interfering with an individual's right of thought as manifested in his religion. The right of thought is inseparable from the human person, as is the right to live, the right to estate, etc.

 

[numinus]

niminus, i think its funny the way you point the finger at pale, saying he is a hypocrite for being for death peanalty and against abortion when you are for abortion and against capital punishment. oh yeah.... you are TOTALY in a position to call him hypocritic.

I'm not for abortion. My argument is consistent.

since every other form of LOGIC has failed to convince you than how about this: shouldn't someone who commits an extreme crime recieve an equaly extreme punishment?

That is ANCIENT JURISPRUDENCE as exemplified by the code of hammurabi (more popularly known as the principle of an eye for an eye). Modern jurisprudence isn't about revenge.

you should rethink you ideas of justice. justice is defined as "the maintenance or administration of what is JUST by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited awards or PUNISHMENTS."
merited punishments, now what do you think that means? it is refering to punishment equal to the crime that has been commited. allowing someone to live after they kill someone is not only unjust but it is unamerican.

NO.

What you are describing are the penalties called for in shariah law. A murderer's life is forfeit in the same manner as a thief's hands are forfeit.

If you wish to examine the american legal system, you need to look at john locke's social contract. The reason any man takes on the bonds of civil society is to protect his fundamental rights -- life, liberty and estate. To this end, he is willing to give up some of his liberty in order for society to protect his fundamental rights with the common force. That, in short, is the end of civil society.

When the state resorts to capital punishment, it is, in fact, contradicting the very end(s) for which society was constituted to begin with.

i dont see how you can honestly say it is just to allow a murderer to live out the rest of his life. people like you are the reason jails are so populated. like i said before:maybe the death peanalty would be a more effective detterent if you liberals would let us use it more often. whether it is a detterent or not it is still needed for the mere fact it is the ONLY suitable punishment for a murderer.

I do not see how you can honestly say that your argument conforms with any logic, whatsoever.

When a citizen breaks the social contract, the benefits of civil society are simply withdrawn from him. The state cannot 'withdraw' a person's right to live since it was not granted by the state to begin with. The net effect is that the offender is 'cut-off' from the social contract. Banishment, incarceration...take your pick. They are the more logical consequences than capital punsihment in view of the above political philosophy.

 

[numinus]

I have proven personhood over and over. What is lacking is your ability to prove something other than personhood.

Proving something requires logical rigor. To say that someone is a person because a legal dictionary says so ISN'T LOGICAL RIGOR.

Understand?

The simple fact is that a person is the kind of creature you are, not the degree to which you manifest your potential. You may do all manner of things to make yourself a better or a worse person than someone else, but there is nothing you can do, including age, that will make you more of a person.

Give abortion a break. I agree with you that abortion is wrong -- although not necessarily for the same reason. I generally do not base my opinions on a dictionary definition, legal or what not.

And just as a fetus has an inalienable right to life, so DOES THE CONVICT.

That is something the state neither granted him, nor is in a position to take away. The logic is so elementary, to say otherwise can only come from dishonesty or a fundamentally defective logic.

It is good to see you have given up on your self-defense nonsense, though. That line of argument was simply embarassing.

 

[palerider]

And just as a fetus has an inalienable right to life, so DOES THE CONVICT.

If the child represents a threat to its mother's life, she has the right to defend herself and terminate the pregnancy. The same is true for those who have committed henious crimes. Since simply imprisioning a murderer is no promise that they will not get out and kill again, the authorities have a responsibility to execute them to assure that they no longer represent a threat to society at large.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have no desire to get involved in this epic clash of titans, I just wanted to say that I am enjoying the spectacle though and I believe that if any two posters were ever meant for each other, it has got to be Palerider and Numinus.

 

[numinus]

If the child represents a threat to its mother's life, she has the right to defend herself and terminate the pregnancy.

That is the correct application of the right to self-defense.

The same is true for those who have committed henious crimes.

Absolutely not.

An incarcerated criminal DOES NOT REPRESENT A DANGER TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

Since simply imprisioning a murderer is no promise that they will not get out and kill again,

Only when a convicted murderer attempts to escape does he become a danger to society -- hence a jail guard is within his right to gun him down.

An incarcerated convict sitting in his tiny cell IS IN NO POSITION TO KILL AGAIN. To execute this convict is NOT AN ACT OF SELF-DEFENSE.

the authorities have a responsibility to execute them to assure that they no longer represent a threat to society at large.

What dishonest nonsense.

There is nothing in the social contract that obligates the state to execute a convict. In fact, the state is forbidden to deprive ANY INDIVIDUAL HIS INALIENABLE RIGHTS -- ESPECIALLY ONE THAT IS SO FUNDAMENTAL THAT ALL OTHER RIGHTS DIRECTLY ACCRUE FROM IT.

 

[numinus]

I have no desire to get involved in this epic clash of titans, I just wanted to say that I am enjoying the spectacle though and I believe that if any two posters were ever meant for each other, it has got to be Palerider and Numinus.

That is the more prudent course of action for you -- stay clear of the intellectual discussion of rational people.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is the more prudent course of action for you -- stay clear of the intellectual discussion of rational people.

More like cats in a sack, if you ask me.

 

[numinus]

More like cats in a sack, if you ask me.

Think what you wish, just as long as I don't have to read any of your nonsense.

 

[palerider]

Absolutely not.

An incarcerated criminal DOES NOT REPRESENT A DANGER TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

That is true if you can demonstrate conclusively that no killer has ever been released from prison to kill again or no killer has ever escaped from jail to kill again.

The fact is that so long as a killer remains alive, there exists the possibility that some liberal judge will release them onto the public or that they will, in some manner escape back into society. Being incarcerated does not preclude one from representing a danger to the public.

Only when a convicted murderer attempts to escape does he become a danger to society -- hence a jail guard is within his right to gun him down.

Are you saying that all escapees do so in the view of their guards?

An incarcerated convict sitting in his tiny cell IS IN NO POSITION TO KILL AGAIN. To execute this convict is NOT AN ACT OF SELF-DEFENSE.

That statement has been proven false enough throughout history that I am surprised that you would even speak it.

What dishonest nonsense.

There is nothing in the social contract that obligates the state to execute a convict. In fact, the state is forbidden to deprive ANY INDIVIDUAL HIS INALIENABLE RIGHTS -- ESPECIALLY ONE THAT IS SO FUNDAMENTAL THAT ALL OTHER RIGHTS DIRECTLY ACCRUE FROM IT.

I would suggest that you do a bit of research into the views of the men you love to quote and hold in such high esteem and learn their views on the death penalty. I believe that you will find that they had no problem executing murderers.

You quoted Locke in your effort to suggest that capital punishment is not a legitimate action of government but that would suggest that like many libertarians, you regurgitate the talking points but have missed the main course all together. If you are going to use the man's philosophy, then use it in its entirety rather than using the intellectually dishonest tactic of cherry picking out of context.

In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke states "Political Power then I take to be a Right of making Laws with Penalties of Death, and consequently all less Penalties, for the Regulating and Preserving of Property, and of employing the force of the Community in the Execution of such Laws, and in the defense of the Common-wealth from Foriegn Injury, and all this only for the Publick Good."

 

[numinus]

That is true if you can demonstrate conclusively that no killer has ever been released from prison to kill again or no killer has ever escaped from jail to kill again.

That is entirely irrelevant to the principle of self-defense.

As long as there are people, the possibility of murder remains. Do you suggest that we kill everyone, then?

The fact is that so long as a killer remains alive, there exists the possibility that some liberal judge will release them onto the public or that they will, in some manner escape back into society. Being incarcerated does not preclude one from representing a danger to the public.

Uhmm, that is a decision for the judge. Clemency is also part of the justice system. So is judicial review.

Are you saying that all escapees do so in the view of their guards?

Is there a point to the question? Or are you merely voicing ineffable twaddle?

That statement has been proven false enough throughout history that I am surprised that you would even speak it.

Can you site an instance where a convict killed someone outside the penitentiary from within his cell, hmmm?

I would suggest that you do a bit of research into the views of the men you love to quote and hold in such high esteem and learn their views on the death penalty. I believe that you will find that they had no problem executing murderers.

You quoted Locke in your effort to suggest that capital punishment is not a legitimate action of government but that would suggest that like many libertarians, you regurgitate the talking points but have missed the main course all together. If you are going to use the man's philosophy, then use it in its entirety rather than using the intellectually dishonest tactic of cherry picking out of context.

In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke states "Political Power then I take to be a Right of making Laws with Penalties of Death, and consequently all less Penalties, for the Regulating and Preserving of Property, and of employing the force of the Community in the Execution of such Laws, and in the defense of the Common-wealth from Foriegn Injury, and all this only for the Publick Good."

It really is a chore explaining things to you.

I am saying that capital punishment contradicts the philosophy of locke the same way the sc's decision on roe contradicts your legal dictionary.

Remember, locke's social contract provided the philosophical justification for the american revolution, and with it, a STATE OF WAR between the colony and their king. And for what -- unjust taxes?

Or are you willing to admit that the american political system was based on something that is inherently flawed?

If you have any logic, whatsoever, to counter my claims, then by all means, present them here. Otherwise, stop embarassing yourself.

 

[palerider]

As long as there are people, the possibility of murder remains. Do you suggest that we kill everyone, then?

Just those who have already demonstrated a willingness to do it.

Uhmm, that is a decision for the judge. Clemency is also part of the justice system. So is judicial review.

Maybe you should have that discussion with the family and friends of those who have lost someone to a killer that escaped or was released only to kill again. I am sure that they could point out the error of your thinking better than I since they have experienced, first hand, the terrible flaw in thinking that because you have a killer locked up that he or she no longer represents a danger to society.

Can you site an instance where a convict killed someone outside the penitentiary from within his cell, hmmm?

Are you saying that the prisoners who were in prison for non capital offenses that have been killed by killers didn't have any right to live? How about the guards? Do you think that they signed up to be just another victim of a killer who should have been executed in the first place?

And can you promise with any credibility at all that the murderer will remain in his cell and thus not represent a threat to either those who are in prison for lesser crimes, his jailers or the society outside prison? The answer is no. The only way to assure that a killer doesn't do it again is to put him to death.

It really is a chore explaining things to you.

Nah, I am a bright guy. I need very little explanation. Spinning is the chore. It takes effort to distort the truth and have it appear to still be truth.

Or are you willing to admit that the american political system was based on something that is inherently flawed?

Show me a legal system or system of goverment that isn't inherently flawed. Since all systems are flawed, I would prefer to err on the side of common sense rather than sacrifice people who don't deserve to die to the inherent flaw in your logic. When a dog bites, you put him down whether you like it or not because from that moment on, he represents an immenent danger to you and everyone he may ever come into contact with and if you don't, then you are responsible for his actions from that moment on.

If you have any logic, whatsoever, to counter my claims, then by all means, present them here. Otherwise, stop embarassing yourself.

I'm embarassed, but only for you. Arguing that it is best to keep killers locked up forever at the expense of a society that they have nothing but loathing for.