Death Penalty

No it isnt. Legally it is, but not morally. Democracy determines rule of law, not ethical validity of something. By your logic Nazism was "moral" because the Germans elected Hitler. Again democracy has NOTHING to do with this debate because we aren't discussing law we are discussing ethics. If you want to discuss law, as I said, I have no problem with democratic vote. But democratic vote DOES NOT make something intrinsically right.

They are essentially the same thing if there are no individual rights. Again you dont know the meaning of the word:
Democracy:
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
Democracy has nothing to do with 'what is moral and what is not' - it is merely a function of law making.

This is another sign of your inevitable demise and failure to refute my points.

 

"Fitting" and "just" are two totally different concepts. We all know murder is equaled by another murder. The question here is, what makes the vengeance you propose correct? You have so far said "vengeance is correct because it is" - that isnt an answer. Imagine politicians debaitng policy by saying 'its the best policy because it is'! No you have to substantiate why it is just - something you have yet to do.

No I'm not. No is disputing it "fits" or "equates" to the crime. What we are debating is whether this vengeance, which it is, is valid.

Why?

Standard definition:
Definition for justification:
something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary; "he considered misrule a justification for revolution"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justification

It is vengeance. To say punishment that is equal to the crime is what you are advocating is vengeance.

Why is it just?

No not unless it is express reprisal - 'to fit the crime' as you describe., So if you lived by this motto, if I were on my way to uni and a guy accidentally hit me with his car, I could morally have him hit by a car as well.

But why?

No, we aren't discussing law. If we were this would be much much easier - because the US constitution specifically states the right to life is INALIENABLE - you cant take it away. But we are discussing ethics, not law.

 

Based upon the Declaration of Independence the death penalty should be abolished. According to the DoI the primary purpose of government is the protection of the unalienable Rights of the People. Pragmatically in some instances the government must infringe upon unalienable Rights but in all cases it must be limited to the least amount of infringement necessary to achieve the protection of the Rights of others.

An example would be the case of incarceration of an individual to protect society from the actions of an individual who has demonstrated a willingness to violate the Rights of Person or Property of others. This is a violation of the Right of Liberty of the individual but is a pragmatic violation of that Right because of the threat that the individual presents to society.

There are no pragmatic reason for the death penalty which violates the Right of Life of the individual. It is not required to protect the Rights of others and is exclusively used as a form of revenge. Life in prison without the possibility of parole is all that is required to protect society from the actions of an individual regardless of the crime(s) that they might have committed.

A person cannot support the ideals established by the Declaration of Independence and the death penalty at the same time.

 

Not my sentences. I quoted them, but you're wrong. The two statements say distinct things. See if you can work out the difference.

 

Didn't see it refuted.
Why do you consider the study invalid?

 

It is up to the court to decide if an appeal is justified, not you, not me.

 

The only thing I have seen you say is that it's just. You've said it repeatedly, but I haven't seen you give reasons for the statement. I've just seen the statement.

"Us" is all who seek the glory of God.

 

No it isn't. That's why we are not a democracy, and instead are a democratic republic. Pure democracy IS mob rule. Whatever the majority says goes, and in the US the minority member has rights as well. The south was once pretty solidly behind segregation, but were forced to change their ways in spite of their desire to have a white dominated society.
The mob isn't always right, and our system of government recognizes that.

Just swearing at people is not argument. It may work to intimidate people on the playground, but we are grown ups here, and not subject to cow-towing to a bullying cretin.
Raise the bar.

 

Justice is the foundation of support for the death penalty, just as it is for all sanctions.

Justice has many definitions - just deserts, payment, just sanction, just retributuion and the like.

Revenge

Revenge and justice or just retribution are very different, regardless of what the dictionary may say.

Revenge is most often personal, has no due process and no limitations.

Justice, in law, as just retribution, has pre existing statutes, proportional sanctions, due process, etc. Very different from revenge.

If some wrongly find all criminal sanctions to be revenge, then they will also wrongly find the death penalty to be revenge.

The death penalty is supported for the same reasons all criminal sanctions are, that is that they are just, appropriate and proportional.

We may all have some variations in what we support, but that is the foundation of support for all criminal sanctions.

 

There are several logical fallacies related to this opinion.

The criteria for conviction is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "guilty beyond any doubt." Only rarely are cases determined by guilt beyond any doubt. Eye witness testimony, for example, is highly influential in a jury's decision but it is also highly inaccurate. Studies have shown that 40% of all eye witness testimony is in error. In most cases we really aren't actually sure that the person convicted actually committed the crime.

The process in court is an adversarial process between attorneys. General convictions or acquitals are predicated upon the competency of the attorneys moreso than upon the evidence being presented. An example would be the OJ Simpson case where highly skilled defense attorneys were able to discredit very solid evidence by the prosecution. It was the incompetence of the attorneys for the prosecution that lead to the acquital and not the evidence.

Capital punishment is an act of premeditated murder by the government and yet no individual has the Right to commit premeditated murder. The People cannot delegate to government a power that they do not, as individuals, possess.

Premeditated murder is a criminal offense and yet when an innocent person is murdered by the government in error, which has unquestionably happened, no one is being held accountable. There would be a lot fewer juries voting for capital punishment if they faced the possibility of prosecution for murder if it was later determined that the person that was executed was innocent. Over 140 convicted individuals on death row have been exhonerated of the crime for which they were convicted because of DNA evidence. We have no idea of how many innocent people have been executed because DNA evidence wasn't available to exhonerate them for the crime that they were convicted of. Not all capital cases have DNA evidence that can prove the person charged is innocent.

The juries are rigged in capital punishment cases. A person that objects to capital punishment is automatically excluded from being on the jury. This violates the judicial principle of a trial by a jury of one's peers as it restricts the jury to only those that advocate murder by the government.

The US Declaration of Independence established that the primary purpose of government is to protect the unalienable Rights of the People capital punishment violates this as capital punishment is not required to protect anyone's Rights. Life in prison without the possibility of parole protects the People. While pragmatic infringements upon unalienable Rights are necessary for the government to protect the Rights of the People those infringements should always be the minimum possible to achieve the goal of protection. Incarceration protects the People and capital punishment is not a pragmatic infringement as it is completely unnecessary.

 

This is 14K bs. Capital punishment is punishment not murder. The death penalty is for justice not protection of the people.

Its not hard.

Quantrill

 

The death penalty is not called murder. You have yet to prove its murder. Its punishment. And Ive said the death penalty is just because if fits the crime. If your going to say what I said, get it right. And again, Ive told you why its just. Because it fits the crime. 2 plus 2 = 4. 1 life for a life. Equal and just. Said it and substantianted it.

Well, if the death penalty fits the crime, and you execute the one who did the crime, then it is just and valid.

Ive already told you why. A life for a life. Justice. 2 +2 = 4. 1 life for 1 life.

There you go. The death penalty is resonable because it fits the crime. It is just.

Its called punishment and the death penalty.

Ive told you why it is just.

Your example fails. When you as an individual take the law into your own hands then it is illegal and you are wrong. Again, pay attention. We are talking about government and the legal system.

Because thats the way law works. You break the law, they come after you. You may consider it vengeance. It doesn't matter. They will still come after you.

Sorry pal. We are discussing the death penalty which is a law. Your ethics are involved, but you cant move the exercise of the death penalty or any other law into the individuals arena. It is done by governments.

Quantrill

 

Well you haven't been keeping up then as Ive given the reason it is just.

Does 'Us' believe Gen. 9 as given by God in the Bible?

Quantrill

 

Jared Loughner. Six dead and caught at the scene with gun in hand and many witnesses (Arizona, USA, January 2011). Why is this clown still breathing at the taxpayer expense? I could care less that one of the victims was "politically important". This is a "slam dunk" case for capital punishment. Why even have a trial? What value will this man provide to USA society in the future? Is there some super-pschologist that will study him in the future and find a cure for serial killing? Just take his DNA before he is executed and look for a molecular biology reason for the serial killing.

 

What does God making a covenant with mankind have to do with it? How does that respond to anything we are discussing? Make an argument, not a verse bomb.

"43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5

Now that verse bomb has relevance.

 

I think that paedophiles that kidnap rape and murder children should be executed. The russian way - declared guilty, taken downstairs to the showers, a bullet in the back of the head and a bill for the bullet to the family.

Serial murderers should also be executed. Probably a little more slowly.

Other than that, I'm opposed to the death penalty.

 

Well murder is only what is illegal homicide. To me though, all killing is murder if it is not voluntary.

But this is a non sequitor. Do you know what that is? If you dont, find out.

You havent substantiated it as well. Logically I cna respond by saiyng it ISNT just BECAUSE it fits the crime. It isnt just to kill a murderer because its the same as his crime.

Why is it just and valid? Again I can reverse your conclusion and say because it fits IT ISNT valid.

You have yet to show why killing a murderer because they killed another is just. All you have shown is the acts are the same - not why the punishment is valid. If you say because the punishment is the same is the crime it is valid, you need to tell me why that is. Again we know they equal each other, but that isnt a reason for why its just.

Again, non sequitor.

No we are discussing ethics, not government and law. Law and government are based on ethics. We are not discussing law we are discussing ethics.

Not if the body politic changes the law. Then they may not come after you.

Ok lets play it your way, its far easier for me. Legally the death penalty is illegal because it violates the inalienable right to life.

 

Well, you brought up the glory of God. Genesis 9:5-6 is the institution of the death penalty by God for man to carry out.

Matt. 5 is good also but it does not revoke the death penalty of Gen. 9.

Quantrill

 

The death penalty is punishment, not murder. Its killing but not murder. These are different.

Why should I find out? I know the death penalty is punishment that fits the crime.

But you always forget its not the same as the crime because it is punishment.

I just told you why its just and valid.

Ive told you why it is just, and valid. Reread. (though I know it wont do you any good)

Again you miss or are trying to cover your mistake. When you break the law they come after you. Its what you want to call 'vengeance'. But really its justice. The same is true with the death penalty. Its justice.

Note how you must redefine everything to fit your position. Justice is vengeance. Punishment is murder. And now 'legal' is 'illegal'. Once you break the laws your rights under the law are limited and you come under the trial and punishment phase of the law.

Quantrill

 

The U.S. justice system must be way more sophisticated than ours in Canada. We have had many wrongful convictions here, which makes the death penalty redundant.
Killing bad people just puts them out of their misery, we would rather see them suffer in jail
for life. .

 

There is no justice in the premeditated murder of a person by the government that presents no further threat to society and is in handcuffs and chains.

This response, of course, ignored all of the other arguments why the death penality is logically unjustifiable and that it violates the ideals established by the Declaration of Independence. Any American that actually believes in the ideals upon which America was founded as expressed in the Declaration of Independence is logically opposed to the death penalty.

Of note all tyrannical government's are allowed to murder the citizens and residents under the law. No government should have the authority to commit premeditated murder under the law as it is an unnecessary form of government tyranny. The support for the death penalty is the support for government tyranny.

 

The New Testament does supercede the Old. Thus it is called the New.

 

Shiva, your illogic would have us equate incarceration and kidnapping, fines and theft.

All laws and all due process are premeditated. Shiva desires laws and due process that are established after the crimes. Riduculous, of course. We want our laws to be thought out and debated and then carefully put into statute - very premeditated, we hope.

Living murderers harm and murder, again, in prison, after esacpe, after improper release and after not incarcerating them, at all.

Executed murderers never harm again.

I have found no signer of the declaration of independence opposed to the death penalty. There is no violation of that document either by incarceration or execution. Even the Quakers had the death penalty in early America. The logic supporting the death penalty is the same logic that supports all sanctions, that is that they are just, approprite and proportional and also helps protwct innocent lives.

 

It certainly doesn't protect the innocent life taken when the wrong person is executed.
That is where the rubber hits the road. That risk is not worth it. Life imprisonment without parole handles the public safety.

 

Sorry, I posted the previous one, accidently, and the edit option went away.

Shiva, your illogic would have us equate incarceration and kidnapping, fines and theft.

All laws and all due process are premeditated. Shiva desires laws and due process that are established after the crimes. Ridiculous, of course. We want our laws to be thought out and debated and then carefully put into statute - very premeditated, we hope.

Living murderers harm and murder, again, in prison, after escape, after improper release and after not incarcerating them, at all.

Executed murderers never harm again.

Was any signor of the declaration of independence opposed to the death penalty? There is no violation of that document either by incarceration or execution. Even the Quakers had the death penalty in early America. The logic supporting the death penalty is the same logic that supports all sanctions, that is that they are just, appropriate and proportional and also helps protect innocent lives.

Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

2) Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, http://townhall.com/columnists/Denn..._capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands

3) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A