Capital Punishment

[Occam]

I thought that people would pick up on the fact that I was being a wise-ass and using the technique of reduction to the absurd.

It's pretty certain that no one would be willing to find another guilty of a capitol offense if they had a chance of being executed themselves.

Occam

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Occam I thought that people would pick up on the fact that I was being a wise-ass and using the technique of reduction to the absurd. It's pretty certain that no one would be willing to find another guilty of a capitol offense if they had a chance of being executed themselves. Occam

Sorry. Don't know you well enough to pick up on your sarcasm.

But I do think people would be even less likely to impose the death penalty if we simply didn't have one.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I love people who oppose abortion but are for the death penalty, if all human life is truly the same, then you are committing a reprehensible act either way. I personally think the death penalty is only O.K. whwn it is necessary to protect the lives of the innocent. In most modern countries prisons are more than secure enough, so it's wrong.

[Occam]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I love people who oppose abortion but are for the death penalty, if all human life is truly the same, then you are committing a reprehensible act either way. . .

I think, if we are going to talk about any life-ending procedure, we have consider them all, not just one at a time. Suicide, murder, war, self-defense, euthanasia, abortion, accident, and neglect, all have to be considered, as does personal versus long distance killing, e.g., a soldier shooting an enemy versus a pilot dropping a bomb on a house, that may kill a soldier or may kill an infant.

Let's take some negative examples: A number of teen-age girls go in for an abortion but the family planning clinic is really run by a religious group and a counselor convinces them not to have abortions. Each has a child. One can't support the child so it dies of cold while she's at work. A number of the children go to school malnourished and don't learn. One gets hooked on drugs and dies of an overdose. One joins a gang as is shot in a drive-by. One becomes a criminal and shoots a family as he highjacks their car. He gets caught and is executed.

Who is at fault? What responsibility for all of these events does the counselor have?

Occam

[Gods_Mercenary]

The teen-age girls have the greatest burden, for getting pregnant when they had no way of supporting a child. Also I don't think that the counselor in that instance would suggest keeping the child, I think they would tell them to put them up for adoption.

[Osborn F Enready]

I have no problem with any type, except late term abortion, or the death penalty if the justice system is indeed just.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Late term abortion is obviously a monstrosity. Anyone who agrees on that point I can compromise with on abortion.

[Cephus]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint But I do think people would be even less likely to impose the death penalty if we simply didn't have one.

Which is, of course, stupid. That's like saying people would be less likely to send innocents to jail if we didn't have prisons.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: GatheringInfo Is Capital Punishment ethical ?

I believe that the capital punishment should be abolished, for the following reasons :
- we have no rights to take others' life, regardless of case (with some exceptions like : war, defending homeland, etc.)
- we need to follow and conduct the science-related research (more aggressively), in order to discover and/or determine reasons others step aside of commonly accepted norms for morality and ethics, law, etc.

I would keep all the offenders alive, under following conditions :
- all the rights stripped
- subject for medical examinations
There must be a reason people cross the line. Our task is to : find it.
Otherwise, not much changes and we all would keep suffering.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Rainbow - we have no rights to take others' life, regardless of case (with some exceptions like : war, defending homeland, etc.)

Sure we do. Rights do not exist outside of what society grants, therefore, we have a right to do whatever society decides we have a right to do. If society determines that these people have lost the right to live, then they have.

I would keep all the offenders alive, under following conditions : - all the rights stripped

Illegal under the Constitution.

- subject for medical examinations

Cruel and unusual punishment, also illegal under the Constitution. Won't fly. Try again.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Cephus Sure we do. Rights do not exist outside of what society grants, therefore, we have a right to do whatever society decides we have a right to do. If society determines that these people have lost the right to live, then they have. Illegal under the Constitution. Cruel and unusual punishment, also illegal under the Constitution. Won't fly. Try again.

#1
This statement contradicts the following ones.

#2
The Constitution can be modified.

#3
Do you mean that a crime (itself) is less cruel ?
Should we award those guys, instead ?
They have already done enough damage to civilization, then they deserve no rights at all. Let them serve and/or contribute something back to community, instead.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rainbow said: #2 The Constitution can be modified.

Only within certain areas, and only by a super majority.

No amount of people can remove rights, by any majority, CONSTITUTIONALLY.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 This statement contradicts the following ones.

Not in any way.

#2 The Constitution can be modified.

Let us know when you do so.

They have already done enough damage to civilization, then they deserve no rights at all. Let them serve and/or contribute something back to community, instead.

There are some crimes which are so heinous, so horrible, that the guilty party loses the right to continue to share the same air with the rest of us. The only thing they should contribute is fertilizer when we bury their worthless ass in the ground.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Cephus Not in any way. Let us know when you do so. There are some crimes which are so heinous, so horrible, that the guilty party loses the right to continue to share the same air with the rest of us. The only thing they should contribute is fertilizer when we bury their worthless ass in the ground.

#1
N/A

#2
@Osborn F Enready
@Cephus

I think you had better come back to reality, and run some cross-reference and compare the results to the U.S. Constitution and Law, instead of submitting your desires.
By modifying the Law, you change the ground for the Constitution (itself), by default.

#3
I think that medical experiments and/or examinations would bring more positive results, instead.

[pahl]

Quote by: Cephus If society determines that these people have lost the right to live, then they have.

So whatever the majority decides is always right?

[Cephus]

Quote by: pahl So whatever the majority decides is always right?

Right and wrong are irrelevant and subjective. Whether it's "right" or not, it's the law.

[pahl]

Quote by: Cephus Right and wrong are irrelevant and subjective. Whether it's "right" or not, it's the law.

Right and wrong are subjective, but hardly irrelevant. The law is after all based on the concept of right and wrong. Just as you base your opinion in the previous statement on your own subjective view:

There are some crimes which are so heinous, so horrible, that the guilty party loses the right to continue to share the same air with the rest of us. The only thing they should contribute is fertilizer when we bury their worthless ass in the ground.

The law can in a broader sense be said to be rules set by the majority of the society, atleast in a democratic society. So should the majority always be able to dictate what everyone in that society can or cannot do? Even decide that some do not have the right to live?

[Cephus]

Quote by: pahl Right and wrong are subjective, but hardly irrelevant. The law is after all based on the concept of right and wrong. Just as you base your opinion in the previous statement on your own subjective view:

But the law is simply based on what the majority think is true at the time. There was a time when slavery was legal in this country. Was it right? Why or why not? There was a time when people could get away with drunk driving with pretty much a nod and a handshake. Was that right?

Right and wrong really don't come into it. It doesn't matter if you think the law is right or wrong, you're still bound to follow it or pay the consequences. Your personal preference is irrelevant.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Unless it becomes the preference of the majority.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Unless it becomes the preference of the majority.

At which point it is codified into law, yes.