Thoughts on the Death Penalty

[numinus]

I thought the penal system was about penises.
no, beheading isn't a deterant, it's an elimination of beads of consciousness which deals with quantum physics.

Pardon me but some vital screws in your rational faculty are loose.

as far a certainty of capture... hah. that's kinda funny... to criminals.

You do not think the development of forensic science is closing the gap between certainty and uncertainty in our justice system?

 

[numinus]

Yeah. I guess it does.

I mean, the right to "freedom of speech" doesn't require me to go running around shooting my mouth off all the time. Freedom of speech also covers freedom of silence.

I guess "freedom of choice" would be my pick for the one overriding right...even though I've never seen it written anywhere in our founding documents.

You haven't been listening, have you?

Before you can exercise your 'freedom of choice', you need to be alive, don't you? Hence, the right to choose is merely a logical consequence of a right to live. Due to the logical relationship between a cause and its consequence, one cannot even begin to talk about the right to choose without the imperatives of life.

And when you suggest that a consequence OVERRIDE its cause, then that is a sure sign that your reasoning faculties are on a one-way trajectory to the moon.

 

[numinus]

Of course we're a bunch of cells. We're also 60-70% water, that doesn't make us comparable to a lake. Cells in a petri dish are not self aware, you and I are.

This is funny.

Chimps are self-aware. For people in catatonic states, self-awareness is debatable. By your singular logic, the chimp is more human than an infirm person.

What is even funnier, is that self-awareness need to be demonstrated through a stimulus-reaction relationship before one can discern it in another, no? And in this regard, fetuses are known to react to stimuli well before the end of the first trimester.

When legalities are being discussed, it's not hiding.

The question in roe v wade is not whether a choice can subvert a person's right to live (since by all logical calculations, it can't), but whether or not a determination of human existence can be demonstrated throughout pregnancy that would give the court compelling reasons to intervene in a mother's choice.

And so, like a parody of king solomon, the court felt it prudent to divide human existence arbitrarily and hand a tattered version of logic to each of the contending parties.

What is that, if not political expediency, eh?

I don't care if he's Aristotle himself, the views expressed sound religiously based. If I'm wrong, he has my apologies.

Apology accepted.

 

[bewitched]

Pardon me but some vital screws in your rational faculty are loose

You do not think the development of forensic science is closing the gap between certainty and uncertainty in our justice system?

until you understand shamanism maybe you shouldn't criticize.
what PhD do you have anyway? maybe the one in Bad Attitude.
here's a tip, if you don't understand something... try to explore it.

pfft.... kids these days.

 

[numinus]

until you understand shamanism maybe you shouldn't criticize.
what PhD do you have anyway? maybe the one in Bad Attitude.
here's a tip, if you don't understand something... try to explore it.

pfft.... kids these days.

Shamanism????

What's that nonsense have to do with penises, 'beads of consciousness' and quantum physics - the content of your entire post I was responding to, hmmm? And here's a tip for you - I'm not inclined to embark on fool's errands merely on your (or anyone's) say so.

Shamanism, indeed!

 

[bewitched]

Shamanism????

What's that nonsense have to do with penises, 'beads of consciousness' and quantum physics - the content of your entire post I was responding to, hmmm? And here's a tip for you - I'm not inclined to embark on fool's errands merely on your (or anyone's) say so.

Shamanism, indeed!

oh child. if you know it all you should be teaching instead of preaching.

 

[Coyote]

The analogy is to the point, fyi.

There is nothing dignified in killing another human being - especially when one's motivation is convenience, either for one's self or the people around him.

I'm looking at just this statement here, and perhaps I am misunderstanding it. Does that mean there is nothing dignified in ending your own life? In choosing to die rather then live on say life support? For example - if I were facing a serious intractable illness that was terminal, I might choose to to go off in the wilderness and simply let myself die rather then place the burdon of my care and death on other people. What is undignified or wrong with that?

 

[Coyote]

oh child. if you know it all you should be teaching instead of preaching.

And now you're over-reaching

 

[Coyote]

until you understand shamanism maybe you shouldn't criticize.
what PhD do you have anyway? maybe the one in Bad Attitude.
here's a tip, if you don't understand something... try to explore it.

pfft.... kids these days.

Indeed, they're quite naughty aren't they?

Speaking of which...school must be out now

 

[numinus]

I'm looking at just this statement here, and perhaps I am misunderstanding it. Does that mean there is nothing dignified in ending your own life?

There is a difference between killing one's self and refusing a form of medical treatment. The difference becomes quite obvious when one considers the inevitability of human mortality.

In choosing to die rather then live on say life support? For example - if I were facing a serious intractable illness that was terminal, I might choose to to go off in the wilderness and simply let myself die rather then place the burdon of my care and death on other people. What is undignified or wrong with that?

It is dignified since you choose to live your life (whatever remains of it) in a manner you see fit. This isn't exactly the same as killing yourself, is it?

 

[vyo476]

You haven't been listening, have you?

Calm down.

Before you can exercise your 'freedom of choice', you need to be alive, don't you? Hence, the right to choose is merely a logical consequence of a right to live. Due to the logical relationship between a cause and its consequence, one cannot even begin to talk about the right to choose without the imperatives of life.

And when you suggest that a consequence OVERRIDE its cause, then that is a sure sign that your reasoning faculties are on a one-way trajectory to the moon.

I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree. If someone possesses a personal right, shouldn't they also possess the opposite right? Freedom of speech, freedom of silence...freedom of the press, freedom of illiterarcy...freedom of religion, freedom from religion...you see?

 

[numinus]

Calm down.

I am ALWAYS calm.

I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree. If someone possesses a personal right, shouldn't they also possess the opposite right? Freedom of speech, freedom of silence...freedom of the press, freedom of illiterarcy...freedom of religion, freedom from religion...you see?

There are serious flaws in logic here.

Speech and silence are integral parts of expression. One cannot be taken separate from the other. Press freedom falls in this right as well. Your silence is, ITSELF, an expression.

Same with religion. It is circumscribed within one's right of thought. Whether you believe or do not believe in a particular religion are the natural consequences of thought. You may throw in this millieu whatever you mean by illiteracy.

In contrast, the state or condition of death can NEVER be mistaken as an expression of life.

Even if you wish to limit the discussion on political philosophy, you cannot find any rational argument for your alleged right to die. I have already explained the concept of perfect liberty, and how such a condition CANNOT exist in civil society. There is a subtle difference between this perfect liberty and freedom.

Freedom is an action that CONFORMS with rational laws or principles - as our rational nature dictates. An action that derives from the whims of our appetites and brutish nature (contrary to what a logical good dictates) is NOT freedom. It is, in fact, a form of SLAVERY totally at odds with our rational nature. The conclusion from such an argument is unmistakable - we are at PERFECT LIBERTY to do whatever we wish; we are FREE only to act according to a rational good.

Herein lies the region where political philosophy overlap with ethical philosophy to describe a METAPHYSICAL WHOLE.

 

[Phoenix68]

Lately there has been some controversy over whether we should use the death penalty less or even not at all. Some view it as inhumane as it ceases the life of a fellow human being. Others say while they do not wish to kill, sometimes it is necessary, as the one sentenced is just too dangerous to be kept alive.

The Essential Reason for Murder​

 

[Phoenix68]

Now there are times when in my opinion the death penalty is warranted. When that is the case, and the details of the event match the guidelines set out to justify capital punishment. Then make that punishment swift. Lets not drag this out decades when an obviously guilty person lives long enough to be saved by religion gain sympathy, be released and able to do it again, as in another recent thread on this site.

Human error is something that will always be a part of our system from accusation, trial, conviction and into the penalty part of a criminal act. We need to recognize efforts to minimize human error but also realize it should always be accounted for.

InnocenceDatabase
.
Executed But Possibly Innocent
.
Prosecutorial Accountability​

 

[Yo Daddy!]

InnocenceDatabase
.
Executed But Possibly Innocent
.
Prosecutorial Accountability​

When everyone feels they have a good chance of avoiding execution, there will be more murders as a result.

And then you will better understand what it means if someone says Democrats don't mind soiling their own nest.