The Death Penalty

[rocka21]

I wonder why we have to " kill " people as a punishment.

I think the punishment for crime is way too soft. Lets just start with hard labor, no tv, and 12 hour work days, and military style disipline. Make Jail a punishment , not just another place to " hang out".

We go from " club Fed" to the needle. two extremes.

 

[Draka]

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).

That was used as merely an example. I could use a different one if you want to get picky.

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

Just looking at the amendment at face value here. Not any other "conditions".

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.

No, I addressed you personally. You are the one with the erroneous argument, so it is you I address.

So, it's "common knowledge" huh? High school level Civics huh? Perhaps you should move on to college level then and I find that the use of the English language should be common knowledge as well. The Bill of Rights addresses rights. Plain and simple. It does not say anything about them not being taken away for certain situations. In fact, as the fifth amendment states, it actually makes for the allowance of their denial by stipulating that there must be due process before doing so.

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

There is no question as long as you can read and comprehend. The fifth amendment addresses that, you just don't wish it to be so is all.

You have really kicked your own butt here with this statement. You admit that rights may be taken away with due process and the very amendment we are discussing mentions life as one of those rights.

 

[lilithu]

So, it's "common knowledge" huh? High school level Civics huh?

Yes, and your continuing to argue about "English" does not change that.

The Bill of Rights addresses rights. Plain and simple. It does not say anything about them not being taken away for certain situations.

WRONG. As supported in the links that you refuse to address, the BoR lists rights that cannot be taken away. That is the point of having a Bill of RIGHTS. The first lists the right to freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. The second lists the right to bear arms. The third lists the right to not be forced to house soldiers. The fourth lists the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure. And the fifth lists the right to due process.

You have really kicked your own butt here with this statement. You admit that rights may be taken away with due process and the very amendment we are discussing mentions life as one of those rights.

It's you who needs the English lesson. Or maybe a Logic lesson. As Penguin pointed out, stating that there needs to be due process before the listed rights can be taken away does not mean that due process is the only requirement that must be met. So I repeat, it suggests that rights may be taken away - no one is denying that - but it does NOT specify WHICH Rights.

 

[Draka]

And again, it does, you just don't wish it to be so. Several people repeatedly point these things out to you and you fail to get it at all. Oy vey.

 

[lilithu]

And again, it does, you just don't wish it to be so.

No, it doesn't. If the BoR explicitly allowed capital punishment the Supreme Court could never have ruled it unconstitutional.

Oy vey.

Indeed. I fear for the state of our schools.

 

[McBell]

As supported in the links that you refuse to address,

What links?

the BoR lists rights that cannot be taken away.

This is just flat out wrong.
The Fifth amendment clearly states that life liberty and property can be taken away AFTER due process.

And the fifth lists the right to due process.

Yes, the right to due process BEFORE any rights are taken away.

It's you who needs the English lesson. Or maybe a Logic lesson. As Penguin pointed out, stating that there needs to be due process before the listed rights can be taken away does not mean that due process is the only requirement that must be met. So I repeat, it suggests that rights may be taken away - no one is denying that - but it does NOT specify WHICH Rights.

Now you are merely picking at nits.
The Fifth Amendment flat out says that due process has to be given before any rights can be taken away.

Now if you want to spend the day/week/month/year/decade nit picking said due process, feel free, but it does not change what is flat out stated.

 

[PureX]

I wonder why we have to " kill " people as a punishment.

I think the punishment for crime is way too soft. Lets just start with hard labor, no tv, and 12 hour work days, and military style disipline. Make Jail a punishment , not just another place to " hang out".

We go from " club Fed" to the needle. two extremes.

I don't understand this need to torture people just because they wouldn't live by our society's laws. I understand the need to separate them from the rest of us if they won't follow the rules, but why this desire to torture them? Are we really so foolish that we think torturing them will somehow change their minds and hearts? Because it doesn't. It just makes most of them harder and more hateful and resentful of us. But that aside, it frightens and saddens me that so many of us want so badly to inflict pain on other people simply because they wouldn't follow our laws.

 

[lilithu]

What links?

"The Bill of Rights states what the government cannot do and assert the rights given to the people and which no law or government action can interfere."
WikiAnswers - What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights

"In drafting the Bill of Rights, Madison had two goals in mind: to limit the power of the federal government, providing another check on the balance of power, and to make explicit the rights of citizens."
Welcome to BillOfRights.com: The Origins and Purpose of the Bill of Rights

In other words, the BoR states the Rights we have that govt cannot take away from us. It's purpose is to protect our rights and limit the power of the Federal govt.

This is just flat out wrong.
The Fifth amendment clearly states that life liberty and property can be taken away AFTER due process.

NO, it doesn't. It clearly states that life liberty and property canNOT be taken away WITHOUT due process. Those two sentences are not the same thing logically.

We're talking about the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" here. Due process is a NECESSARY condition before Rights can be taken away. You can't do it unless it's happened. But it is NOT a SUFFICIENT condition. It does not say that once there is due process then you can take the Rights away.

The PURPOSE of the Fifth Amendment is to protect the Right of Due Process, not to state that Life or any other Right can be taken away once there is due process.

 

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

I'm still amazed that the US holds onto such a ridiculously barbaric practice. You expect this in Iran or some of the less enlightened countries, but come on guys! It is hypocrisy of the worst kind. The death penalty is legalised revenge killing.

Scenario:

Man A kills man B.

Man C is angered by this so decided to kill man A.

This would be wrong according to US law, so man C lets the state murder man A instead and this is okay.

Wonderful! Let's all run around wearing animal skins and club each other to death!

 

[rocka21]

I don't understand this need to torture people just because they wouldn't live by our society's laws. I understand the need to separate them from the rest of us if they won't follow the rules, but why this desire to torture them? Are we really so foolish that we think torturing them will somehow change their minds and hearts? Because it doesn't. It just makes most of them harder and more hateful and resentful of us. But that aside, it frightens and saddens me that so many of us want so badly to inflict pain on other people simply because they wouldn't follow our laws.

Wow.

I did not know the things I listed were " torture ".

No tv, 12 hour work day, military disipline ( push ups, etc.).

You go off on some " inflict pain" rant. Wow.

Believe me, I have been to jail once a week for the last 10 years. ( as a minister). Its just a place for gangs to get stronger, crimials to get worse, people to get laizer.

It may not change the minds and hearts of everyone, but it might give some kind of structrue to someones life. It will also help a young kid that is just starting to get in trouble to think twice IMO.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't understand this need to torture people just because they wouldn't live by our society's laws. I understand the need to separate them from the rest of us if they won't follow the rules, but why this desire to torture them? Are we really so foolish that we think torturing them will somehow change their minds and hearts? Because it doesn't. It just makes most of them harder and more hateful and resentful of us. But that aside, it frightens and saddens me that so many of us want so badly to inflict pain on other people simply because they wouldn't follow our laws.

I don't see it as torture. For one thing, it's a difference in quality of life which the rest of us are paying for. I don't want to pay for the "Club Fed" quality of life for these people, and I would like it if they had to earn their keep. Basically I just don't feel like paying for them to have a bunch of amenities.

 

[PureX]

I don't see it as torture. For one thing, it's a difference in quality of life which the rest of us are paying for. I don't want to pay for the "Club Fed" quality of life for these people, and I would like it if they had to earn their keep. Basically I just don't feel like paying for them to have a bunch of amenities.

What "amenities" are you referring to? Reading your post I suspect that you have some idea of prison that is not at all accurate.

I understand the desire to make prisoners pay for their own incarceration, but there are several good reasons why this isn't entirely possible. And as to the cost of imprisoning people, that's life. In all human societies and in all times, human beings have had to protect themselves from each other. This protection costs us all a lot of time and effort, and in a modern society this means it costs us money. Wishing this cost away is like wishing to change the weather. The cost is a direct result of human nature. It's not going to go away ... ever. I understand that you feel it's unfair, but so is the weather. So are a whole lot of aspects of the human experience.

 

[Magic Man]

It's not going to go away ... ever. I understand that you feel it's unfair, but so is the weather. So are a whole lot of aspects of the human experience.

I know. I've been trying to say that life's not fair. That's why I can see the argument for the death penalty. Some innocent people will get killed, but life's not fair. I'm not saying life should be fair, because it's never going to be. I'm saying that me opinion is that I don't want to pay for the living expenses of some of these criminals, when it's unnecessary. Currently I have to, and that's not fair. Currently, innocent people are executed, and that's not fair. I would rather both of those things change, but I accept that they won't.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I know. I've been trying to say that life's not fair. That's why I can see the argument for the death penalty. Some innocent people will get killed, but life's not fair. I'm not saying life should be fair, because it's never going to be. I'm saying that me opinion is that I don't want to pay for the living expenses of some of these criminals, when it's unnecessary. Currently I have to, and that's not fair. Currently, innocent people are executed, and that's not fair. I would rather both of those things change, but I accept that they won't.

And yet, fairness is exactly what we expect our justice system to uphold. Isn't it?

 

[The Seeker]

I know. I've been trying to say that life's not fair. That's why I can see the argument for the death penalty. Some innocent people will get killed, but life's not fair. I'm not saying life should be fair, because it's never going to be. I'm saying that me opinion is that I don't want to pay for the living expenses of some of these criminals, when it's unnecessary. Currently I have to, and that's not fair. Currently, innocent people are executed, and that's not fair. I would rather both of those things change, but I accept that they won't.

There are criminals in California who have never murdered anyone, yet are sentenced to life in prison because of the 3 strikes law. Do you think we should kill these people as well so we taxpayers can save some money?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

There are criminals in California who have never murdered anyone, yet are sentenced to life in prison because of the 3 strikes law. Do you think we should kill these people as well so we taxpayers can save some money?

And if we save some money, we really don't save all that much money. Sure, the drugs themselves that are used in lethal injection cost less than $100, but it's the process in getting the prisoner to the gurney itself that is so expensive.

It isn't the amenities that are so costly - it's the maximum security we put for death row inmates, the legal costs of even a single appeal (and death penalty cases are far more expensive than regular court cases for first degree murder), and court costs to prosecute in the first place.

This is where I part with proponents for capital punishment when it comes to the money issue - if we are to live with a system that can hand down a punishment as final and irreversable as death, then we better make darn sure more than anything else that this sentence is the most fair consequence and punishment for the crime. And truthfully, this takes time and money. I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that we could live with compromising fairness in our justice system by speeding up executions in order for us to save some tax dollars.

 

[McBell]

There are criminals in California who have never murdered anyone, yet are sentenced to life in prison because of the 3 strikes law. Do you think we should kill these people as well so we taxpayers can save some money?

Where they sentenced to death?
No?
Then you present a strawman.

 

[McBell]

NO, it doesn't. It clearly states that life liberty and property canNOT be taken away WITHOUT due process.

And WITH due process, can rights be taken away?

Those two sentences are not the same thing logically.

Sure they are.
You prefer to see the glass half full and refuse to accept that a half full glass is also half empty.

 

[Draka]

No, it doesn't. If the BoR explicitly allowed capital punishment the Supreme Court could never have ruled it unconstitutional.

Again, wrong.

Indeed. I fear for the state of our schools.

As do I. Especially whatever high school you attended that so misinformed you in your civics class.



Lilithu, fact is, legally, you are wrong. If you don't agree with the death penalty, which is your right, then you would be best served to stick to an argument that is not based in legalities, for in the U.S. you have not a leg to stand on. You would be served better by appealing to an emotional or theological argument. Appeal to morals, appeal to our humanity, but leave the U.S. law alone because you will not win that one no matter how hard you stamp your foot. Plain out...stick to a more emotional/theological argument...for your own sake.

 

[Magic Man]

And yet, fairness is exactly what we expect our justice system to uphold. Isn't it?

No, it's supposed to make things conducive to societal living. Nothing will ever be fair. The decision is just how you want it to be unfair.