View Poll Results: Should Capital Punishment be supported?

Voters
90. You may not vote on this poll
  • It should be supported in both principle and practice.

    43 47.78%
  • Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.

    14 15.56%
  • It should be opposed both in principle and practice.

    33 36.67%
Page 24 of 42 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 416

Thread: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

  1. #231
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    It does, however, unquestionably protect the rights of the people from any further menace from that particular person.
    There is absolutely no proof or evidence that the criminal in question would have violated those rights. The idea that it is being done in defense is pure conjecture because there is no consideration for potential recidivism taken into account when the death penalty is given out.

    In most cases, the heinous nature of the crime in question is the ONLY consideration.

    The fact that potential recidivism is ignored and heinous nature of the crime is streessed proves that it is retaliatory in nature and thus, the preemptive defense argument doesn't hold water.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #232
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    There is absolutely no proof or evidence that the criminal in question would have violated those rights.
    Proof that him doing so is a certainly? No.
    Evidence that there is a distinct likelyhood? Yes.
    Proof that he certainly won't if he is executed? Yes.

    In most cases, the heinous nature of the crime in question is the ONLY consideration.
    In many of those cases, that's sufficient. Some crimes are indeed so terrible that the perpetrator should die.
    In any case, this doesn't address the likelyood of the criminal returning to his criminally ways once released.

    There are, after all, few first-time convicts on death row.

    The fact that potential recidivism is ignored and heinous nature of the crime is streessed proves that it is retaliatory in nature and thus, the preemptive defense argument doesn't hold water.
    Your argument is faulty as it ignores the very real probability of a criminal NOT being reformed while in prison, thus continuing to be a threat to society once released.

  3. #233
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-16-15 @ 10:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Those Not For Us Are Against Us - Those Not Against Us Are For Us

    "Those Not For Us Are Against Us - Those Not Against Us Are For Us"
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    By allowing the government to exterminate the offender in a premeditated fashion, the issue changes from defense to murder.
    Incorrect, murder is killing without permission of institutional law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    For example, if I were to kill someone who murdered my son 15 years prior, I would be guilty of premeditated murder. I would not be able to use the defense of saying I was "defending" future victims of that murderer. It is a separate action.
    You would be guilty of violating the right of due process which may be implemented to remove the right to life.
    Removing the right to life should also entail a declaration of revoked citizenship and renunciation of jurisdiction.
    The public-state contract does not grant rights to non-citizens which are not under its jurisdiction.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    This is analogous to the death penalty.
    Thus we are granting the Government a right not retained by the people.
    The nature of the death penalty as post facto is inherently why it is purely retaliatory.
    The government is a public-state contract and the collective institution of government acts as the greater individual.
    To wit, entities extrinsic to the collective institution, non-citizens for which the US does not maintain jurisdiction, may be subject to the moral relativism and indifference of cruelty existent within the conditions of nature, either by its citizens or by itself.
    That right of the people is ignored and disparaged.

  4. #234
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Those Not For Us Are Against Us - Those Not Against Us Are For Us

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    "Those Not For Us Are Against Us - Those Not Against Us Are For Us"
    Incorrect, murder is killing without permission of institutional law.
    Pardon me, Let me fix it. The issue changes from defense homicide.

    You would be guilty of violating the right of due process which may be implemented to remove the right to life.
    False. I never said that he wasn't convicted and sentenced to death. You've assumed that t5his was the case. Let's assusme for the sake of argumetn that the killing takes place a split second before the lethal injection was administered. It would still be construed as murder, although due process was adhered to.

    Removing the right to life should also entail a declaration of revoked citizenship and renunciation of jurisdiction.
    The public-state contract does not grant rights to non-citizens which are not under its jurisdiction.
    So this means you agree that the Governemtn should not be killing it's citizens. The loophole you propose is that the govenrment should simply revoke the citizenship of those it desires to kill?

    That seems to me an excess of governemtnal authority as well.

    Is the duty of the govenremtn to only protect portions of its citizenry, or is the duty to protect all of its citizenry?

    Perhaps the govenrment's job is only to protect the citizenry it finds unobtrusive?

    Is even one step towards fascism too many?

    The government is a public-state contract and the collective institution of government acts as the greater individual.
    The government acts on behalf of the collective, not as a separate entity. Of which the offending member is a portion, like it or not.

    That is unless we revoke the citizenship of all offending persons so that we may kill them.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 12-02-08 at 12:58 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #235
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Proof that him doing so is a certainly? No.
    Evidence that there is a distinct likelyhood? Yes.
    Proof that he certainly won't if he is executed? Yes.
    All those responses are the samewether you kill him or permanently incarcerate him. What is the justification for homicide over incarceration?

    In many of those cases, that's sufficient. Some crimes are indeed so terrible that the perpetrator should die.
    "Should die" is not reason enough to grant govenrmentally sanctioned homicide of its people.

    In any case, this doesn't address the likelyood of the criminal returning to his criminally ways once released.

    There are, after all, few first-time convicts on death row.
    If the previous convictions are not murder, they are irrelevant to the discussion. Do you have numbers of recidivst murders?


    Your argument is faulty as it ignores the very real probability of a criminal NOT being reformed while in prison, thus continuing to be a threat to society once released.
    Realese shold be dependent on prrof of reformation. I've never argued fopr release. Although that is a separate issue of our prison system, I firmly feel that a life term should be for life.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #236
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    All those responses are the samewether you kill him or permanently incarcerate him. What is the justification for homicide over incarceration?
    See below.

    "Should die" is not reason enough to grant govenrmentally sanctioned homicide of its people.
    Why not?

    Society sets the level of punishment received by its criminals; if a society decides that under certain circumstances a crime is sufficiently heinous to warrant the death of the person who committed it, then "he should die" is plenty reason enough.

    After all, its no more or less valid than "he should go to prison".

    If the previous convictions are not murder, they are irrelevant to the discussion.
    Because...?
    Any prior conviction illustrates resistance to rehabilitation and a continued threat to the rights of the people.

    Do you have numbers of recidivst murders?
    Red herring.
    Murder is not the only crime that might qualify for execution, and, as noted above, any prior conviction illustrates resistance to rehabilitation and a continued threat to society.

    Realese shold be dependent on prrof of reformation.
    "Proof of refomration" in no way guarantees that, upon release, he wont revert to his prior behavior. Anyone can jump thru hoops, especially if it means getting out of prison.

  7. #237
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Why not?

    Society sets the level of punishment received by its criminals; if a society decides that under certain circumstances a crime is sufficiently heinous to warrant the death of the person who committed it, then "he should die" is plenty reason enough.
    Excellent. It proves my initial point that the actual reason for the death penalty is not for defense, which you for some reason decided to challenge and now confirm, but for vengeance. Thus the right to premedtated homocide is something you feel the government should have.

    Why exactly do you think the government should have the right to kill its people?




    Because...?
    Any prior conviction illustrates resistance to rehabilitation and a continued threat to the rights of the people.
    "Any prior conviction illustrates.... a continued threat to the rights of the people"? Really? What about drug charges? What rights of the people are threatened by someone who was caught with a small amount of marijuana in their youth? How does that conviction illustrate that? And why does that grant the government the authority to kill someone?


    Red herring.
    Murder is not the only crime that might qualify for execution, and, as noted above, any prior conviction illustrates resistance to rehabilitation and a continued threat to society.
    Sure. See above. You need to show that the recidivism is acutually a threat to the rights of others. You are saying it, but the majority of convictions in this country disagree with your assesment.


    "Proof of refomration" in no way guarantees that, upon release, he wont revert to his prior behavior. Anyone can jump thru hoops, especially if it means getting out of prison.
    Actually, proof would guarantee it. Evidence alone would not.

    Jump through hoops = evidence.

    Beyond a shadow of a doubt = proof.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #238
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Excellent. It proves my initial point that the actual reason for the death penalty is not for defense, which you for some reason decided to challenge and now confirm, but for vengeance.
    Nothing in my 'society sets th elevel of punishment' statement supports this -- society could set any given level of punishment for any given reason, including both its defense AND 'vengeance' (as you describe it).

    Thus the right to premedtated homocide is something you feel the government should have.
    Obviously.
    Note that premeditated homocide =/= murder.

    Why exactly do you think the government should have the right to kill its people?
    You mean the power to kill its people, as given to it by its people as a means to protect their rights.
    I have already presented and defended this argument.

    "Any prior conviction illustrates.... a continued threat to the rights of the people"? Really? What about drug charges?
    ooh -- superb cherry-picking.
    What about armed robbery, aggervated assault, assault and battery, sexual assault and rape?

    Criminal laws are nominally put in place to punish people who violate the rights of others. Someone convicted of a drug charge breaks a criminal law.
    You might argue that drug laws do not violate the rights of the people, but that in no way changes the fact that those who break the law repeatedly are obviously willing to continue to do so even after going to prison.

    And why does that grant the government the authority to kill someone?
    That, alone, does not. Prior convictions do, however, do illustrate a willingness to continue to be a threat to society even after incarceration.

    Sure. See above. You need to show that the recidivism is acutually a threat to the rights of others. You are saying it, but the majority of convictions in this country disagree with your assesment.
    What % of convicts on death row are first-time offenders.
    I'll bet it approaches 0%.

    Actually, proof would guarantee it. Evidence alone would not.
    Jump through hoops = evidence.
    Beyond a shadow of a doubt = proof.
    Then by your standard, no one would be released.

  9. #239
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Nothing in my 'society sets th elevel of punishment' statement supports this -- society could set any given level of punishment for any given reason, including both its defense AND 'vengeance' (as you describe it).
    The word "Punishment" supports it. If it was defense, tehn the nature of the crimes wouldn;t be taken into account, the nature of recidivism would. I agree that there punishment is a part of the issue. I just disagree with premeditated homicide being a right of the govenrment.


    Obviously.
    Note that premeditated homocide =/= murder.
    Premeditated Homocide is not a right that the people have. I have a problem iwht the govenrment having more rights than its individual citizens.


    You mean the power to kill its people, as given to it by its people as a means to protect their rights.
    I have already presented and defended this argument.
    You haven't really supported it, though. You've supported the arguemtn for that the right has been granted by the people to the govenremtn for the purpose of vengeance/punishment, but not for defense. My contention is with that right being granted for any reason other than DIRECT defense of the people (this excludes post facto "defense" which is really just vengeance)


    ooh -- superb cherry-picking.
    What about armed robbery, aggervated assault, assault and battery, sexual assault and rape?
    I admit that I am cherry-picking. I'm cherry picking the crimes that are currently punishable by death (And the supreme court has ruled that none of these are punishable by death. In fact, the exact wording was "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken". Kennedy v. Louisiana.)

    Criminal laws are nominally put in place to punish people who violate the rights of others. Someone convicted of a drug charge breaks a criminal law.
    You might argue that drug laws do not violate the rights of the people, but that in no way changes the fact that those who break the law repeatedly are obviously willing to continue to do so even after going to prison.
    This is the red herring. The prior convictions for non-capital offenses do not illustrate that the Death Penalty is justified.

    Teh issue inherent in this argumetn is the court system itself and the prisin system, not th edeath penalty. Talk about prior crimes of a non-capital nature is a non-sequitort argument.


    That, alone, does not. Prior convictions do, however, do illustrate a willingness to continue to be a threat to society even after incarceration.
    Which really means nothing in the context of this debate.


    What % of convicts on death row are first-time offenders.
    I'll bet it approaches 0%.
    That's really irreleant to my point. I don't care if it realy is 0%, although I seriously doubt it is.

    The fact is that potential for recidivism is not the primary concern of the sentencing process. It is not tested for, nor is it argued durring sentencing. More often than not, emotional appeals are made by victims families, and descriptions of the heinous nature of the crime are made in order to elicit an emotion by thoise giving the govenremtn the right to commit [premeditated homicide.

    Whether or not the person is coincidetally a repeat offendr is irrelevant.

    Then by your standard, no one would be released.
    For crimes people feel the death penalty is warranted and for criminals with a history of recidivism, I don't think they should ever be released.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #240
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-16-15 @ 10:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Losing At Natural Selection

    "Losing At Natural Selection"
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Pardon me, Let me fix it. The issue changes from defense homicide.
    Nature does not establish a moral absolute by which one is entitled to commit homicide, it also does not rule out reprisal.
    Positive law establishes moral standards, which are based on a collective consensus, keeping in mind that the collective may place restrictions upon its own collective actions, within the public-state contract which is government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    False. I never said that he wasn't convicted and sentenced to death. You've assumed that t5his was the case. Let's assusme for the sake of argumetn that the killing takes place a split second before the lethal injection was administered. It would still be construed as murder, although due process was adhered to.
    I had also ignored the possibility that the person was released after serving their punishment according to legal proceedings.
    Thus, to address your splitting of hairs, whence the court has ruled that the perpetrator is no longer a citizen, that the citizen is illegally present and not under its jurisdiction, the state may politely issue you a can of gasoline, a match, and an ice pick to put the fire out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    So this means you agree that the Governemtn should not be killing it's citizens. The loophole you propose is that the govenrment should simply revoke the citizenship of those it desires to kill?
    That seems to me an excess of governemtnal authority as well.
    It seems that you concede authority to the government as though it is some autonomous entity with thoughts and actions of its own whereas I conceive of it as a greater individual of its citizenry.
    The citizens have the authority to decide which are to be citizen members and even which should remain citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Is the duty of the govenremtn to only protect portions of its citizenry, or is the duty to protect all of its citizenry?
    Perhaps the govenrment's job is only to protect the citizenry it finds unobtrusive?
    Is even one step towards fascism too many?
    The government acts on behalf of the collective, not as a separate entity. Of which the offending member is a portion, like it or not.
    That is unless we revoke the citizenship of all offending persons so that we may kill them.
    No doubt, and it may be established that through due process the obtrusive persons may have their rights restricted or entirely removed.
    Last edited by Monk-Eye; 12-02-08 at 02:40 PM.

Page 24 of 42 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •