Death Penalty

I think we all agree, that taking a human life, unless its in self-defense, a legal war, to protect property, or to protect others, is wrong. Its called murder.

however, some crimes are soooo evil, that the penalty of death is warranted. such as crimes against humanity & genocide.

mac said:

Often. In my line of work my co-workers tend to be conservatives at a far higher ratio than liberals. Most endorse the death penalty and I discuss it regularly with them. Some I've turned.

Click to expand...

That is great! Good job! :2dance:

when I am teaching we discuss a speech by Sister Helen Prejean and it is incredible. We refer back to all semester for notes or organization, use or supporting points in developing a speech and use of metaphors etc... The speech is just not a great teaching tool but has great arguments against the death penalty in it. She covers, the being poor / minority issue, the unusual nature of how it affects those on death row and a daily basis, how if affects the guards and the families involved and it is not a pretty sight.

Thunder said:

I think we all agree, that taking a human life, unless its in self-defense, a legal war, to protect property, or to protect others, is wrong. Its called murder.

however, some crimes are soooo evil, that the penalty of death is warranted. such as crimes against humanity & genocide.

Click to expand...

No, we don't all agree with that. Taking a life to protect property is most certainly wrong. Beyond that, your post doesn't make much sense. Murder is an illegal killing, so what you've noted (other than killing to protect property) is not murder.

mac said:

No, we don't all agree with that. Taking a life to protect property is most certainly wrong. Beyond that, your post doesn't make much sense. Murder is an illegal killing, so what you've noted (other than killing to protect property) is not murder.

Click to expand...

so you don't believe that you have the right to shoot someone who is trying to rob your house or steal your stuff?

Thunder said:

so you don't believe that you have the right to shoot someone who is trying to rob your house or steal your stuff?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not, if there is no threat to my life or someone else's.

"Absolutely not, if there is no threat to my life or someone else's." - mac

How do you discern the threat?

If thugs are walking out of your house with furniture and whatnot, do you call 911 and wait for them to come before you're possibly killed, or do you raise your gun and order them to desist?

Furthermore I'd imagine there'd be heightened emotions on account of being robbed, making it easier to shoot the people breaking into your house and stealing everything you have.

taxigirl said:

This is the last I will even respond to you in this thread unless you have valid arguments and stick to the issue at hand

Click to expand...

:lol:

What you claim to be undeniable is not indeed fact.

Click to expand...

human being 
noun
1. any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being.

Human being | Define Human being at Dictionary.com

life
/laɪf/ Show Spelled [lahyf] Show IPA noun, plural lives  /laɪvz/ Show Spelled[lahyvz] Show IPA, adjective
noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Life | Define Life at Dictionary.com

I always laugh when I see comments like yours. It is a life. Fact. It is of the species Homo Sapian and we call that human. Fact. It is a human life.

And before you get too confused once the sperm meets the egg the human life is indeed an individual life form up for person status just as conjoined twins are considered individual persons. You want valid arguments and make pathetic threats yet you just responded with essentially nothing more than a "nu-huh" rebuttal. Well done. :roll:

As I said: Self defense: You are preventing your life from being taken. Should you allow yourself to be killed? either way it is wrong. I guess you should just look at this as a toss-up if you do not get it.

Click to expand...

I get it when people communicate clearly. You aren't. It sounds like you are saying that killing a person trying to kill you is wrong but to let them kill you is also wrong. Well, if it is between the two wrongs in your world then I would choose to be wrong yet alive.

I assume you are capable of googling. search ethics death penalty and then talk to me.

Click to expand...

Ethics...

explains the rightness of actions in terms of the goodness of the state of affairs that occurs because of that action. If some action genuinely brings about greater good in the world, then it is a right action, and this rightness is independent of the nature of the action or the intentions of the person carrying out the action.

Deontological ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.

In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762

Rousseau: Social Contract

"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." -Exodus 21:12

Pro-death penalty.com

These are two of the biggest arguments FOR the death penalty.

Click to expand...

The Death Penalty is a consequence. End of story. Those that commit murder and rape and such forfeit their lives as a matter of fact, not as an emotional vengeance or anything else, their life is not worth anything, so it is ended. Done.

Seeing as you keep skirting around abortion and "life" and you are not well versed on the controversies surrounding the DP, I am guessing you came into this thread looking to catch someone in a slip up in their logic regarding killing so you can make some twisted attempt at convincing someone that abortion is murder. As I have stated: This is a thread about the DP. I am a strong believer in choice. I am also on the fence regarding the "beginning" of life. If you want to debate abortion, go to that thread. If you want to try to persuade me to your way of thinking regarding the "beginning" of life, come up with some argument as to why I should talk to you about it, PM me and then I will join you in a discussion. Get that through your head. I will not debate pro-life / pro-choice issues in a DP thread, they are independent issues with widely different consequences.

Click to expand...

They are not independent issues... they are linked since you made a universal statement about "killing is wrong". We are trying to find out if you really think that by bringing up relevant analogies regarding when human life is taken. The fact that you don't think that a developing human is a human life is astounding. Hell, I am pro-choice and can accept that. To then hear you turn around and accuse me of not being well versed... well, that is comical.

I have had MANY debates here about the DP and have started many of my own threads. So far you are nothing more than a side-show presenting very basic concepts that are wonderful examples of sophism. I have presented you with some substance here. Let's see what you can do with it.

mac said:

I agree, up to and not including taking a life.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the state taking life. Your devious statement infers an agenda that would infringe upon the rights of others to do what they wish with their own bodies.

Your beliefs should end at my doorstep.

Thunder said:

so you don't believe that you have the right to shoot someone who is trying to rob your house or steal your stuff?

Click to expand...

Outside Texas I doubt the law does either... In fact, it doesn't. There are numerous cases where a homeowner shoots a robber and gets cahrged since their life was not in jeopardy.

Taxigirl - I apologize in advance for the "side show" comment. It was rude. It won't let me edit my post for some reason.

Thunder said:

so you don't believe that you have the right to shoot someone who is trying to rob your house or steal your stuff?

Click to expand...

Other responses I have seen to this question are wrong. There is something called "The Castle Doctrine" and many states have been influenced by it. It is quite interesting, you may want to take a read.
Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances attack an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.[1] Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.

Click to expand...

taxigirl said:

Other responses I have seen to this question are wrong. There is something called "The Castle Doctrine" and many states have been influenced by it. It is quite interesting, you may want to take a read.
Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

There are qualifications to that though as evidenced in the following:

Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,
riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 1961.

Specific from the Texas penal code:

PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Wake said:

"Absolutely not, if there is no threat to my life or someone else's." - mac

How do you discern the threat?

If thugs are walking out of your house with furniture and whatnot, do you call 911 and wait for them to come before you're possibly killed, or do you raise your gun and order them to desist?

Furthermore I'd imagine there'd be heightened emotions on account of being robbed, making it easier to shoot the people breaking into your house and stealing everything you have.

Click to expand...

If someone is brandishing a weapon or making threatening gestures/comments implying impending violence then there is a threat. If his back is turned because he's carrying your tv out the door, there is no threat.

Mensch said:

I was referring to the state taking life. Your devious statement infers an agenda that would infringe upon the rights of others to do what they wish with their own bodies.

Your beliefs should end at my doorstep.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the state and to the death penalty.

taxigirl said:

Other responses I have seen to this question are wrong. There is something called "The Castle Doctrine" and many states have been influenced by it. It is quite interesting, you may want to take a read.
Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

The law in many states also says that the death penalty is legal....

mac said:

The law in many states also says that the death penalty is legal....

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with giving Thunder information on the Castle Laws? Yes, the DP is legal in some states, that does not mean people acting within their rights under the Castle Laws will be subject to it.

What are we discussing here? I would love to engage in a intelligent and informed discussion regarding the dp and what can be done, what solutions can we come up with?

Thunder said:

I think we all agree, that taking a human life, unless its in self-defense, a legal war, to protect property, or to protect others, is wrong. Its called murder.

however, some crimes are soooo evil, that the penalty of death is warranted. such as crimes against humanity & genocide.

Click to expand...

I still disagree. By practicing state sanctioned murder we are no better than the monsters we are killing.

taxigirl said:

I still disagree. By practicing state sanctioned murder we are no better than the monsters we are killing.

Click to expand...

Stop playing stupid word games. If it's state-sanctioned, it cannot, by definition, be murder. Words have meanings for a reason.

Cephus said:

Stop playing stupid word games. If it's state-sanctioned, it cannot, by definition, be murder. Words have meanings for a reason.

Click to expand...

Uh, why does it even matter? Do an internet search for state sanctioned murder and a whole lot of results that pop up are regarding the DP. That is what I call it because that is what I believe it to be, not punishment. The state kills people in the names of the states citizens. That is what I call state sanctioned killing.

The fact is that the state kills people. I think that is wrong on any level, what do you think?

taxigirl said:

Uh, why does it even matter? Do an internet search for state sanctioned murder and a whole lot of results that pop up are regarding the DP. That is what I call it because that is what I believe it to be, not punishment. The state kills people in the names of the states citizens. That is what I call state sanctioned killing.

The fact is that the state kills people. I think that is wrong on any level, what do you think?

Click to expand...

They're all using it wrong as well. Words have meanings so we can engage in meaningful dialog. Far too many people would rather allow emotionally-charged words, rather than logic and reason, try to influence people's positions. It's blatantly dishonest.

You can think it's wrong all you want. It's just not murder.

Cephus said:

They're all using it wrong as well. Words have meanings so we can engage in meaningful dialog. Far too many people would rather allow emotionally-charged words, rather than logic and reason, try to influence people's positions. It's blatantly dishonest.

You can think it's wrong all you want. It's just not murder.

Click to expand...

The biggest problem in the world is that we are not only seperated by a common language. Words are defined by personal opinion. There is no "Standard" referance which adds to confusion. Trying to discuss something when everyone is useing the same words and meanings is hard enough.

BTW for tankgirl, Murder is to kill an INNOCENT person. Therefore to execute someone for commiting murder is not murder in and of itself.

John said:

The biggest problem in the world is that we are not only seperated by a common language. Words are defined by personal opinion. There is no "Standard" referance which adds to confusion. Trying to discuss something when everyone is useing the same words and meanings is hard enough.

BTW for tankgirl, Murder is to kill an INNOCENT person. Therefore to execute someone for commiting murder is not murder in and of itself.

Click to expand...

No, murder is an illegal killing. While the death penalty is not murder, killing a guilty person can indeed be murder.

taxigirl said:

Uh, why does it even matter? Do an internet search for state sanctioned murder and a whole lot of results that pop up are regarding the DP. That is what I call it because that is what I believe it to be, not punishment. The state kills people in the names of the states citizens. That is what I call state sanctioned killing.

The fact is that the state kills people. I think that is wrong on any level, what do you think?

Click to expand...

Are you not responding for any particular reason? Defeated even before it begins?

John said:

The biggest problem in the world is that we are not only seperated by a common language. Words are defined by personal opinion. There is no "Standard" referance which adds to confusion. Trying to discuss something when everyone is useing the same words and meanings is hard enough.

BTW for tankgirl, Murder is to kill an INNOCENT person. Therefore to execute someone for commiting murder is not murder in and of itself.

Click to expand...

For John and Cephus:

Language is fluid, like changes in life. Language changes depending on the who, what, when, where and why of it's context and on who is interpreting it. I never said there was a "standard". Depending on whose definition you look at "murder" is "to kill".
John-- if we hang on to your definition then tell me how we "prove" 100% that the person is guilty.

As far as I am concerned the government should not be killing someone in my name, the argument is ridiculous that killing is wrong and then you go and kill. Inflamatory or not-- the state sanctions these "killings",l to me they are murder.

Now, what about arguments for or against the DP instead of semantics?