Death Penalty

What is a capitol crime. Genuinely, I don't even know what it means. However you miss the point anyway. I was suggesting that crimes of passion were likely to be spur of the moment, as such the ramifications of the actions were unlikely to be a factor.

Your proof is no more than, "it is logical and sensible". That does not constitute proof. Just because you believe that something must be true does not make it so. I say again, how do you know it is a deterrent. Other than "it must be".

My point 6 was that WE MAY MAKE MISTAKES IN FINDING PEOPLE GUILTY, that is an entirely different argument from my position that it is morally wrong. It is a practical thing. How can we use the death penalty, when there are so many ways of getting the verdict wrong, never mind the sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman+2 January 2004 - 01:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 2 January 2004 - 01:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 01:15
Taking the life of an aggressor, who is a danger to your life, or that of your family, or who is part of a force which is invading your country is not analogous.

The death penalty deals with someone who has been arrested, who is within the control of the state and who should present no danger.

I think it was Busyman who mentioned the gun to the head scenario earlier. I really don&#39;t think it is the same. I would fully support the Police Officer who killed that person, to directly save the life of the victim.

---

Let&#39;s say the gun wasn&#39;t loaded.

Then it was a "perceived" threat.

The officer didn&#39;t save a life at all. He took one.

That is why I asked #1 earlier. I was trying to figure whether your morals are Christian based, etc. [/b][/quote]
Let&#39;s say the gun was made of chocolate and the moon is made of cheese.

I cannot be bothered with sophistry.

Your scenario had a gun to a head. The person making the decision must believe that it is a danger to the victim.

It changes nothing with regard to the death penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@2 January 2004 - 01:23
So the morality of killing is relative, not absolute. Intersting in that the 10 Commandments don&#39;t explain any exceptions.

---

I believe that everything is relative.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+2 January 2004 - 01:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 2 January 2004 - 01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@2 January 2004 - 01:23
So the morality of killing is relative, not absolute. Intersting in that the 10 Commandments don&#39;t explain any exceptions.

---

I believe that everything is relative. [/b][/quote]
So when do we decide that "killing" is unjust. Seems to be a rather arbitrary decision.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes+2 January 2004 - 01:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 2 January 2004 - 01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 01:32
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes

---

Quote:

---

@2 January 2004 - 01:23
So the morality of killing is relative, not absolute. Intersting in that the 10 Commandments don&#39;t explain any exceptions.

---

I believe that everything is relative.

---

So when do we decide that "killing" is unjust. Seems to be a rather arbitrary decision. [/b][/quote]
Only if you don&#39;t read, or chose to ignore, what has gone before.

I think my position is entirely clear on this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+2 January 2004 - 01:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 2 January 2004 - 01:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@2 January 2004 - 01:34

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 01:32
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

@2 January 2004 - 01:23
So the morality of killing is relative, not absolute. Intersting in that the 10 Commandments don&#39;t explain any exceptions.

---

I believe that everything is relative.

---

So when do we decide that "killing" is unjust. Seems to be a rather arbitrary decision.

---

Only if you don&#39;t read, or chose to ignore, what has gone before.

I think my position is entirely clear on this. [/b][/quote]
As is mine. I fear the abuse of this form of prosecution.

I don&#39;t object based on morality, as we have shown that the everything is relative, but more on abuse and the lynch mob mentality.

ok lets say that there was absolutely no doubt about guilt....a man walks onto the set of jerry springer and "pops a cap in his ass" thereby rendering the aforementioned host dead (ignore that tv would suddenly become better) the man is arrested with the gun in his hand and he admits it&#39;s a fair cop he did it and has not regrets..does this man deserve the death sentence

how about someone like Adolf Hitler had he not comitted suicide?

yes mistakes are made and for that reason the death setence is flawed to say the least and is a very valid reason to abolish it...but in cases where there is no doubt at all and the case was extreme enough i am all for the national grid providing a solution

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 01:46
ok lets say that there was absolutely no doubt about guilt....a man walks onto the set of jerry springer and "pops a cap in his ass" thereby rendering the aforementioned host dead (ignore that tv would suddenly become better) the man is arrested with the gun in his hand and he admits it&#39;s a fair cop he did it and has not regrets..does this man deserve the death sentence

how about someone like Adolf Hitler had he not comitted suicide?

yes mistakes are made and for that reason the death setence is flawed to say the least and is a very valid reason to abolish it...but in cases where there is no doubt at all and the case was extreme enough i am all for the national grid providing a solution

---

So what offence are you accusing him of.

Seriously, you have to look at the ingredients of the offence, before you even look at whether or not there is a prima facie case. So we need to know what the offence is.

Those ingredients (all of them) then have to be proven before you can find someone guilty of that offence.

Even if you do that, the answer is no. The death penalty is wrong.

I can&#39;t help but consider the death penalty to be the quick easy option out of guilt.

My solution is far simpler, probably cheaper and allows for miscarriages of justice to be reversed as they are not dead (quite).

Simply that each convicted bastard (provided that they have commited some really heinous death deserving crime) should be put into a 6 foot by 6 foot cell, no windows, just one bare bulb, a board and a blanket to sleep on, a bucket to piss and crap in, no toilet, no sink, no tv, no visitors, no books, no newspapers, no medical care (if you get ill tough shit you die&#33;). They would get just bread and water through a slot each day, and swap their full bucket for an emptied one, also through the slot. No human conversation, total isolation.

Oh...by the way....Hello all (horrendously off topic I know) just thought I would pop in as not been around for a while.