|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 8, 2011 10:47:12 GMT -5
(That could be accidentally misleading if someone hadn't seen the film so I'll just be pedantic and say they didn't ''make the story bad for'' anyone, they just presented the truth.) I disagree. While "The Thin Blue Line" was based on a true incident, the presentation was very anti DP. It is very easy to "juice" the story up as they did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 10:49:09 GMT -5
Perhaps it's time to show my cards. I'm just a little to the right of Attila the Hun. I believe firmly in stiff punishment - IF it's fair (however, I know all too well that sometimes it isn't fair). My objection to the death penalty is not what it does to the condemned; after all, MOST (but not all) of those executed deserve it. What I object to is what it does to SOCIETY;we effectively declare some people as "disposable", thereby further cheapening human life. What, we're "justified" in taking criminals' lives? Don't you suppose that THEY also felt justified in what they did? Does the difference between murder and execution come down to a badge and title? Killing someone who commits a heinous murder is not cheapening human life. What is done when the state executes a murderer, is we take away his most valuable possession. His life. Taking away anything less, cheapens the life of his victim. Indeed it DOES cheapen human life - as witness the willingness to take it. Neither have you yet addressed the question of executing the wrongly convicted and factually innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 8, 2011 11:27:09 GMT -5
Killing someone who commits a heinous murder is not cheapening human life. What is done when the state executes a murderer, is we take away his most valuable possession. His life. Taking away anything less, cheapens the life of his victim. Indeed it DOES cheapen human life - as witness the willingness to take it. Neither have you yet addressed the question of executing the wrongly convicted and factually innocent. Joseph reckons its a price worth paying. I wonder if akamai agrees. No system of justice will be error free. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 8, 2011 11:52:06 GMT -5
Actually, it doesn't. A child may be spanked for being beating up another child. Does that put his parent at the same level as his child? A murderer picks his victim, and his/her victim's body is found decaying wherever it is found. A cop speeds to catch a speeder breaking the law. The cop is ENFORCING the law with his speeding. To provide safety for our society, we kill this murderer, who is apt to kill again. The state kills ENFORCING the law. That does not put us at the same level as someone who will break the law. That's a nice try, but no cigar. But I do appreciate you've no other avenue to explore. Yes, parents do spank children as a disciplinary measure, which when used correctly will guide a child's development. That hardly translates into putting the parent on the same level as the child. You become no better than the killer when your wish to have them executed is carried out. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is a maxim worthy of any primitive culture like Islam, for example. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 16:23:38 GMT -5
You become no better than the killer when your wish to have them executed is carried out. It's not the killing that's wrong. It's killing without permission, the ultimate form of vigilantism, requiring a commensurate, harshly punitive response from the law-abiding. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 16:28:02 GMT -5
The prosecution claimed (successfully) that he'd planned the whole thing and initiated the attack. Face it - human courts make human errors. If the prosecution was successful, no mistake was made. The man was/is guilty. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 8, 2011 16:32:23 GMT -5
You become no better than the killer when your wish to have them executed is carried out. It's not the killing that's wrong. It's killing without permission, the ultimate form of vigilantism, requiring a commensurate, harshly punitive response from the law-abiding. That's a novel concept to me; killing without permission. So in some altered state there can be killing with permission. The question then is who is qualified to give this notional permission to kill? It strikes me as odd that a lot of people who believe in the death penalty also happen to take their religion a little seriously. It would be nice to know how they square that circle. |
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 8, 2011 16:55:52 GMT -5
Killing someone who commits a heinous murder is not cheapening human life. What is done when the state executes a murderer, is we take away his most valuable possession. His life. Taking away anything less, cheapens the life of his victim. Indeed it DOES cheapen human life - as witness the willingness to take it. Neither have you yet addressed the question of executing the wrongly convicted and factually innocent. A couple of things on that Lewis, First of all, although the chances of it ever happened is very "good", there are no executions that later on resulted with a definitive proof of a wrongful execution. This includes your posted case of Ruben Cantu. Also, what you must consider, is the fact that you cannot give a person's life that you take back, but you also cannot give a person the years of freedom you take from him either. If wrongfully convicted, it is a travesty, but that does not mean you should not punish those who are convicted of crimes. In this country, a person who faces felony charges in a court stands at an advantage, because he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, if you convict an innocent, there must have been some "reasonable doubt" somewhere. Ak |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 16:56:10 GMT -5
My objection to the death penalty is not what it does to the condemned; after all, MOST (but not all) of those executed deserve it. What I object to is what it does to SOCIETY;we effectively declare some people as "disposable", thereby further cheapening human life. Declaring murderers disposable works for me. You declare murder punishable by death, and when they murder you put them down. There's nothing remotely immoral about that. What cheapens life is a squeamish collective response to murder. There is nothing ennobling in slapping murderers on the wrist and tepidly admonishing them to never murder again, as if they were recalcitrant schoolboys. You seem to be saying a softer, more benevolent approach feels better and makes the world a brighter, sunnier place. It doesn't. The only way to discourage those who contemplate murder to think twice is to show them who's in charge -- no matter what it takes. Right now the murderers are in charge, and they know it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 16:59:01 GMT -5
The "No innocents executed ..." is a total red herring and an absolute falsehood. If you're going to continue presenting that - then please name the court (any court) in any jurisdiction - any at all - in which the question of innocence can be addressed once the condemned has been killed. Of course, we all know that there IS no such court - and therefore no proof, either way, is possible. Those in favor of capital punishment, please respond to this. I'm staunchly for capital punishment, and I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 8, 2011 17:00:29 GMT -5
Indeed it DOES cheapen human life - as witness the willingness to take it. Neither have you yet addressed the question of executing the wrongly convicted and factually innocent. Joseph reckons its a price worth paying. I wonder if akamai agrees. No system of justice will be error free. It is impossible to have a system that is 100% error free. However, those who are convicted of crimes should be punished. If you are afraid to punish, then you should be willing to pay the price of having one of your loved ones murdered. I am not afraid to punish someone who is found guilty in a trial by jury. especially when the rule is guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. I wonder if you are willing to scrap all of our laws, and get rid of law enforcement? Ak |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 17:02:30 GMT -5
It's barbaric and puts you on the same level as the murderer. I'm not opposed to barbarism. It has its uses. I don't claim to be better than any murderer, because I'm equally as capable. If I can refrain from murder, so can anyone else. That is why an execution is an appropriate and defensible response to murder. |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 8, 2011 17:19:55 GMT -5
It's barbaric and puts you on the same level as the murderer. I'm not opposed to barbarism. It has its uses. I don't claim to be better than any murderer, because I'm equally as capable. If I can refrain from murder, so can anyone else. That is why an execution is an appropriate and defensible response to murder. Indeed, we can all refrain. But biblical logic is far from appropriate. Given you believe that the execution of an innocent is a price worth paying> Is it defensible? Of course it isn't. There was a time when we hung drew and quartered people, lopped off their heads or strung them up. But we moved on from that. Why not join us? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 18:50:18 GMT -5
Indeed it DOES cheapen human life - as witness the willingness to take it. Neither have you yet addressed the question of executing the wrongly convicted and factually innocent. A couple of things on that Lewis, First of all, although the chances of it ever happened is very "good", there are no executions that later on resulted with a definitive proof of a wrongful execution. This includes your posted case of Ruben Cantu. Also, what you must consider, is the fact that you cannot give a person's life that you take back, but you also cannot give a person the years of freedom you take from him either. If wrongfully convicted, it is a travesty, but that does not mean you should not punish those who are convicted of crimes. In this country, a person who faces felony charges in a court stands at an advantage, because he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously, if you convict an innocent, there must have been some "reasonable doubt" somewhere. Ak And once again you duck the issue. Address it, please: Name the venue for proving (or disproving) wrongful execution once the condemned is dead. This call for proof has been posted repeatedly - and you keep evading it. Of course you can't return life to the person you've wrongfully executed - any more than that execution restores life to the putative victim. But by a venue that PROVES innocence after execution - you can thereby be forced to confront the ugly truth: By executing an innocent person, you, too, have committed murder. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 19:15:37 GMT -5
My objection to the death penalty is not what it does to the condemned; after all, MOST (but not all) of those executed deserve it. What I object to is what it does to SOCIETY;we effectively declare some people as "disposable", thereby further cheapening human life. . What cheapens life is a squeamish collective response to murder. There is nothing ennobling in slapping murderers on the wrist and tepidly admonishing them to never murder again, as if they were recalcitrant schoolboys. I'm not squeamish - not by any means. But, I really AM curious now. When was any murderer slapped on the wrist, and admonished not to do it again? Can you cite an example? Once again - you can't execute somebody you don't already have imprisoned. All you have to do is leave him there. |
|
Alpha 
