Is Capital Punishment Justified?

Cephus · Dec 2, 2008

Re: Dimentia

Infinite Chaos said:
If an innocent man has a life sentence he or she gets chances to fight to clear his or her name. The state serves as jailor and if the person clears their name the state can compensate.

Sorry, the state still cannot compensate anyone for even a day wrongfully incarcerated. Money is not a substitute for time lost out of one's life that can never be recovered.

Try again.

Cephus · Dec 2, 2008

Re: Particulars

Cristina said:
Capital punishment also does not deter anyone from commiting a crime.

Prison doesn't deter anyone from committing a crime either, not only those who see others going to prison for their crimes, but even those criminals who have been there themselves and keep committing crimes over and over again.

Should we stop putting people in prison too? :roll:

Tucker Case · Dec 2, 2008

Goobieman said:
This depends.
Is capital punishment a means thru which the government protects the rights of people, either directly by killing someone that has shown that he is a threat to society, or as a deterrent to those that might otherwise be a threat to society, or both?

If so - and I'd argue that it is indeed the case - the government is merely exercising the right of the people to act in their own self-defense.

Given that, we are not then granting the government a power that we, the people, do not individually posess as a right.

Premeditated killing is not self-defense, though. Once incarcerated, the defense of the public at large has been achieved. Then the issue changes to the woeful state of a prison system that lets dangerous criminals re-enter the civilian population.

By allowing the government to exterminate the offender in a premeditated fashion, the issue changes from defense to murder.

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.

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.

Goobieman · Dec 2, 2008

Tucker Case said:
Premeditated killing is not self-defense, though.

It is, as much as it is possible for a government to exercise the right to self-defense on the belalf of its society, when said government is bound by due process (and a multitude of other checks) -- that is, conceptually it is the same, the process just takes longer.

The nature of the death penalty as post facto is inherently why it is purely retaliatory.

It does, however, unquestionably protect the rights of the people from any further menace from that particular person.

Infinite Chaos · Dec 2, 2008

Re: Dimentia

Cephus said:
Sorry, the state still cannot compensate anyone for even a day wrongfully incarcerated. Money is not a substitute for time lost out of one's life that can never be recovered.

It does I'm afraid - prisoners have claimed financial compensation for wrongful or false imprisonment.

Cephus said:
Try again.

After you... :lol:

OK, one for you - imagine you have been wrongly accused, despite damning DNA evidence, you KNOW you are innocent (not quite a 4 year old baby when the crime was committed but you get the picture) - how many times would YOU try and appeal before resigning yourself to being executed for someone else's crime? (Remember you are against lengthy appeals by the innocent or guilty)

Take it further - your kid was the 4 year old wrongfully accused but the DNA evidence is overwhelming. You KNOW your kid wasn't anywhere near the scene but has been implicated by DNA.

Hand your kid over gladly or protest and appeal? And how many times before you accept that your now 10 year old has to die because of your principle?

Tucker Case · Dec 2, 2008

Goobieman said:
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.

Goobieman · Dec 2, 2008

Tucker Case said:
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.

Monk-Eye · Dec 2, 2008

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"

Tucker Case said:
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.

Tucker Case said:
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.

Tucker Case said:
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.

Tucker Case · Dec 2, 2008

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

Monk-Eye said:
"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.

Tucker Case · Dec 2, 2008

Goobieman said:
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.

Goobieman · Dec 2, 2008

Tucker Case said:
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.

Tucker Case · Dec 2, 2008

Goobieman said:
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.

Goobieman · Dec 2, 2008

Tucker Case said:
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.

Tucker Case · Dec 2, 2008

Goobieman said:
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.

Monk-Eye · Dec 2, 2008

Losing At Natural Selection

"Losing At Natural Selection"

Tucker Case said:
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.

Tucker Case said:
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.

Tucker Case said:
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.

Tucker Case said:
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.

Goobieman · Dec 2, 2008

Tucker Case said:
The word "Punishment" supports it.

The word "punishment" was used casually, as in "a consequence for a crime". If you're hanging your hat on my use of that particular word, then you're past grasping.

If it was defense, tehn the nature of the crimes wouldn;t be taken into account, the nature of recidivism would.

That's not necessarily the case at all.

Premeditated Homocide is not a right that the people have.

Many instances of killing self-defense are premeditated homocides, depending on how you want to define premeditated.
Did I wake up this morning planning to shoot someone? No.
Did I wake up this morining intending to kill anyone that tried to kill me? Yes.

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.

Sure I have. People are put to death for many reasons, one of which is their continued threat to society. The nature of their crime and their pattern of behavioir, combined, lead to the conclusion that execution is a valid form of punishment in that it removes the threat to society in a final, permanent manner.

That's why first-time offenders arent executued, and you aren't executed for your 100th jaywalking ticket.

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)

"Really" just vengance? To the exclusion of all other motives?
Show that there is no 'defense of society' component.
After all, as has been said numerous times -- there is NO chance they will be a repeat offender, once executed. Do you REALLY think this doesn't cross someones' mind?

This is the red herring. The prior convictions for non-capital offenses do not illustrate that the Death Penalty is justified.

By themselves? No.
But they DO support the argument that past behavior illsustrates a future threat, a necessary component to the 'defense of society' argument.

Which really means nothing in the context of this debate.

Incorrect. See above.

That's really irreleant to my point. I don't care if it realy is 0%, although I seriously doubt it is.

But, its relevant to mine.

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

Given that you admit that these people are a sufficient threat that they must be removed from society, and provided that their crime warrants same, there's no reason to not execute them, should society believe that doing so is acceptable.

Tucker Case · Dec 2, 2008

Re: Losing At Natural Selection

Monk-Eye said:
"Losing At Natural Selection"
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.

This would be true i a pure democracy, but we are not in a collective concensus system It is a republic and thus, we do not have a general consensus of views. Nor do we have the ability to influence all but a very small portion of the government in general. The will of th epeople is never taken into account, but teh career politicians seek to gain power through many nefarious routes.

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.

If that were the case, the right would be granted to the people and not the state, so I really wouldn't have an issue with it. If the people had a right to premedtiated homicide undercertain conditions, then I'm OK with the govenrment having the right to premeditated homicide.

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.

I do not concede any auhtority to the govenremnt. I actually argue against that concession. Our govenremnt is not a direct democracy and as such it is an autonomous collective separate form teh collective of its citizenry.

The citizens have the authority to decide which are to be citizen members and even which should remain citizens.

No, they don't. The representatives of the citizens, A.K.A. the governemnt would have that authority.

No doubt, and it may be established that through due process the obtrusive persons may have their rights restricted or entirely removed.

In oorer to protect its people. But how and why does that justify Homicide over incarceration?

Tucker Case · Dec 2, 2008

Goobieman said:
Given that you admit that these people are a sufficient threat that they must be removed from society, and provided that their crime warrants same, there's no reason to not execute them, should society believe that doing so is acceptable.

This is the real crux of our disagreement.

Incarceration for life is enough in and of itself to act in defense of society. You need to show a logical reason for the leap from "Incarceration of life" To govenremnt sponsored premeditated homicide not in direct defense of another's life.

The fact that it goes beyond what is necessary for pure defense is what makes the Death Penalty pure vengeance and retaliation.

Since the killing is unnecessary for defense purposes, there hasn't been an argument given for why the government should have the right to kill its citizens.

This is regardless of the fact that the person does not have the right to live anymore.

As I said to Monk-eye. If the penalty were given in a way that granted the right to kill to the victims family, I wouldn't oppose the death penalty. At least in cases with DNA eveidence and such.

My issue is not with the act, it is with who carries out the act.

Tucker Case · Dec 2, 2008

Let me make a separate post on this. If the entity that directly carried out the execution were the victims family or the wronged parties, I would not really have much of an issue with the death penalty in extreme cases.

For example, if John Wayne Gacy were executed by Firing Squad and all of his victim's family memebrs who wanted to participate were the people in that firing squad, I would not have an issue with that. That is the right being retained by the people directly under certain proscribed circumstances.

That is not an issue for me.

Cephus · Dec 2, 2008

Tucker Case said:
Let me make a separate post on this. If the entity that directly carried out the execution were the victims family or the wronged parties, I would not really have much of an issue with the death penalty in extreme cases.

For example, if John Wayne Gacy were executed by Firing Squad and all of his victim's family memebrs who wanted to participate were the people in that firing squad, I would not have an issue with that. That is the right being retained by the people directly under certain proscribed circumstances.

That is not an issue for me.

But as I'm sure you realize, these cases are not "John Wayne Gacy's victim's families vs. John Wayne Gacy", they are "The State vs. John Wayne Gacy". These people are executed as a function of society as a whole, not just a couple of people who may be taking, perfectly justified IMO, revenge.

Tucker Case · Dec 2, 2008

Cephus said:
But as I'm sure you realize, these cases are not "John Wayne Gacy's victim's families vs. John Wayne Gacy", they are "The State vs. John Wayne Gacy". These people are executed as a function of society as a whole, not just a couple of people who may be taking, perfectly justified IMO, revenge.

I do realize that, and I do not think the government should be killing its citizens for any reason, justified or not. (And I don't think citizenship should be revoked for the sake of killing those citizens as well, Monk-eye.)

I'm distrustful of governemnt competancy, I feel that it is currently astoundingly corrupt, and I believe it currently has more power than the people it is supposed to represent.

I strongly feel that granting the govenrment the right to kill its people is more authority than it should be given.

Cephus · Dec 2, 2008

Tucker Case said:
I do realize that, and I do not think the government should be killing its citizens for any reason, justified or not.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion on the matter.

I'm distrustful of governemnt competancy, I feel that it is currently astoundingly corrupt, and I believe it currently has more power than the people it is supposed to represent.

In some ways, of course it is and it has to be. When it comes to national defense, it has to have weapons that are more powerful than any individual or group of people will ever be. Considering that they have enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over, what do you expect?

I strongly feel that granting the govenrment the right to kill its people is more authority than it should be given.

Ultimately, it is the people who elect representatives that pass laws that make executions either legal or illegal, therefore you're welcome to your opinion and your ability to vote is not impeded, so by all means, try to get your opinions legislated into law like everyone else.

Wessexman · Dec 2, 2008

Re: Point Counter Point

Monk-Eye said:
"Point Counter Point"
I understand anarcho-communism; I do not agree with egalitarianism, it is simply an excuse for bureaucratic collectivism and in Orwelian terms, "All pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others."
I am highly inclined to redefine it.

Well firstly Orwell was close to anarcho-communism secondly you are hardly examining it in close detail but that is another topic.

The democratic party is libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of moral choices.
It promotes itself on opposing authoritarian (collectivism) dictates from the public-state contract (goverment) on social-civil issues where individual morality is involved.

The democratic party is anti-libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of economic choices.
It promotes itself on enacting authoritarian (collectivism) dictates through the public-state contract (government) on social welfare issues with an egalitarian, wealth redistribution focus.

The republican party is anti-libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of moral choices.
It promotes itself on enacting authoritarian (collectivism) dicates through the public-state contract (government) on civil issues where individual morality is involved.

The republican party is libertarian, in large part, with respect to the individualism of economic choices.
It promotes itself on opposing authoritarian (collectivism) dictates from the public-state contract (goverment) in economic issues, for laze faire economics.

The promotions of each party are mixed from issue to issue, which means that they are inconsistent with a fundamental philosophy of libertarianism (individualism), or authoritarianism (collectivism), yet both promote major liberal elements as part of their platforms.

Thus, the use of the term liberal by republicans about democrats is a reference to democrat's libertarian moral choices - individualism; however, that misappropriate in describing democrat economic principles - collectivism.

On the contrary, democrats would be justified to use the term liberal about republicans in reference to republican libertarian economic choices - individualism; however, that is misappropriate in describing republican civil positions - collectivism.

Now, the republican party seems to believe that it has the moral high ground on economic as well as civil issues, and consequently it sees fit to abuse the term liberal with that generalization, under some guise of term it calls conservativism; democrats seem to accept it; to put it bluntly, "I call bullsht!"

The word libertarian comes from the French word libertaire meaning anarchism or specifically anarcho-communism.

Bonnie1988 · Dec 2, 2008

Tucker Case said:
Never said that. Nor have I implied that. In fact I don't believe that teh issues are related. One is about the government killing it's citizens, the other is about the abysmal state of our prison system.

It's a red herring and a non-sequitor argument.

Again, different issue altogether.

If you want to discuss the way to fisx the abysmal state of the prison system, so be it, I'll discuss it with you in another thread, but this is about capital punishment. Your argumnets are sillogical because the risk to other inmates is not caused by teh lack of death penalty, it is caused by a failure of the prison system.

Irrelevant emotional tripe. I never made any arguments about cruelty.

What nonsense, bonnie. You know I never made any such argument about cruelty.

Again, noinsense unrelated to my arguments.

STILL unrelated to my arguments. If yuo want to argue against MY [points on the issue, please do so. Until then, please give up trying to paint my arguemtn into something it most assuredly is not.

You are missing my point entirely, but still making up arguemtns that are totally unrelated to my point. So I am forced one final time make the point that is the ONLY relevant point on the issue.

Logical sequence:

Premise 1: The Governmnt should not have more rights than the Citizens it exists for.

Premise 2: The citizens do not have the right to kill other citizens in a premeditated fashion.

Premise 3: The Death Penalty is killing in a premeditated fashion

Conclusion: The government should NOT be allowed to give out the Death Penalty.

That is the entirety of my argument. If you disagree with my argument, tell me which premise you find to be in error, or that you do not agree with. Show me what premise you would prefer.

Responding with emotion-laden nonsense about cruelty, prison murders, etc, will be construed as failure to have a logical response and a tacit agreement that the deat penalty is illogical, irrational and unjustified.

My argumetn is about teh death penalty, and the government's right to have it. I am not making any emotional pleas.

It is NOT sillylogical. It is reality because there is no even theoretical "fix" of our prison system to protect inmates from murderers that isn't the most extreme form of cruelty.

I think you are inaccurate in your view of citizen's rights. While I can't hunt down someone I think may sometime in the future harm me on impressions, I believe the legal standard is the "reasonableness" of using force and deadly force.

I don't believe your discussion is in terms of reality, but platitudes detached from reality in part because it is premised upon an alternative perfect prison system. Why not, instead, just premise your opposition because you favor a perfect society? Unless you can describe the perfect prison system, there really is no reality behind your reasoning.

Government has vast rights citizens don't have. Government can tax you. Government and regulate your conduct. Government can arrest you, take any possessions and even your children away from you. Send you to war. Gun you down. Premise 1 is just false.

Premise 2
Some of your logic actually doesn't work - I think - for your views. A person is drawing a gun down on me, but I shoot first and kill him. Absolutely, my murder was 'premeditated." Push that back in time. Running towards me with gun-in-hand etc.
However, you can oppose pre-meditated killing. At least circumstantially, that also means you must accept that there are circumstance that I must accept that people must die for your ethic. However, I suppose you can claim the government's hands are clean of innocent victims lives on the theory of no-action, no-fault. I don't believe inaction against evil to others when only you have the authority or power to act is inaction. I believe it is collaberation with the evil.

Premise 3
I agree that the death penalty is pre-meditatively killing someone.

I doubt we'd every agree on the question of "punishment" as a justification - where I see a murderer who killed a family then laughing over cards and having sex with his prison "wife", living a full live in a full counter prison culture in a life of being provided for by a pure welfare system for him as the most fundamental injustice.

So you would not allow putting the word "justly" in front of "pre-meditative."

But I also would put the words "to save the lives of others" at the end of your premise 3.

The only response you have to that is because you also want a perfect (in that regards) prison system. YET YOU DON'T HAVE THAT AS A CONDITIONAL PREMISE!

What's the saying? "If if's and buts were candy and nuts, what a Merry Christmas we'd all have."

I could use your logic to argue that no one should ever be put in prison:

Premise 1: The government should not have a power than the power of its citizens.

Premise 2: Citizens do not have the right to involuntarily imprison another citizen.

Premise 3: Therefore, government does not have the right to involuntarily imprison another citizen.

Declaring "It's that simple."

Of course, I'm not in an fashion supporting allow crimes to happen. If you want to talk about how to ending all crime and failures to do so, we can start another thread on that.

Increasingly in life, I am losing interest in arguing which of various versions of the best absolute standards utopian values are more ethical. Instead, I prefer to look at issues in terms of present reality - calling the cards we have, not the Royal Flush we wish we could draw.

I believe in the most real terms, it comes down to not if someone is "pre-meditatively" killed. That is a factual certainty. Rather, it is who is pre-meditatively killed." In terms of current reality, I believe those killed under your system are generally far more innocent that those killed in my system.

If we both assume the premise - of course we have a way to stop killings in this - then there is no discussion left at all.

:comp:

Bonnie1988 · Dec 2, 2008

Not to trivialize it, I do acknowledge real problems in the death penalty in relation to failures in the justice system to assure the system is not only accurate, but also fairly applied.

Is Capital Punishment Justified?

Should Capital Punishment be supported?

It should be supported in both principle and practice.

Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.

It should be opposed both in principle and practice.

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Dream Walker

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Dream Walker

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Dorset Patriot