JCC [Hippies] Anti-death penalty thread

I'm liberal as hell by nature, but I'll ask this.

Put yourself in the position of having a family member, loved one, or best friend... brutally murdered, mutilated, raped, or sexually assaulted prior, or afterwards being taken out of this world.

Think if it was someone you were close to, if it was your child.

Put yourself in that position, and really honestly think, and say you would still agree with what a travesty it is on the rights of a monster that is capable of doing that to someone you love, and then say that wouldn't more than likely haunt you for the rest of your life, and tell me you'd not want an eye for an eye.

If anything getting a shot, they swab them down with alcohol to prevent infection btw, before the procedure begins, is it really inhumane, compared to some of the atrocities these people have committed?

They get to go to sleep, think of all the things their victims had to endure before they were taken prematurely.

 

Your entire post is an ad hominem. Let's say everyone here suddenly decided that the death penalty was good. The death penalty would still be bad. Its status as good or bad is independent of our opinions or viewpoints. That's why we argue ideas and not people. Ideas are objective.

 

Were it not for the judgmental air of your first sentence I'd have to say I agree with you. I like you. Vivec, I really do, but you're so mean sometimes. Let's agree that each one of us on these boards is correct all the time and that everyone else is wrong all the time.

Again I'll argue that the death penalty is flawed...and that its major flaw lies in the fact that it is not implemented often enough.

 

Watch out, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and China, we're gonna catch up!

 

Hold on.

I said a post was an ad hominem. I described a paragraph as a logical fallacy. You respond by calling me mean. By making a personal attack when I made none. And I'm the mean one?

 

The problem with the death penalty is not that it is not implemented enough. Get a new catch phrase.
The problem with the death penalty is not that it is not used properly.
The problem with the death penalty is that it is not an effective deterrent.
The problem with the death penalty is that it does not solve the problem.
The problem with the death penalty is that it does not save money.
The problem with the death penalty is that it is not humane.
The problem with the death penalty is that it is capricious, malicious, and corrupt (just like the people that enforce it--or try to).

If you think there are too many people on this planet, see my last post, with one amendment: in stead of traveling to some predetermined random town/village to start your murder spree, start with your own immediate family. Lessen the population/diminish the gene pool that way.

Again, I can only think of a very few people who are beyond the pale and should simply be killed. But even so, killing them costs more money than imprisoning them for life without the possibility of parole.

And, by the way, my father was murdered. But I did not want the death penalty for the person who killed him then, and would not now. Not because I'm some elevated spiritual person or enlightened crap like that. That person has to live the rest of his life knowing what he did. And caring that he did it. I can't think of a more hellish prison.

 

Please don't compare me saying you don't know what you'd want, if a brutal tragedy happened to one of your family members or loved ones, and it personally affected you, and compare it with countries that kill their citizens for merely speaking their minds.

 

Those are the only countries that execute more people than the United States.

And although they do execute political prisoners, they have murders, rapes, drug trafficking, etc. same as any other country.

 

In regards to Amnesty International: Israel (they are not ALWAYS wrong, but they are certainly not always correct either)

Now, to the meat: it is "impossible" (read: "nigh improbable" or "highly statistically unlikely") to eradicate the death penalty from the United States. The reason for this is because of the Constitution spelling out some "Big Deal(tm)" offenses (though, interestingly, not punishments for them). The USC is what actually levies the punishment against treason, not the Constitution (nor the Bill of Rights) though it's been some time since I've taken a class studying constitutional law so that may be a faulty reading of the texts/decisions since then.

So long as it's viewed that the death penalty is proscribed for those offenses, anything else becomes simply, to put it horribly, "haggling over the price."

Granted, this is less statistically improbable to overturn than something actually 100% enumerated within the text of an Article or Amendment of the Constitution (like, let's say, gun ownership), but it's an extraordinarily hard sell.

 

Vengeful feelings shouldn't* dictate the law. Sorry.



*and they don't in the civilized world

 

Just because many countries don't have the death penalty doesn't make them any more civilized/puts them on a higher moral plane. Terrible argument.


Los Angeles Lakers: Drama, guaranteed.

 

Yes, it does, no matter what your propaganda machine might say.

 

You're entire country is like, non-Kosher, man! Jamon and manchego, puh-leeze!

Argument invalid!

<3

 

I would use the same argument with those state's here in the U.S. who don't have the death penalty.


Los Angeles Lakers: Drama, guaranteed.

 

It deeply disturbs me that if I or a relation of mine was killed in the USA the person thought to be at fault could have their life taken from them.
Even if they're innocent or mentally retarded and not responsible for their own actions.

 

It deeply disturbs other people that if they or a relation of theirs was killed in the USA, the person thought to be at fault could have their life spared them and kept above the poverty line* and in relatively good health by the government for the rest of their days.

* = $22,650 per person per year in prison, in 2001 dollars.

Whether or not you agree with it, that's the other side's argument -- and, frankly, apparently more people feel that way than you do which is why the debates still rage on.

 

I have a number of problems with the death penalty, many of which are practical. But the debate will never hinge on practicality or reason. It will always boil down to emotion. Eye for eye makes a lot of people feel good, even if it does leave everyone blind. I do think, however, that consistently demonstrating how impractical capital punishment is in accomplishing anything but revenge serves to slowly erode public opinion.

On a personal note, I fear becoming embroiled in the US judicial system much more than I fear being killed by terrorists, mugged on the street, random gang-related violence, plane crashes, or pets gone wild. The harsh reality for me is that, statistically speaking, should I ever have the misfortune of being the target of the government--local, state, or federal--chances are good that I will end up in prison or dead.

 

Well, here are 2 simple things you can do to avoid judicial miscarriage:
1: don't be black/african-american/have a high concentration of melanin in your skin. (see, easy)
2: don't go anywhere in the southern US.

Oh, and the US supreme court does not allow the execution of the mentally retarded. But, Texas set their limits as an IQ of 70 or less, 10 points below the national average standard of 80 or less. Guess that way they figure they can kill more Texans?
Oh well.
Enjoy.

 

I wish it were limited to one region of the country, but the phenomenon is pretty widespread and very ugly in some places.

It's especially informative to look at tables 2 and 5 in that document. It might make you reconsider your views on the south vs other regions of the country. Bottom line: Even in Hawaii (the lowest), there are nearly twice as many black inmates as white ones. The statistics are not any better for those who are executed.

 

Next time I'm down in Palm Beach, you should come visit and we can play the "Can we not get Noundy arrested?" game!

<3

 

lol.

 

I guess I would ask you then, what DOES make something good or bad, if not societal opinion? The constitution? That's public opinion as well. God? That hinges on people's opinion of what he she or it does or doesn't like. So what decides something's status as "good or bad"? Nothing other than opinion, I think.

 

Not really. Congress and the state legislatures are the bodies that approve amendments, and while they "represent" the opinions of the public they are not necessarily beholden to them. Amendments have passed despite huge controversy-- most notably the Reconstruction amendments (13th, 14th, and 16th) which would not have passed had the Southern states been in the union. The U.S. Supreme Court, as the main interpreter of the Constitution, can and does go against public opinion.


Also, I don't see how anyone can look beyond "THE DEATH PENALTY IS GOOD CUZ IT GETS RID OF MURDERERS" and still think it's morally right. One would have to ignore or be alright with (yay for killing black and poor and low IQ people who may be innocent?) the numerous, inevitable problems in the way it is implemented.