|
|
Post by biglin on Oct 2, 2010 15:30:20 GMT -5
No, Fret, I'm NOT confused; I just can't put the likes of, for instance, Marianne Bachmeir and Richard Ramirez on the same level any more than I can put Georg Elser and Adolf Hitler on the same level.
Marianne killed the murderer and rapist of her daughter; Ramirez stalked and killed women. Elser killed some Nazis and tried to kill Hitler; Hitler killed millions of people.
If you can't see the moral difference I feel sad, Fret.
Being left or right has nothing to do with the death penalty. For what it's worth MOST of my conservative friends are 'antis' and most of my lefty friends are pros!
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 2, 2010 15:42:09 GMT -5
I hold to a higher principle. Justice has to be dispassionate. Your emotions on the 'names' you quote are not representative, others will disagree on who to put against the wall.
The state should not sink to the level of the killer purely because someone thinks one killer is 'more evil' than another.
Nice going with Godwin's law, by the way. It only took two posts!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Oct 2, 2010 16:28:35 GMT -5
It's my opinion that a people that wants it's citizens to refrain from killing (murdering) should also refrain from killing (executing) it's citizens, even the most vile among them.
When we forgive ~ condone ~ encourage ~ acts of vigilantism, we in essence demand our citizens take the law into their own hands, lest they be cowards, btb. It certainly doesn't encourage us to follow the laws of the land. So then, why expect more of those we (on a case by case basis) deem 'murderers' and those we (individually) deem 'not murderers'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2010 22:42:19 GMT -5
Justice has to be dispassionate. Dispassionate justice is appeasement. Only an iron fist stops murder. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2010 22:46:57 GMT -5
It puts everyone on the same level as the killer. The state loses the moral high ground. We are all killers either way. It's what we are as a race. The problem with murder isn't the killing. It's killing without permission. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 3, 2010 5:03:18 GMT -5
Marianne killed the murderer and rapist of her daughter; Ramirez stalked and killed women. Elser killed some Nazis and tried to kill Hitler; Hitler killed millions of people. If you can't see the moral difference I feel sad, Fret. ! i can see a difference the woman killed for revenge..a am who was a killer elser killed some nazis...had these nazis actually killed..if not he was killing premptivly hitler killed no one[as far as we know] he encouraged killings..he allowed killings.... it is not a fact though that he actually took life by his own hand and if he didnt actually take a life he is not a killer in the true sense of the word. |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 3, 2010 5:09:58 GMT -5
I hold to a higher principle. Justice has to be dispassionate. ! justice should not only be dispasionate but blind i believe in the death sentence for those convicted without a shadow of doubt ie..shipman...hindly/brady etc on the grounds that i see no value in keeping them alive..they broke the laws of society and as such society owes them nothing..... where there is doubt even fractionally...imprison...but when there is no doubt....i fail to see the purpose of keeping them alive,,,and i can say that without a shred of emotionalism |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 3, 2010 6:25:52 GMT -5
It puts everyone on the same level as the killer. The state loses the moral high ground. We are all killers either way. It's what we are as a race. The problem with murder isn't the killing. It's killing without permission. Maybe in America that statement might have some credence, but it does not here. So if the state gives itself permission to kill that's alright, then? Nah. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 3, 2010 6:28:08 GMT -5
I hold to a higher principle. Justice has to be dispassionate. ! justice should not only be dispasionate but blind i believe in the death sentence for those convicted without a shadow of doubt ie..shipman...hindly/brady etc on the grounds that i see no value in keeping them alive..they broke the laws of society and as such society owes them nothing..... where there is doubt even fractionally...imprison...but when there is no doubt....i fail to see the purpose of keeping them alive,,,and i can say that without a shred of emotionalism The problem is that it can take ten, fifteen, twenty or even twenty five years for someone's innocence to come to light. They can be released and compensated, if, however, you exterminated them, what then? |
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 3, 2010 10:25:45 GMT -5
i am talking about those where there is NO SHRED of a doubt...and they exist.....shipman..nrady..neilson..west etc etc i know its pie in the sky..but that is how i would run things |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 3, 2010 10:31:38 GMT -5
i am talking about those where there is NO SHRED of a doubt...and they exist.....shipman..nrady..neilson..west etc etc i know its pie in the sky..but that is how i would run things But, the cases I referred to had no shred of doubt it seems until many years later. We can't dig a corpse up and apologise to it. Lock 'em up and lose the key. Its the civilised way, besides, a life spent behind bars seems more of a punishment to me. Why did West and Shipman kill themselves? |
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Oct 3, 2010 13:54:23 GMT -5
i am talking about those where there is NO SHRED of a doubt...and they exist.....shipman..nrady..neilson..west etc etc i know its pie in the sky..but that is how i would run things Hi mouse, yes I agree there are cases where there can be no doubt, but that isn't necessary according to US laws ~ only 'reasonable' ~ to convict and sentence someone to death. In most cases, that's all you've got ~ no absolute certainty. Even cases with eye witnesses aren't a sure thing because it's been shown that when there are a few eye witnesses what was seen will differ. Even cases with confessions aren't a sure deal ~ sometimes it's coerced, for example. And, in the US, even participants in crimes who didn't actually do the the killing are eligible for murder 1 and a death sentence. Separately, and not addressed to you, mouse, I disagree with people who want to give me a one off if I kill someone with premeditation who killed someone I love (whether convicted or not). Why should I be less eligible for a death sentence than any other citizen? And, why shouldn't the (supposed) murderer of my loved one be given the same protection under the law as any other citizen? I'm with Fret ~ lock them ALL up and throw away the keys ~ and I'll add, while we're at it, give them a number............ and forget them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2010 14:05:50 GMT -5
I simply cannot buy the argument that Hitler did not kill anyone. He gave the order and he was every bit as guilty as a Mafia capo who orders a 'hit' on a rival gangster.
If you take the argument that it's necessary to kill with your own hands you'd also have NO legal basis to punish, for instance, bin Laden for ordering 9/11 and so on.
I remain opposed to the death penalty but I also agree that NOT all killings ARE equally to be condemned.
The murder of Franco's designated heir Carrero Blanco forced him to choose Juan Carlos as his successor who liberalised Spain and made it a democracy.
The whole notion that the state somehow has a specially priviliged status that allows IT or its agents to commit acts that would be CRIMES if carried out by ordinary citizens just strikes me as being, not simply inherently absurd, but positively hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 3, 2010 14:10:33 GMT -5
I simply cannot buy the argument that Hitler did not kill anyone. He gave the order and he was every bit as guilty as a Mafia capo who orders a 'hit' on a rival gangster. If you take the argument that it's necessary to kill with your own hands you'd also have NO legal basis to punish, for instance, bin Laden for ordering 9/11 and so on. I remain opposed to the death penalty but I also agree that NOT all killings ARE equally to be condemned. The murder of Franco's designated heir Carrero Blanco forced him to choose Juan Carlos as his successor who liberalised Spain and made it a democracy. The whole notion that the state somehow has a specially priviliged status that allows IT or its agents to commit acts that would be CRIMES if carried out by ordinary citizens just strikes me as being, not simply inherently absurd, but positively hypocritical. Nice going with Godwin's law, by the way. It only took two posts! Its definitely a talent you guys have, there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2010 14:32:04 GMT -5
I simply cannot buy the argument that Hitler did not kill anyone. He gave the order and he was every bit as guilty as a Mafia capo who orders a 'hit' on a rival gangster. If you take the argument that it's necessary to kill with your own hands you'd also have NO legal basis to punish, for instance, bin Laden for ordering 9/11 and so on. I remain opposed to the death penalty but I also agree that NOT all killings ARE equally to be condemned. The murder of Franco's designated heir Carrero Blanco forced him to choose Juan Carlos as his successor who liberalised Spain and made it a democracy. The whole notion that the state somehow has a specially priviliged status that allows IT or its agents to commit acts that would be CRIMES if carried out by ordinary citizens just strikes me as being, not simply inherently absurd, but positively hypocritical. Nice going with Godwin's law, by the way. It only took two posts! Its definitely a talent you guys have, there. It's difficult to argue that it's irrelevant to the basic issue. After all, was Pol Pot any less a murderer because he only gave the order? Stalin? Mao? Mugabe? That's my essential point as far as that side is concerned. |
|
Alpha 
