A monster is dead

[ispar]

Originally posted by mrfish:
what about a vicious dog that attacks 2 yr olds every time he sees one? what if that dog killed 5 young children at a party by mauling their limbs off.

 i suppose we should build them a little dog house with bars on it and feed and water him and pay his vet bill for the rest of his life? perhaps have a doggy psychologist come out and try to make him better. or does your life sanctifying morality only apply to mammals with a certain amout of neurons?

i think it is hypocritical that you apply your morality only to certain animals and not others, namely your own species. why make the distinction if it is life itself that is so sacred to you...

Eh? Humans are hypocritical creatures. So am I. So are you. So are all of us.

By that reasoning, the reverse is true. I shoot your dog, so I should die, no? I took a life, and murder is a crime. Because life has such value, and one has just been taken - I must die.

Come to think of it... at least part of the twisted reasoning behind capital punishment comes from the notion of life being sacred. Human life is held to be of such high value that the best punishment for taking it is death... hypocrisy? Hell yes.

But I'm willing to admit it.

[Jammer]

ispar, you've hit the nail.

Claiming that human life is so sacred that it must be revenged by taking another life is a paradox argument.

As a consequence? Well, it's the society that dictates the consquenses and the society has nothing to gain from executions. If the society should start to execute those citizens that are a 'burden to the economy' we will end up in a 'Orwellian' or 'Fascistic' kind of state, where only the healthy and strong have the right to live.

The human life vs life in general is an age old debate, and there are sevral philosophical directions to take. Arguing that a human life is worth more than a life of dog is not nessecarily hypocracy. It's merely a choice of philosophical stance.

One main argument against death penalty to me is that death can never be undone. Death is final, and as far as we know (can know) there's no 'after-life', no 'nirvana' or anything like that.
And with an imperfect justice system we're bound to deny innocent people their lives, which is utterly and outmost horrible.

I know this is streaching the point a bit hard, but to make a point and to really  understand what you are discussing you sometimes have to extend arguments to its extremes.

There are ONE valid (IMO) argument for death penaly, and that is revenge, revenge on the behalf of the relatives of the victims, and I can actually appreciate this argument. I can understand the pain and agony that calls out for revenge, I know I'd crave revenge if put in that position.

It's not an easy judgement to make, but I hope I've explained my view on the matter.  

[Toad]

Revenge? Has absolutely nothing to do with it for me (with one exception).

I look at it as a guaranteed 100% effective way to stop recidivism.

Unlike Santa's example of Lundin, where there is a high probability that he may kill again, there is a 100% certainty that McVeigh will never kill another person.

I do believe that "vengance is mine sayeth the Lord". As I said, however, the death penalty for McVeigh isn't about vengance for me. It's about guaranteeing a total end to his killing of others.

My one exception? When my family is the target.   I'm quite willing to act in the Lord's place in that event. And quite willing to be held accountable for it to either earthly or other authorities.

[ispar]

Originally posted by Toad:
Revenge? Has absolutely nothing to do with it for me (with one exception).

I look at it as a guaranteed 100% effective way to stop recidivism.

Unlike Santa's example of Lundin, where there is a high probability that he may kill again, there is a 100% certainty that McVeigh will never kill another person.

I do believe that "vengance is mine sayeth the Lord". As I said, however, the death penalty for McVeigh isn't about vengance for me. It's about guaranteeing a total end to his killing of others.

My one exception? When my family is the target.   I'm quite willing to act in the Lord's place in that event. And quite willing to be held accountable for it to either earthly or other authorities.

Really? You know, a life sentence if just as effective at preventing repeat offenses as the death penalty.

The difference? You didn't have kill someone.

[mrfish]

Originally posted by ispar:

Really? You know, a life sentence if just as effective at preventing repeat offenses as the death penalty.
.

probability that a dead person won't kill again = 1

probability that a person on death row won't kill again = some number < 1

[ispar]

Originally posted by mrfish:


probability that a dead person won't kill again = 1

probability that a person on death row won't kill again = some number < 1

Eh? Says who? You? Death row is the "waiting list." I wasn't talking about death row, I was talking about life in prison. Perhaps right now it's too easy to get out early because of "good behavior" or appeals or similar ridiculousness. The system is as much at fault as anything. Right now, keeping capital punishment is the easy way out. Revise the system, and do away with the death penalty. Actually, do away with the death penalty entirely, and revise the system while you're at it, but at the very least get rid of this capital punishment nonsense.

You still don't seem to understand my stance. Sure, not allowing the person to kill again is part of the aim - but killing them to prevent it? Paradoxal. Hypocrisy. And just plain wrong, IMO.

(BTW, how many stars has this cost me  )

[Eagler]

you are starting to catch on StSanta

I thought as you, 20 years ago

Eagler

[ispar]

Originally posted by Eagler:
you are starting to catch on StSanta

I thought as you, 20 years ago

Eagler

Oh, ye gods, I hate it when people say that.
 

[Toad]

OK, Ispar, guarantee that no "life" prisoner will ever kill another inmate.

Go ahead, give us the 100% guarantee that some guy that kited a check or sold an ounce of coke (non-lifers) won't get knifed by a  McVeigh-type lifer.

Give us the guarantee that the guy Santa used as an example will never kill again. Go ahead.1

You can't. You never will be able to do so.

McVeigh lost his seat on Spaceship Earth. BFD. He voluntarily jumped off when he threw the switch in OKC. ...and he knew it.

[ispar]

Originally posted by Toad:
OK, Ispar, guarantee that no "life" prisoner will ever kill another inmate.

Go ahead, give us the 100% guarantee that some guy that kited a check or sold an ounce of coke (non-lifers) won't get knifed by a  McVeigh-type lifer.

Give us the guarantee that the guy Santa used as an example will never kill again. Go ahead.1

You can't. You never will be able to do so.

McVeigh lost his seat on Spaceship Earth. BFD. He voluntarily jumped off when he threw the switch in OKC. ...and he knew it.

*sigh*
What can I say to that? I dunno... keep him in solitary confinement? No, there is no 100% guarantee, and no I did not consider incidents inside prison walls.

Regardless of that, it is no more right for someone to be killed as punishment for a crime (or whatever you come up with instead of punishment to justify it; I don't care what you call it) than for the person you are punishing to have killed his victims.

To kill another person is wrong, under any circumstances. I don't care if the person deserved it or not, as far as I'm concerned it's murder no matter how you slice it.

This thread has become a monster all its own - shall we agree to disagree?
Shake?

[jihad]

Quit being nieve <sp?> Ispar - chances are if you handed a piece of toejam like McVeigh an olive branch he would either hit you over the head with it or sharpen it and stab you.

The only problem with the death penalty is we don't walk them out of the courtroom and execute them immediately, they get to lounge around at the taxpayers expense for up to 15 years while tying up the courts with appeal after appeal.

I live in Oklahoma...that piece of toejam lived six years too long, IMO they should have packed his rectum with C-4 explosive and lit the fuse.

[AKHog]

Public Hanging.

-AKHog

[AKHog]

Originally posted by jihad:
The only problem with the death penalty is we don't walk them out of the courtroom and execute them immediately, they get to lounge around at the taxpayers expense for up to 15 years while tying up the courts with appeal after appeal.

No way. Too easy. Give em atleast a week or so (in a hole) to think about whats about to happen to them. Or maybe a cell with one window facing the thing they hang em on so he can watch em test it out with dummies over and over again. But I agree this 5-10 year crap is just that, crap.

-AKHog

[mrfish]

huh? i'm not sure i get your rebuttals but my response is a simple math exercise.

- if someone is dead they can't murder anymore - there is no chance.

- if someone is alive they can still murder. ex: what if a freak earthquake knocked the prison guard tower over the fence and collapsed the wall that sh*&hole mcveigh was living out his life sentence behind? what if he waltzed out and into the arms of some seperatist group somewhere and then proceeded to plot out and destroy another building? is it HIGHLY improbable? yes. but there is some probability and what toad is saying is that most of us are not comfortable with any chance when it comes to things like mcveigh. why should we be - they have some supernatural place in the inuverse because they are humans???

what is the probability that the spider walking across your kitchen floor is going to bring death to your family? extreeeeeemely minimal. he is probably just cruising around looking for a fly but you pass judgment on him and summarily execute him simply for tresspassing?! any guilt there? your life adoring sanctity only expires when a human becomes involved. your place on the food chain makes you judge and jury somehow? its arrogant.....

he (mcveigh) has forfeited his place among us - he dies because he is a risk and a much greater danger then that spider you smushed....you say i am a hypocrite but i dont get how. either=

a: become a buddhist, announce all life is sacred and live it. that means not stepping on bugs eating meat wearing leather etc........or

b: admit that in order for the whole to get by as peacefully as possible some lives have to be eliminated. namely those that threaten the peaceful cooperative people. it is harsh and unpleasant but so is having them among us.

you are taking individualism to an extreme - our rights end when they infringe on someone elses. when you murder you give up everything - you are just a useless sack of food at that point. it is a scary thing to think someone can take your life but it is the risk you take when you try to make the world a crappy place to live like mcveigh did.

will some innocents die with juries deciding people's fate? yes. will some innocents die if we invade the shores at normandy? yes but it was necessary to ensure the freedom of millions. such is the nature of war.

yes shake and agree to disagree but make sure you arent getting your opinions from some shakey jawed  tearful emotion speech on some tv drama and that your opinion comes from logic and fact -

[StSanta]

One thing I must comment:

will some innocents die with juries deciding people's fate? yes. will some innocents die if we invade the shores at normandy? yes but it was necessary to ensure the freedom of millions. such is the nature of war.

There are several issues I find worrying with this statement. The first is the comparison between a society in times of war and the same society in times of peace. Traditionally, the laws regarding the taking of a human life or several human lives are very different. mcVeigh is actually a good example of this, he got the Bronze Star for killing for his nation in wartime, and he got the lethal injection for *illegaly* killing members of his own country in peace times.

One could argue that this distinction then is a legal one and, if one must, take it one step further and argue that a government that also kills members of its own nation in the event of wrongful deaths should in some way be punished.

How do you apologize to a dead man? Who bears the responsibility? The judge does not determine guilt; hence the burden is not with him. The jury? Perhaps. it'd be interesting to see what'd happen with the amount of death penalties if jury members were held accountable and sentenced for murder/manslaughter in the event of an innocent being executed. Then again they do the best they can absed on available evidence at the time.

Anyhow, I'm digressing.

The second part of the comment also disturb me. "You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs". what fish is saying is we have to accept a certain percentage of innocents dying for crimes they haven't committed. This is both an opinion and an assertion; it's an opinion (or a philosophical stance) from the POV that there are sacrifices to be made everywhere, and it's an assertion from the POV that unnecessary loss of life by the hands of the government isn't preventable.

It's the latter part I disagree with. Incarceration for life works. There is a risk of him killing other prison inmates, but then again it's the job of society to make sure it doesn't happen. There is a risk of him fleeing, but again the burden is on society. Maximum security prisons should be just that, and we've seen in the past prisons that have been extremely hard to get away from.