The Death Penalty

[rocka21]

Forgive me If this has already been brought up in this thread.
Its funny how most of the “pro choice” people are against capital punishment. Its ok to kill a fetus but not a murderer. ( I know this is not a “ is a fetus a human debate”, but it does kind of resemble a human, don’t you think?)
I got a solution!
How about we take the murderers on death row and put them in a artificial womb, hook them up to a “life line” by the state, the in about 2 or 3 months, go in and suck them out and flush them or chop off their head? That’s the ticket!
A murderer, child molester, or rapist has all the “rights” to life, but an unborn child is at the mercy of the mother?
I think all pro choice people should be pro capital punishment by default.

 

[lilithu]

Forgive me If this has already been brought up in this thread.
Its funny how most of the “pro choice” people are against capital punishment. Its ok to kill a fetus but not a murderer. ( I know this is not a “ is a fetus a human debate”, but it does kind of resemble a human, don’t you think?)

Yes, it's been brought up. And it's entirely irrelevant. Those who are pro-choice do not see the foetus as a person the way that you do.

I think all pro choice people should be pro capital punishment by default.

And I think that all pro-life people should be against the death penalty by default. Go figure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is a poor strawman. It is on the same level as the social conservatives that want to protect the definition of marriage by claiming that if two people of the same sex can marry, then why can't a man marry his goat, or his toaster. I enjoy comedic hyperbole as much as the next man (and his toaster), but the very premise of your question is based on taking an argument to the extreme.

I'm not trying to imply that illegal immigrants will be rounded up and executed, but I do see danger in introducing the principle that supposedly universal rights aren't that universal after all.

Well, that should be self evident. Society could not reach the conclusion that one is guilty without a trial. The trial itself is due process.

And if human rights are earned by merit, why should a capital criminal receive them?

If you can effectively determine guilt or innocence of someone without a jury trial and defense counsel, why should you bestow this right on someone who has demonstrated that he has not earned even the right to breathe?

I never said that.
I asked for you present when someone in this thread argued the right to kill.
I know I have not presented any such argument.

Capital punishment implies the right to kill (or, if it doesn't, implies hypocrisy). An argument in favour of capital punishment is an implicit argument for the right to kill under certain circumstances.

Sure, examples of possible justification for killing other human beings might be something like these:

1. I am physically enabled by the innate laws of the universe to kill other human beings, therefor I have that right by default.

If physical ability constituted justification, no capital criminal would be convicted in the first place.

2. By the fact of my existence, I am equally as justified in being alive as any other human being, and therefor I reserve the right to use deadly force to defend myself against a deadly attack. (This would be an example of a limited justification.)

I'd personally agree with this one, but once a person is in secure custody, this justification disappears.

You are making it an exception. Murderers have gotten out of prison before and murdered again. They kill in the prisons as well. Seems to me that giving them the death penalty would indeed protect the people.

Car theives sometimes get out of prison and murder people, and sometimes kill in prison. Should we execute them?

Unless you favor locking them up in a little solitary room, in the dark, all by themselves, for the rest of their lives just to appease your feelings about the right to life?

Why does the room have to be little or dark? The idea is to protect others as far as necessary, not to be cruel for no reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Forgive me If this has already been brought up in this thread.
Its funny how most of the “pro choice” people are against capital punishment. Its ok to kill a fetus but not a murderer. ( I know this is not a “ is a fetus a human debate”, but it does kind of resemble a human, don’t you think?)

You hit the nail right on the head of the distinction: if you don't view a fetus as human, then there's no reason that your feelings about capital punishment should have anything to do with abortion.

And I think that all pro-life people should be against the death penalty by default. Go figure.

As do I. Sometimes it seems to me like many pro-life groups' concern for life ends when that life passes through the birth canal.

 

[Storm]

Why does the room have to be little or dark? The idea is to protect others as far as necessary, not to be cruel for no reason.

Wasn't extended solitary confinement found to be cruel and unusual (regardless of the conditions of said confinement)?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wasn't extended solitary confinement found to be cruel and unusual (regardless of the conditions of said confinement)?

Dunno.

Personally, I don't have a problem preventing a person who constitutes a genuine threat of murder from killing (or killing again). To me, that's physical separation; social separation is something else. If physical separation can be accomplished without social separation (e.g. webcams and telephones, or interaction with other prisoners through a chain-link fence), then I'd have no problem with that.

 

[Somkid]

Barbaric, I don't know what else to say there are worse things than death say like spending the rest of your life in a prison cell but at least it gives you the opportunity to reflect on your actions and perhaps repent in one way or another or be found not guilty after 20 years which happens way too often. The other problem is that the "justice" only works for those who have money everyone else is screwed in to a plea bargain even if they are innocent so the district attorney can have another win under his belt for the next election.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, I got to page 10 and after reading many interesting opinions I come down on the side of being all in favor of Capital Punishment for specific crimes only.

1. Serial killers
2. Dangerous Offenders (This is a legal term in Canada reserved for what are considered people who are beyond rehabilitation. It is not a designation made lightly, but is based on the proponderance of evidence AND the learned opinion of platoons of Psychiatrists.
3. Major Drug dealers. (The kind that do not use drugs themselves but amass fortunes from the profit of said activities.) (I would limit this to traffickers of Heroin, Methamphetamines and Cocaine variants.)
4. Espionage (based on the idea that someone profits from giving government secrets to foreign nationals that compromise the security of the state.) If profit, in any form, was not the sole consideration then the death penalty would not apply.
5. Killing an authorized justice official. (Cops, prison guards, judges etc.)

 

[Aqualung]

Death row inmates would better serve society working than filling up a landfill.

I disagree to some extent. By making inmates work, it deprives law-abiding citizens of jobs. For example, maybe Person A, a law-abiding citizen, used to pick up the trash around the highway. A menial job, but at least it was a job. But now Person B, an inmate, does it for no money at all. Obviously, it is more cost effective to get free labour than costly labour, so Person B, a criminal, now has a job and Person A, a law abiding citizen, doesn't. That doesn't seem fair.

Of course, that is only true in the present state of things. If, for example, we closed our borders to illegal immigrants and instead made the inmates to those jobs that Americans are too good to do, that would be a splendid possibilty (because I agree with the theoretical view that inmates should be put to work to pay off their "debt" to society, or at the very least just so they're uncomfortable).

 

[The Seeker]

Well, I got to page 10 and after reading many interesting opinions I come down on the side of being all in favor of Capital Punishment for specific crimes only.

1. Serial killers
2. Dangerous Offenders (This is a legal term in Canada reserved for what are considered people who are beyond rehabilitation. It is not a designation made lightly, but is based on the proponderance of evidence AND the learned opinion of platoons of Psychiatrists.
3. Major Drug dealers. (The kind that do not use drugs themselves but amass fortunes from the profit of said activities.) (I would limit this to traffickers of Heroin, Methamphetamines and Cocaine variants.)
4. Espionage (based on the idea that someone profits from giving government secrets to foreign nationals that compromise the security of the state.) If profit, in any form, was not the sole consideration then the death penalty would not apply.
5. Killing an authorized justice official. (Cops, prison guards, judges etc.)

Your post highlights a problem I have with capital punishment. Who gets to decide who is worthy of capital punishment? Everyone has their own opinion, which leads to an unequal application of the death penalty.

 

[McBell]

Once again, the Fifth Amendment does NOT say that the State has the right to kill. What it says is that people have a right to due process of the law. Please read up on the history of the Bill of Rights and what it's intent was. There's a reason why it's called the Bill of RIGHTS.

Even the wiki states it up front:
The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.

Yes, you have the right to due process before liberties are taken away.

 

[McBell]

Wasn't extended solitary confinement found to be cruel and unusual (regardless of the conditions of said confinement)?

Timeline: Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons : NPR

Q&A: Solitary Confinement & the Law : NPR

Cookie Absent

Life in Solitary Confinement: 12,775 Days Alone | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet

American Civil Liberties Union : Indiana's ""Supermax"" Confinement Worsens Mental Illness in Prisoners, ACLU Charges

 

[Storm]

Timeline: Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons : NPR

Q&A: Solitary Confinement & the Law : NPR

Cookie Absent

Life in Solitary Confinement: 12,775 Days Alone | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet

American Civil Liberties Union : Indiana's ""Supermax"" Confinement Worsens Mental Illness in Prisoners, ACLU Charges

I guess not. Thank you, Mestemia.

 

[Poisonshady313]

If one requests the death penalty, I think it should be honored. But who is the jury to suggest it by force of law against the consent o fthe inmate?

Committing a captial crime is consent enough.

 

[Draka]

Did you have any classes in Civics? This is high school level knowledge, not my personal interpretation.

Excuse me, but questioning my education only makes you look desperate. You are the one who first used the word interpretation when dealing with the fifth amendment. Look, you can get all upset at the fact that your argument and what you are basing your argument on are getting turned right around on you all you want. You are the one who brought the founding articles of this country into this debate and you sure have a problem when someone else uses them to prove you wrong.


Perhaps you need a refresher on the English language. If I say you can't drive a car without first taking a driving class then that little word without means something there. That means that you can drive a car as long as you have taken a driving class. If you have not taken a driving class (you are without a driving class) then you may not drive. This is basic English here. The fifth amendment states that certain rights may not be taken away without due process of law. That infers that they may be taken away as long as the condition of due process is met.

 

[lilithu]

Excuse me, but questioning my education only makes you look desperate. You are the one who first used the word interpretation when dealing with the fifth amendment.

It shows my frustration at your arguing about something that is common knowledge. The FACT that the Bill of RIGHTS was composed to explicitly protect our rights, not to take them away is not interpretation. It's high school level Civics. I notice that you didn't even address the links I provided.

The fifth amendment states that certain rights may not be taken away without due process of law. That infers that they may be taken away as long as the condition of due process is met.

No one is denying that rights may be taken away with due process. The question is WHICH rights may be taken away.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...And if human rights are earned by merit, why should a capital criminal receive them?

For the first part, every person has the same human rights at birth. However, when someone decides to kidnap an 11 year old girl, rape her, then cut her throat and leave her to die, that person gets the same trial that a drunk driver gets. IF they are found guilty by a jury of their peers, and the sentence is capital punishment, then they have given up their basic human right to live (in my opinion). I am not espousing that the accused person be denied a right to a fair trial. I AM espousing that if found guilty of the crime described above, then that person should be put to death. As I said before - I would personally be more than happy to be the one that carried out the sentence. I would (and do) view such a person as no better than a rabid dog that needs to be put down.

If you can effectively determine guilt or innocence of someone without a jury trial and defense counsel, why should you bestow this right on someone who has demonstrated that he has not earned even the right to breathe?

Again - no one in this thread (that I have seen) is saying that the accused does not have the right to a trial (due process). I am confused by this part of your post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps you need a refresher on the English language. If I say you can't drive a car without first taking a driving class then that little word without means something there. That means that you can drive a car as long as you have taken a driving class. If you have not taken a driving class (you are without a driving class) then you may not drive. This is basic English here.

I don't think that works the way you're implying. People who have taken driving classes and then had their licences suspended cannot drive. Neither can people who are intoxicated but otherwise fully qualified (not legally, anyhow).

The fifth amendment states that certain rights may not be taken away without due process of law. That infers that they may be taken away as long as the condition of due process is met.

Stating that one condition exists does not automatically imply that there are no other conditions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For the first part, every person has the same human rights at birth. However, when someone decides to kidnap an 11 year old girl, rape her, then cut her throat and leave her to die, that person gets the same trial that a drunk driver gets. IF they are found guilty by a jury of their peers, and the sentence is capital punishment, then they have given up their basic human right to live (in my opinion). I am not espousing that the accused person be denied a right to a fair trial. I AM espousing that if found guilty of the crime described above, then that person should be put to death. As I said before - I would personally be more than happy to be the one that carried out the sentence. I would (and do) view such a person as no better than a rabid dog that needs to be put down.

And I would think that person is pretty despicable, too... but I see defense of the right to life more about the value of that right than the value of the particular person.

Again - no one in this thread (that I have seen) is saying that the accused does not have the right to a trial (due process). I am confused by this part of your post.

I see two possibilities:

- recognize human rights as universal. This would mean that all people have the right to life, period.
- recognize human rights as contingent. This would mean that the application (or not) of a particular right in a particular circumstance has to be decided on the specific merits.

If the right to life is not universal, why should other rights be?

 

[McBell]

The question is WHICH rights may be taken away.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
​

I fail to see what your question is about.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.

You cannot have life, liberty or property taken away without due process.