No, its entirely relevant. If you define justice as giving back what is taken, then you cannot justify killing a murderer because that isn't "giving back" anything, it's just taking another thing away.
I don't recall sharing how I defined justice.
I do remember you claiming that a murderer cannot give back what they have taken - in some lame attempt to justify not executing them.
I believe justice requires more than simply giving back what was taken - which is why a thief should give - or pay - back what was taken - including damages - as well as serve jail time.
You seem very confused. Do you not understand that ending a life is not actually "offering" anything? Nobody gains anything in recompense. Another life is just lost.
And how exactly does locking the murderer up for the rest of their life gain anything?
You believe being forced to live in a box with other murderers is a "gain"? They haven't lost something?
Removing someone who has demonstrated that they are a threat to the life of others is doing a service to the world.
It is justice for the friends and family of the victim, frees up space in prison for people who can actually be rehabilitated, saves the tax-payer some money and deters future murder.
This is not difficult to grasp.
I see literally no benefit to letting convicted murderers live.
Firstly, on average, the death penalty costs taxpayers more.
Even in those States that use a noose or firing squad?
Secondly, everybody benefits from a government and legal system that cannot force death upon its citizens.
Tell that to all the aborted babies.
This is just blatantly not true. There are entire organizations set up by the friends and families of murder victims who advoate for the abolition of the death penalty.
There is also an organization that claims that only the lives of a certain skin-color matter - but they don't speak for all the members of that skin-color.
There are always going to be people who are quick to represent others without their consent.
And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that locking murderers up makes prisons less safe - dangerous inmates have always been seperated from other inmates. It has never been an issue.
Are you really arguing that prisons are safe places to live?
Except for all the people who are wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. They gain a lot.
You're saying that there are people who - once they are convicted of crimes - maintain that they are innocent?
Well - throw open those doors! I'm sold!
But seriously - this is a reason to reform our legal system - like not being able to convict based on who you know or how much money you have.
If the punishment is death - then lawyers will be required to up their game because they and the courts will be under so much more scrutiny.
No more celebrities or politicians thinking they can get away with stuff just because they are famous.
You hear that Hilary?
Then you're completely unreasonable.
So you believe that it is reasonable to allow a thief to keep what they have stolen?
Then you're even more unreasonable.
You're right - just lock rapists up where they can commit more rape. Sounds reasonable.
Or - because they raped someone they have proven that they are threats to others and are unable to live in civilized society?
Until you convict the wrong person. Then suddenly "losing the right to life" is no longer a thing.
No more lawyers convicting anyone on circumstance or technicalities if the punishment is death - the ultimate deterrent.
It's just a case of the state deciding you never had a right to begin with.
Not the State - the facts presented in a court of law.
That wasn't the point I was making.
If you believe that I have the right to defend myself - even if it means ending the life of attacker in the process - then the attempted murderer can - and should - be executed.
When someone decides to take away the life of another - they forfeit their right to life - it does not matter if I take their life while defending myself or after they are convicted in a court of law.
The same goes for rapists.
If you believe that I am justified in shooting and killing a man when he is in the process of raping my daughter - then he can - and should - be executed after being convicted in a court of law.
Or - are you one of those people who believes that the victim should handle the people who is actively trying to murder or rape them with kid gloves?
"I'd like to stop you from stabbing/raping my wife - but ImmortalFlame might not be okay with it."
So, you have gone from "murderers lose their right to life" to "murderers and rapists lose their right to life" to "murderers, rapists and attempted murderers lose their right to life".
No - those have always been my positions.
You didn't ask about rape or attempted murder.
I was the one who brought them up so I could share that they are in the same boat as the murderers.
Do you have any idea of the slippery slope you're on?
Nope - I have been firm on these big three for some time now.
You no longer have to even demonstrate that a person acually killed people in order to justify a mandate for the state to kill them - you just need to demonstrate an ATTEMPT to end their life.
No - you would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they made the attempt.
Otherwise - you are correct. No kid gloves for those who try to kill people.
Imagine the same scenario you just envisioned, only now you successfully defended yourself and apprehended the attacker. The police then arrive and arrest you. Turns out the attacker is from a wealthy family, and they want to charge YOU with attempted murder. Being poor, you can't pay for a decent legal defense and the police don't believe your story. You are sentenced to death for attempted murder.
Justice?
Yeah - and me going to prison for life is such a better outcome?
Either way - you are arguing from the standpoint of a corrupt legal system - which I agree is a big problem in this country.
Yet - instead of calling it out and trying to make it harder for them to get away with it - you pave the way for them - make it so much easier for them.
And all the while emboldening criminals - because they know they can get away with it.
Except you're forgetting about the appeals process, which necessarily can take decades. If you believe in not killing innocent people, you need a lengthy (and very costly) appeals process in place.
And people
only appeal executions?
If all appeals cost the tax-payers money - why not argue to do away with all punishments for crimes?
Why do you only argue against execution?
Which is still a flawed system, subject to inaccuracy, exaggeration, circumstance and corruption. Something being DETERMINED in court cannot be considered innately an undeniable fact.
So we should let everyone in prison go free - right?
Since - none of them have been "innately" or "undeniably" proven to have committed the crimes they went to prison for - right?
Or are you again only making this argument in opposition to execution?
Okay, we're just going to end our discussion there.
You know that if such an experiment took place that people would only be committing murders on the "odd days".
You know that it would prove that the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent - so you run away.
Sentencing people to death purely because of the DAY they were convicted (just for an "experiment", no less) is utterly and flagrantly repulsive and immoral, and demonstrates that you are not an advocate for justice.
You and I both know that I was not advocating actual legislation or anything.
I was just proving a point.
And you resorting to
ad hominem and running away proves that my point was made.
The death penalty is the ultimate deterrent.
You're just an advocate for murder.
Nope - because I'm not defending the lives of murderers - like you are.
Imagine if we had gotten ahold of Adolf Hitler at the end of WW2.
What if there were a group of people who defended his life after he was convicted for his war crimes.
Those people would - justly - be labeled as defenders of murder and anti-Semitism - and you know it.
