Is the death penalty justified in certain circumstances?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: sgrainger excuse me. it does matter what i believe as otherwise i wouldn't be here debating with you and neither would you likewise. our beliefs on such issues are what form a view-point... therefore, what you've just said is complete tosh. the most horrific crimes (such as murder) are the ones which the death penalty should be applied as the criminal deserves the worst possible punishment. a punishment lesser than the worst possible clearly undermines the value which society places on the protection of lives. rehabilitating murderer's is just completely barbaric.

The person has pointed out, and correctly so, that while you may have your beliefs, the death penalty is and will remain a cost ineffective, inefficient act of state murder. You can say that 'x' crime warrents the death penalty, but you have no evidence to suggest that at all. All you have is your entirely subjective opinion that the state should be based on the spirit of revenge; and where is the logic in that. And how is rehabilitating murderers "barbaric"?

Thankfully sinse Derek Bentley you are in the minority in this country.

[SoylentGreen]

Milton BradleyI'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.

Ok then.
Firstly I never suggested that you didn't have a mechanism to hold our democratic representatives accountable.
Simply that saying "because the constitution doesn't allow it is not a good enough reasoning, It is a false appeal to a non existent authority.

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.

Right. Crap government and no way to change it. Thank god for your constitution.

Yikes!

Consider that no other country feels a need to follow Americas example of democratic hypocrisy.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Ok then. Firstly I never suggested that you didn't have a mechanism to hold our democratic representatives accountable. Simply that saying "because the constitution doesn't allow it is not a good enough reasoning, It is a false appeal to a non existent authority.

It's not an appeal to a non existant authority, the Constitution is a legal document.

Quote by: SoylentGreen Right. Crap government and no way to change it. Thank god for your constitution.

See my comment below.

Quote by: SoylentGreen Consider that no other country feels a need to follow Americas example of democratic hypocrisy.

Hey, keep your comments about hypocrites aimed at the hypocrites, the Democrats, and the Republicans.


Why can you not connect the dots here?


The Libertarians/libertarian minded people here are the one true to the original ideals.


The hypocrites making all of the bad policy you don't like, those are the Liberal Democrats, and the "Neoconservative" Republicans. Those are your hypocrites.

[SoylentGreen]

[QUOTEMilton Bradley]It's not an appeal to a non existant authority, the Constitution is a legal document[/quote]

And is not, as I said , set in stone. Good reasoning and a sound argument should be sufficient to make changes . Saying that the constitution doesn't allow it is neither.

Why can you not connect the dots here?

Because I am not a libertarian

The Libertarians/libertarian minded people here are the one true to the original ideals.

If that were true then there would be no debate..

The hypocrites making all of the bad policy you don't like, those are the Liberal Democrats, and the "Neoconservative" Republicans. Those are your hypocrites.

It is not the theory that is bad just the way Americans practice it.

There is plenty of evidence that those policies do work in other countries. But it would seem that americans have an inability to actually look beyond their own borders for a solution.

[SoylentGreen]

edited

[Gods_Mercenary]

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.

Well, here's where I might differ on my earlier points, a charismatic politician who becomes tyrannical or otherwise takes blatantly treasonous action can still be a threat from prison.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SoylentGreen And is not, as I said , set in stone. Good reasoning and a sound argument should be sufficient to make changes . Saying that the constitution doesn't allow it is neither.

Another Liberal operating under a complete misunderstanding due to inattention. What a surprise.


Dammit man, how many times must I articulate that I'm not against ammending the Constitution, I'm against the way the Republicans, and Democrats trample the Constitution.


That's why I constantly suggest they take the traditional legal route, and let's just see if they are the majority. But they're never content to rule with the democracy they promote abroad.

Quote by: SoylentGreen [If that were true then there would be no debate.

You seem quite confused. The debate remains the authoritarian approach ( them ), vs. the legal route ( me ).

Quote by: SoylentGreen [It is not the theory that is bad just the way Americans practice it.

Well, I disagree with that contention. The question remains, with a whole world full of practicing socialists. why do these people insist on bringing these policies here. Particularly with the vehement, vocal opposition.


I'll answer. They're tyrants, little mini tyrants all voting for a Police State.

Quote by: SoylentGreen [There is plenty of evidence that those policies do work in other countries.

Perhaps they can not rationalize away the domination of other ideologies.


But again, you all, every single one of you, dodge the question. Why can you not be satisfied to work with the people willing to cooperate? Why must you always insist all must suffer together?

Quote by: SoylentGreen [But it would seem that americans have an inability to actually look beyond their own borders for a solution.

Well, we're the ones who cannot rationalize away the obvious hypocrisy present in the philosophy.


What gives you the right to dictate it to us?

[SoylentGreen]

Milton BradleyDammit man, how many times must I articulate that I'm not against ammending the Constitution, I'm against the way the Republicans, and Democrats trample the Constitution.

For as many times you use the constitution or the law as is , as justification for murder.

You seem quite confused. The debate remains the authoritarian approach ( them ), vs. the legal route ( me ).

Now give me a good reason to accept the law not just that it is the law.

The question remains, with a whole world full of practicing socialists. why do these people insist on bringing these policies here. Particularly with the vehement, vocal opposition.

Because like you they are practicing the same freedom to have a view on how things should be.

Why must you always insist all must suffer together?

Again the Rand rant methodology. Call it suffering or coercion or force long enough and perhaps you might get someone to agree with you.

What gives you the right to dictate it to us?

Are you not dictating your belief?