Abortion and the death penalty

[Unveiled Artist]

If I valued myself, I wouldn't violate other people and expect to get away with it.

I don't understand. Could you rephrase?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I do not set the criteria, the courts do.

Your morals are align with the courts?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Punishment is punishment. Why is the death penalty revenge whereas life in prison is not revenge?

I think they are both revenge (life in prison isn't a stay at the Hilton). I dislike life in prison too since I value freedom enough I would die without it. Though, taking someone's life is quite different than keeping someone in prison for X amount of years. Even in the spiritual sense, if someone wants another to die for X crimes "he or she" feels the other deserves, that says (in my opinion) a lot about how much the former values their and others lives in general. As for what criteria do they use to determine whose lives are valuable, most people it's religion but in general, I'm not sure (outside legal standards). There are so many situations one may get out of life in prison (even rare cases) but there's no alternatives to learn the hard way when someone is put to death.

Though my point has to do with person X killing person Y because "X" believes the other deserves it. Who X and Y is is irrelevant, really.

It depends upon the severity of the mistake.

My examples are assuming that the severity is high enough to where one considers death penalty appropriate.

Evil people are not good people. It has been demonstrated that evil people do not learn from their mistakes. That's why so many are repeat offenders.

I never did like the term "evil people" actually. We don't know who can learn from their mistakes. I mean, I could kill many people and still learn from my mistakes. Of course not many people would believe me if I told the truth (crying wolf), but that doesn't make it less true.

How do we "know?" Unless someone is mentally ill (not all criminals are), I don't see how they cannot. Unless we put more faith in statistics than the value of humanity's freedom to change his or her behavior.

That is my personal opinion, yes.

The first, second, or both sentences?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sarcasm... A typical response from the defeated and/or confused

LOL! No, sarcasm, a typical response when someone has made a really stupid argument. Not only that my response showed how foolish your claim was.

And you will not admit the obvious. Your standards of pregnancy are not the standards of many theists of what being "pregnant" is. I can show you many sources that claim that life begins at conception and ending any conception is abortion. You know that there are people like that, I know that there are people like that. Why do you play these silly games when you are wrong. I even agreed with your standards, I merely pointed out that they are not everyone's standards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think they are both revenge (life in prison isn't a stay at the Hilton). I dislike life in prison too since I value freedom enough I would die without it. Though, taking someone's life is quite different than keeping someone in prison for X amount of years. Even in the spiritual sense, if someone wants another to die for X crimes "he or she" feels the other deserves, that says (in my opinion) a lot about how much the former values their and others lives in general. As for what criteria do they use to determine whose lives are valuable, most people it's religion but in general, I'm not sure (outside legal standards). There are so many situations one may get out of life in prison (even rare cases) but there's no alternatives to learn the hard way when someone is put to death.

Though my point has to do with person X killing person Y because "X" believes the other deserves it. Who X and Y is is irrelevant, really.

A life sentence in prison is not necessarily revenge. It may be recognition of the fact that some people are too dangerous to release to society. For the safety of others they need to be locked up for life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A life sentence in prison is not necessarily revenge. It may be recognition of the fact that some people are too dangerous to release to society. For the safety of others they need to be locked up for life.

I agree though since both of them are punishment, I think Trailblazer is putting them at the same standards as both being punishments for criminal actions to make a point justice is justice. Where I disagree is taking a life isn't an appropriate form of "justice" but devalues who a person is by determining whether he or she should exist or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree though since both of them are punishment, I think Trailblazer is putting them at the same standards as both being punishments for criminal actions to make a point justice is justice. Where I disagree is taking a life isn't an appropriate form of "justice" but devalues who a person is by determining whether he or she should exist or not.

I agree. It is simply too hard to properly mete out justice with the death penalty. The mistakes are far more expensive than the cost of a life sentence. There will be people who are not guilty that are killed by the state, and that cannot be undone.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I do not set the criteria, the courts do.

It makes me wonder about all the stigma ex-criminals have. Do you think the stigma is warranted based on the nature of their crime?

 

[Trailblazer]

A life sentence in prison is not necessarily revenge. It may be recognition of the fact that some people are too dangerous to release to society. For the safety of others they need to be locked up for life.

If a life sentence in prison is not necessarily revenge please explain why, logically speaking, the death penalty is revenge.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your morals are align with the courts?

My morals align with what Baha'u'llah revealed. Sometimes that aligns with the courts, sometimes not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I agree. It is simply too hard to properly mete out justice with the death penalty. The mistakes are far more expensive than the cost of a life sentence. There will be people who are not guilty that are killed by the state, and that cannot be undone.

Yeah. I honestly can't imagine any crime that warrants death. If anything, we're just using the law to justify the same offense (killing a person) of the guilty. Double standard. Though, I honestly don't understand how a person's morals can side with the law. I'm sure many people who work in corrections may or may not agree with the death penalty but they can't change the law. So, it makes me wonder how much people value others and what criteria do they have while maintain the standard of "loving thy neighbor (with a clause)." Anyway. Taking lives, torture, and taking away someone's freedom always bugged me. I could never work in law enforcement.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My morals align with what Baha'u'llah revealed. Sometimes that aligns with the courts, sometimes not.

In your words, does Bahaullah (I guess in his culture) support the death penalty or agreeing with legal justifications to execute for particular crimes?

 

[Trailblazer]

I think they are both revenge (life in prison isn't a stay at the Hilton). I dislike life in prison too since I value freedom enough I would die without it. Though, taking someone's life is quite different than keeping someone in prison for X amount of years.

Neither sentence is revenge unless someone is seeking revenge. But judges and juries do not seek revenge, they seek to carry out justice.

Definition of revenge
Definition of revenge
1 : a desire for vengeance or retribution
motivated by revenge

2 : an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even
plotted her revenge

3 : an opportunity for getting satisfaction
sought revenge through a rematch
Definition of REVENGE

Definition of justice

1a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments meting out justice social justice

b : judge especially : a judge of an appellate court or court of last resort (as a supreme court) a supreme court justice —used as a title Justice Marshall

c : the administration of law a fugitive from justice especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity a system of justice

2a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair questioned the justice of their decision

b(1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action

(2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness the justice of their cause

c : the quality of conforming to law

3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness admitted that there was much justice in these observations— T. L. Peacock
Definition of JUSTICE

Even in the spiritual sense, if someone wants another to die for X crimes "he or she" feels the other deserves, that says (in my opinion) a lot about how much the former values their and others lives in general.

In my opinion it says a lot about how much the former values justice.

As for what criteria do they use to determine whose lives are valuable, most people it's religion but in general, I'm not sure (outside legal standards). There are so many situations one may get out of life in prison (even rare cases) but there's no alternatives to learn the hard way when someone is put to death.

They have learned the hard way either way because physical life is not the end of life. Life continues and everyone will realize what their hands have wrought. FWIW, it is a Baha'i belief that God will not inflict a second punishment upon a person who was put to death, but God will inflict a second punishment upon one who spent life in prison. So who is really better off? I for one would not want to be on the other side of God's wrath.

I never did like the term "evil people" actually. We don't know who can learn from their mistakes. I mean, I could kill many people and still learn from my mistakes. Of course not many people would believe me if I told the truth (crying wolf), but that doesn't make it less true.

How do we "know?" Unless someone is mentally ill (not all criminals are), I don't see how they cannot. Unless we put more faith in statistics than the value of humanity's freedom to change his or her behavior.

We know by their behavior whether they learned from their mistakes, but even if they did learn, the appropriate punishment needs to be applied, because that is on accordance with justice.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where I disagree is taking a life isn't an appropriate form of "justice" but devalues who a person is by determining whether he or she should exist or not.

I do not believe it has one single thing to do with devaluing a person. It is about justice.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Definition of revenge
Definition of revenge
1 : a desire for vengeance or retribution
motivated by revenge

Trailblazer. Dictionary/bible is a huge turn off. I mentioned I looked up defense and commented on it without needing to separate the word to make any huge point. Unless you're skimming my posts, please just talk in your own words.

 

[Trailblazer]

It makes me wonder about all the stigma ex-criminals have. Do you think the stigma is warranted based on the nature of their crime?

It all depends upon the nature of the crime they committed.
It it was up to you, we'd put all of them up at the Hilton and give them a big screen TV and room service.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I do not believe it has one single thing to do with devaluing a person. It is about justice.

Once you take a person's life because of her actions, that act-whether it's done as a crime or as justice-is devaluing a person by saying she is no longer worth it (like trash)-and assuming the "authorities" have the moral right to dictate the existence of a person. The end doesn't validate the means.

Now legally, one can talk all day about it. It has its pros and cons. Morally, though, I can't see how anyone could support that type of justice. Justice doesn't me an you have to punish a person. It could mean just the person suffered the consequence of his actions-and we don't need to be the "god" in order for the consequences to be what "we" think is a worthy punishment of the crime.

It's really playing god-to use it theoretically and as a idiom.

If there were a universal criteria for justice (what constitutes as a crime, for example), the argument may be a bit stronger but since there isn't, I'm just not getting taking a life is a good thing regardless the justification.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah. I honestly can't imagine any crime that warrants death. If anything, we're just using the law to justify the same offense (killing a person) of the guilty. Double standard.

I cannot imagine any human who deserves to be murdered.
You have that backwards. The double standard is letting a person who took a life continue to live his/her life in prison.

Double standard: a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+is+a+double+standard

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It all depends upon the nature of the crime they committed.
It it was up to you, we'd put all of them up at the Hilton and give them a big screen TV and room service.

I never said that at all. I said life in prison is not a Hilton. I also said that I do not agree with life in prison (I said I value my freedom that I would die if it were taken), but I also believe (and said), there is a huge difference in taking someone's life and life in prison. I even agreed that it is revenge but morally, I disagree agree since life is valuable not trash you can throw away.

TV screen and service are irrelevant. Have no clue where that came from.

But your comment didn't address the question. Of course it depends on the nature of the crime, but is the stigma warranted if the nature of the crime met the criteria of the death penalty?

 

[Trailblazer]

Anyway. Taking lives, torture, and taking away someone's freedom always bugged me.

Which makes me wonder why it does not bug you when a murderer takes a life, after torturing the victim.