Is the death penalty justified in certain circumstances?

[Milton Bradley]

I have not read the whole thread, but I have a point that should not be overlooked.


When you swear an oath to be a public official in the United States, you swear that you will defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign, and domestic, and that you understand that commiting sedition, treason, or other high crimes against said Constitution, that the people have a right to demand your life in exchange.


It's an agreed upon contract.


There is absolutely no logic that can validate that we should not kill treasonous, seditious, traitors.

[SoylentGreen]

Milton BradleyThere is absolutely no logic that can validate that we should not kill treasonous, seditious, traitors.

So if I was an american and said america really sucks then would I be treasonous, seditious or a traitor?

[linda_mary_13]

To believe a murderer should be put to death would require society to establish a wrong was comitted to warrant death. If society kept weeding out bad behavior through death would the society become vulnerable to death for eventually a rather small infraction like smoking weed, driving while intoxicated, burning leaves. At what point will we eventually condemn ourselves. If GOD gives us our lives to turn around bad behavior why wouldn't we the human race give us that same opportunity? Mercy and forgiveness is what we all seek. To give is to receive.

The housing conditions that we provide for this mercy I think is what blinds the victim's families more than the desire for death.

[SoylentGreen]

linda_mary_13 The housing conditions that we provide for this mercy I think is what blinds the victim's families more than the desire for death.

people should spend a little time in those housing conditions before making any assumptions on what it is like.

[linda_mary_13]

Any assumption of the housing conditions of a murderer would be acceptable if the alternative was death.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I have not read the whole thread, but I have a point that should not be overlooked. When you swear an oath to be a public official in the United States, you swear that you will defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign, and domestic, and that you understand that commiting sedition, treason, or other high crimes against said Constitution, that the people have a right to demand your life in exchange. It's an agreed upon contract. There is absolutely no logic that can validate that we should not kill treasonous, seditious, traitors.

Yes, the logic is founded on the reasoning that our whole justice system is not just, and that we have too many different kinds of interpretations about the Consitution, and the lawyers and judges have too much control over what the jury can or cannot hear as evidence. And we cannot always trust a jury to make a judgement based on that evidence or logically. So capital punishment should not be employed under any circumstances. In the case of an elected offical you can get by with a impeachment hearing or by voting them out of office.

Plus, a President can create a false enemy of this country and so there would be no reason to kill someone who does not agree with the fantasy of a Presidential person, or to act in defense of the innocent person or country that the President has falsely listed as an enemy of our cournty.
You do no kill people for having a different opinon. A protestor of the war in Irag or the one they had in Viet Nam could be seen an act of treason especially if they were in unifrom or held public office. I do not think that capital punishment should be used to scare people into agreeing with a President or the echos of Congress favoring him.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Milton Bradley When you swear an oath to be a public official in the United States, you swear that you will defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign, and domestic, and that you understand that commiting sedition, treason, or other high crimes against said Constitution, that the people have a right to demand your life in exchange. It's an agreed upon contract. There is absolutely no logic that can validate that we should not kill treasonous, seditious, traitors.

How about this logic: I know of no oath in the United States that contains anything like the underlined part.

Care to find one for us?

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I have not read the whole thread, but I have a point that should not be overlooked. When you swear an oath to be a public official in the United States, you swear that you will defend our Constitution from all enemies, foreign, and domestic, and that you understand that commiting sedition, treason, or other high crimes against said Constitution, that the people have a right to demand your life in exchange. It's an agreed upon contract. There is absolutely no logic that can validate that we should not kill treasonous, seditious, traitors.

Except that's not really illuminated in the Constitution. Wouldn't the execution of a citizen, traitor or not, by the federal government without recourse to Constitutional Law contradict the basis of your legality?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tivodan1116 How about this logic: I know of no oath in the United States that contains anything like the underlined part. Care to find one for us?

What is the agreed upon punishment for sedtion, treason, and high crimes?

[Jack]

The United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 115, Section 2381 gives the punishment for treason:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five
years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
For more, see...
# United States Code

* TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
o PART I - CRIMES
+ CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
# Section 2381. Treason
# Section 2382. Misprision Of Treason
# Section 2383. Rebellion Or Insurrection
# Section 2384. Seditious Conspiracy
# Section 2385. Advocating Overthrow Of Government
# Section 2386. Registration Of Certain Organizations
# Section 2387. Activities Affecting Armed Forces Generally
# Section 2388. Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War
# Section 2389. Recruiting For Service Against United States
# Section 2390. Enlistment To Serve Against United States
# Section 2391. Repealed. Pub. L. 103-322, Title Xxxiii, Sec. 330004(13), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2142

Where you misspoke was to suggest that it's a part of the oath of office.

The presidential oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution

The oath sworn by enlistees in the military (except the National Guard): "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SoylentGreen So if I was an american and said america really sucks then would I be treasonous, seditious or a traitor?

No, free speech laws prevent that form occuring.


I'm talking strictly about the "actions" of elected officials.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul Yes, the logic is founded on the reasoning that our whole justice system is not just, and that we have too many different kinds of interpretations about the Consitution, and the lawyers and judges have too much control over what the jury can or cannot hear as evidence. And we cannot always trust a jury to make a judgement based on that evidence or logically. So capital punishment should not be employed under any circumstances. In the case of an elected offical you can get by with a impeachment hearing or by voting them out of office. Plus, a President can create a false enemy of this country and so there would be no reason to kill someone who does not agree with the fantasy of a Presidential person, or to act in defense of the innocent person or country that the President has falsely listed as an enemy of our cournty. You do no kill people for having a different opinon. A protestor of the war in Irag or the one they had in Viet Nam could be seen an act of treason especially if they were in unifrom or held public office. I do not think that capital punishment should be used to scare people into agreeing with a President or the echos of Congress favoring him.

Sorry, but if you enter into a contract knowing that it includes the death penalty, you have no right to cry about that sentence being handed down if your actions violate that oath.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Jack Where you misspoke was to suggest that it's a part of the oath of office.

I thought I had just implied that agreeing to enter into the contract, one knows all of the ramifications of that course of action.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Morality Games Wouldn't the execution of a citizen, traitor or not, by the federal government without recourse to Constitutional Law contradict the basis of your legality?

Who is denied recourse in this instance?


Who is suggesting as much?


My point was that there are behaviors outlined in law that provide for the death penalty as a legitimate sentence if one enters the public arena, and becomes an elected official.

[Jack]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I thought I had just implied that agreeing to enter into the contract, one knows all of the ramifications of that course of action.

When I enlisted in the Army, they didn't really make an effort to ensure I knew anything about the oath I was taking, other than the fact that if I refused I couldn't enlist.

However, when I was assigned to the NSA, they made quite sure we understood Title 18, the laws regarding espionage and the penalties for treason.

[SoylentGreen]

Milton BradleyMy point was that there are behaviors outlined in law that provide for the death penalty as a legitimate sentence if one enters the public arena, and becomes an elected official.

But the thread asks for justification which should be based on good sound argument. The fact that it's written on some moldy parchment hardly counts as a sound justification.
Your simply stating that because the law says it , it must be right.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SoylentGreen But the thread asks for justification which should be based on good sound argument. The fact that it's written on some moldy parchment hardly counts as a sound justification. Your simply stating that because the law says it , it must be right.

The country was founded upon the principles outlined in the Constitution.


Therefore we assure the elected official will obey it's dictates, or have the potential to be held accountable for failing to act accordingly.


Perfectly sound reasoning in my opinion.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Jack When I enlisted in the Army, they didn't really make an effort to ensure I knew anything about the oath I was taking, other than the fact that if I refused I couldn't enlist. However, when I was assigned to the NSA, they made quite sure we understood Title 18, the laws regarding espionage and the penalties for treason.

I'm glad I was born, or instilled with more more skepticism than to enter into contracts without understanding all the potential repercussions.


I'm also glad that at higher levels, they made a point of assuring you understood the ramifications of your position.

[SoylentGreen]

Milton Bradley;The country was founded upon the principles outlined in the Constitution.

Which does not imply good reasoning .
The constitution is not set in stone so what it has to say is one thing but accepting that what it says is right is another.

Therefore we assure the elected official will obey it's dictates, or have the potential to be held accountable for failing to act accordingly.

But on the other hand people complain when elected officials do not follow it's dictates, as many have done with Bush. So what assurance do you really have?

Perfectly sound reasoning in my opinion.

Only if one accepts that the constitution is a necessary.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Which does not imply good reasoning . The constitution is not set in stone so what it has to say is one thing but accepting that what it says is right is another.

I'm not getting into this with you, but do you really suggest we not have a mechanism to hold our democratic representatives accountable?


Maybe you shouldn't answer, I'm not really sure I want to know the answer to that one.

Quote by: SoylentGreen But on the other hand people complain when elected officials do not follow it's dictates, as many have done with Bush. So what assurance do you really have?

Well, we have a way to redress those grievances, but with the bipartisan coconspirators in control with the two party lock, the punishments are not enforced, and tyranny reigns.

Quote by: SoylentGreen Only if one accepts that the constitution is a necessary.

Yikes!