Death Penalty

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by Alex H@22 December 2003 - 00:58
Thank you chalice

Seriously, if you are legally dead for even a few minutes that means you are "legally" dead. (Oh great I walked into that one)

So if you're dead, technically you get you're debt wiped, release from jail, etc.

I'd be interested to hear opinions from j2k4, J'Pol and hobbes especially. Judging from the previous responses they would be the only ones around here with opinions worth listening to.

That just prooves how imperfect laws are and why the death penalty should not be allowed.
I can't begin to understand people who kill little girls. I think that is horrible, but can we really judge most poeple by a set of imperfect rules?

[Alex H]

"You have killed a human being. Life is sacred. To prove how sacred life is, we are now going to kill you."

Still not sure I understand that point of view.

[Busyman]

It's simple really.
You are trying to say "If the government kills you for killing a little girl in cold blood, that the government is just as bad".

You are thinking about it to far.

The government, because your crime is so heinous, doesn't want deal with you anymore.
It could also be looked at as preemptive self-defense for society as a whole.

Should you be put back on the street. No you are a danger.
Locked in jail. No you still are a danger (not as much).

One could argue if I had a person with a gun to their head and you shot and killed me that you had no right to take my life.

[Neo 721]

Judging by the barbaric nature of the US justice system there isnt anyway in our lifetime that this issue will be debated to any effect.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Neo 721@31 December 2003 - 22:07
Judging by the barbaric nature of the US justice system there isnt anyway in our lifetime that this issue will be debated to any effect.

It already is debated.
What "barbaric nature" are you referring?
In comparison to what, Iran?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman@30 December 2003 - 06:07

One could argue if I had a person with a gun to their head and you shot and killed me that you had no right to take my life.

The analogy is flawed.

You are a clear and present danger to the person who you are holding.

If you are in a maximum security prison, then you do not present the same danger.

In your example Society (via the Police Officer) is defending your intended victim from you. That is not the same as revenge killing, which is basically what the death penalty is.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+1 January 2004 - 00:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 1 January 2004 - 00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@30 December 2003 - 06:07

One could argue if I had a person with a gun to their head and you shot and killed me that you had no right to take my life.

The analogy is flawed.

You are a clear and present danger to the person who you are holding.

If you are in a maximum security prison, then you do not present the same danger.

In your example Society (via the Police Officer) is defending your intended victim from you. That is not the same as revenge killing, which is basically what the death penalty is. [/b][/quote]
In prison you are still a danger. You are not as MUCH of a danger but a danger nonetheless. Prisoners kill other inmates, guards, escape to kill, etc.


In my analogy it is still murder.

[J'Pol]

It is still badly flawed, as you well know.

The two situations are not even broadly similar.

[clocker]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@31 December 2003 - 16:39
That is not the same as revenge killing, which is basically what the death penalty is.

Revenge?
It is a penalty, different from imprisonment only in it&#39;s permanance.
Were it revenge, I think the public aspect would be brought back, much like the public executions that so entertained Victorian England.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+1 January 2004 - 04:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 1 January 2004 - 04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@31 December 2003 - 16:39
That is not the same as revenge killing, which is basically what the death penalty is.

Revenge?
It is a penalty, different from imprisonment only in it&#39;s permanance.
Were it revenge, I think the public aspect would be brought back, much like the public executions that so entertained Victorian England.[/b][/quote]
If you have a point I would appreciate it if you could make it, it really isn&#39;t that difficult if you put your mind to it.