The Death Penalty

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

I disagree, Matt. It's in the motivation for fairly-based judgement that makes things conducive to societal living. Why have a justice system at all if you do not expect them to be just?

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree, Matt. It's in the motivation for fairly-based judgement that makes things conducive to societal living. Why have a justice system at all if you do not expect them to be just?

Sure, but my point is that no matter what, it's going to be unfair to someone. The real question is which is the most fair. I can only expect the justice system to be so just. It's the idea that there are no absolute rules. You can make a rule that applies to everyone, but there will be cases where the rule shouldn't apply, and you either have to look at them on a case-by-case basis and show why the rule shouldn't apply in that case, or you have to apply the rule every time, so that it doesn't lose its conviction. Either way, there's a problem, and it's not entirely just.

So, yes, trying to use fairly-based judgement is conducive to societal living, but with the realization that it's never going to be completely fair or just to everyone.

 

[PureX]

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.

And the answer is that we want it to be EQUALLY unfair. At least I think that's the answer for most people. The 'prime directive' of the United States is equal freedom and justice for all. There's nothing about maximum freedom or perfect justice, though.

 

[lilithu]

And WITH due process, can rights be taken away?

It is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

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

Crikey, please spare me the platitudes.

LOGICALLY SPEAKING:
If not A then not B

IS NOT THE SAME THING AS:
If A then B.

Again, wrong.

Really, so you're saying that the Constitution explicitly allows for capital punishment yet the Supreme Court ruled against it anyway?

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.

The fact is, that I am not wrong, which is why I'm being so adamant about it. If it were just about whether or not we should have the death penalty, I would agree to disagree. You're opinion is as valid as mine. But this argument stopped being about the death penalty pages ago and is now about what the Constitution does and does not say, and the very purpose of the Bill of Rights. That is not a matter of opinion.

For example, if you wanted to argue against Evolutionary theory with me, that's fine. But if you state as your "evidence" that we did not evolve from monkeys then I will argue with you until the cows come home because that's NOT what evolutionary theory says. SIMILARLY, if you want to say that you favor the death penalty, that's fine too. But if you state as your "evidence" that the Fifth Amendment says that the state has the right to kill, then I will argue with you and continue to argue with you BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE.

Seriously,

• I've provided links that state the intended purpose of the BoI, which was to LIMIT govt power and PROTECT our Rights.
• I've shown how the other amendments within the BoI follow the pattern of stating Rights that are protected, not rights that are taken away.
• I've argued logically that if the Constitution actually explicitly condoned the death penalty then the Supreme Court could never have ruled it unconstitutional.
• I've argued logically about the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions.

To which all of your responses have been "You're wrong" without any support for your assertions.

 

[Draka]

What is it you want me to do? Provide links? Quotes? These things have been done over and over and over here for you and yet you disregard EVERY single one.


Fine.

The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to petition; and prohibits unreasonable search and seizure; cruel and unusual punishment; and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the Federal Government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights, instead of just some or most of those legal rights, when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.

Due process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note there the use of the word WHEN.

• Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any 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 offence 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.

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences.

Capital punishment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




How much more do you want??? Not that others haven't made these points seperately, but here they are...all together for you.

 

[Draka]

Oh, and here's an afterthought. You keep mentioning that the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty. Yep, they sure did. In a controversial move that ended in a 5 to 4 vote with no real reason or rational behind it. It was banned for a whopping total of 4 years, after which it was reinstated for the states to decide upon. Most states in the U.S. now have, and have had, the death penalty in effect since 1976. Appears that the Supreme Court striking down capital punishment, in a questionable decision, that only lasted four years, is not a big leg to stand on either. Obviously it wouldn't have been a questionable decision and the vote would have been more conclusive and the rational behind it more substantial and it would have lasted longer if it was truly constitutional. But it wasn't, so it didn't, end of story.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sure, but my point is that no matter what, it's going to be unfair to someone. The real question is which is the most fair. I can only expect the justice system to be so just. It's the idea that there are no absolute rules. You can make a rule that applies to everyone, but there will be cases where the rule shouldn't apply, and you either have to look at them on a case-by-case basis and show why the rule shouldn't apply in that case, or you have to apply the rule every time, so that it doesn't lose its conviction. Either way, there's a problem, and it's not entirely just.

So, yes, trying to use fairly-based judgement is conducive to societal living, but with the realization that it's never going to be completely fair or just to everyone.

Perhaps we might just agree to disagree, Matt. I feel that our system ought to strive for "justice for all." Or is this too banal or cliche?

 

[lilithu]

How much more do you want??? Not that others haven't made these points seperately, but here they are...all together for you.

Draka, all you've done is post links that describe the rights that are protected in the BoR and restate the Fifth Amendment and Due Process. It's unclear what points you are making at all, as none of that is in dispute.

The BoR defines Rights that we have that cannot be taken away. The point of Fifth Amendment is NOT to say that life, liberty and property are things that can be taken away. The point of Fifth Amendment is that the Right to due process cannot be taken away.

Oh, and here's an afterthought. You keep mentioning that the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty. Yep, they sure did. In a controversial move that ended in a 5 to 4 vote with no real reason or rational behind it. It was banned for a whopping total of 4 years, after which it was reinstated for the states to decide upon. Most states in the U.S. now have, and have had, the death penalty in effect since 1976. Appears that the Supreme Court striking down capital punishment, in a questionable decision, that only lasted four years, is not a big leg to stand on either. Obviously it wouldn't have been a questionable decision and the vote would have been more conclusive and the rational behind it more substantial and it would have lasted longer if it was truly constitutional. But it wasn't, so it didn't, end of story.

If the state's right to kill people were Constitutionally defined, SCOTUS would not have been able to rule that the death penalty was unconstitutional, period. It doesn't matter if that ruling lasted for 1 day or 1 century. Things that are clearly defined in the Constitution cannot be changed without a Constitutional amendment. Again, this is basic Civics knowledge.

My point is the the Constitution does NOT speak to the death penalty one way or the other. That is why the issue is up for debate. That is why the ruling banning the death penalty was controversial. That is why the ruling reinstating the death penalty was controversial. Both cases were based on interpretation, and not anything explicitly written in the Constitution.

 

[Magic Man]

Perhaps we might just agree to disagree, Matt. I feel that our system ought to strive for "justice for all." Or is this too banal or cliche?

Well, we're going to have to, I guess. I agree with your second sentence. It's just not possible. So, all I'm saying is that an action being unfair to some is not a good enough reason for not doing it, because not doing the action will be unfair to others. And why did you have to add in that last part?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

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?

If any of their three strikes are capital murders, absolutely.

 

[lilithu]

If any of their three strikes are capital murders, absolutely.

What if they're not? In crazy California (I love my home state but it breaks my heart sometimes.), you can be sentenced to life in prison without having murdered anyone. The Seeker's point is that if the motivation is to save money by killing inmates, then you might consider killing other people who are in jail for life who have never killed anyone.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

What if they're not? In crazy California (I love my home state but it breaks my heart sometimes.), you can be sentenced to life in prison without having murdered anyone. The Seeker's point is that if the motivation is to save money by killing inmates, then you might consider killing other people who are in jail for life.

I believe that Seeker is assuming something that has not been stated. No one said that they would not want to pay for the upkeep of a repeat felon (although I am sure that somewhere out there, someone feels that way).
The statement that was made (by several on this thread) was that "I have no desire to bear the cost of keeping a killer like that alive".
Personally, I would be far more receptive to spending that $70,000 (or whatever the figure really is) to help defray the cost of replacing bridges and roads that are in disrepair.
I'd rather see the money go to pay for healthcare for burn victims, or to educate inner city youth. I'd rather see it spent on wheelchairs for paraplegics, or staffing animal shelters. I'd rather see it spent on stem cell research or any other worthwhile project you can think of.
Even if you remove the money from the equation, I'd like to see these types of killers removed from the planet.

Call me a barbarian.

 

[lilithu]

I believe that Seeker is assuming something that has not been stated. No one said that they would not want to pay for the upkeep of a repeat felon

Ok.

Call me a barbarian.

I disagree with you. I think you're mistaken. But I don't think you're a barbarian. As I have said more than once, my opposition to the death penalty is not out of sympathy for the offender. It's because I believe any and all killing hurts our society. I'm not saying that to try to convince you. I'm just reiterating that my position is not based on some sentimental feeling.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It seems that people will go on killing people regardless of culture and political states--be it through war, blood lust, vengeance, or social justice.

To me, this suggests that 1) the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent and 2) it will continue to exist as long as societies do.

I personally don't like the idea; I think it is hypocritical to assign something as "bad" and punish it in the same manner (killing in individual self-defense is different in my view, however), especially when it is done in vengeance and justice. Many a killer on death row, I am sure, felt they were killing for the same reason.

That said, I can still imagine cases where I would support capital punishment.

Still, my first statement stands firm. We like to kill each other. (Or, perhaps more appropriately, we can't help it.)

 

[UnTheist]

There are known statistics that show cities with the death penalty actually increase crime rates. That alone can be a good enough argument against it

 

[Aqualung]

Committing a captial crime is consent enough.

No, I'm pretty sure when I was born I wasn't given this contract that told me that my right to life was contingent upon following the laws of the land. Most people have never given consent to that. Some peopel find it convenient to pretent such consent has been given, but it hasn't.

 

[Storm]

There are known statistics that show cities with the death penalty actually increase crime rates. That alone can be a good enough argument against it

Cite them, then.

 

[Poisonshady313]

There are known statistics that show cities with the death penalty actually increase crime rates. That alone can be a good enough argument against it

Michigan has no death penalty. Crime rates in Michigan are amazingly high.

Obviously, having the death penalty does not increase crime rates.

Crime rates increase all by themselves.

 

[UnTheist]

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates
The Death Penalty and Deterrence

 

[Storm]

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates
The Death Penalty and Deterrence

I don't see them taking into consideration other factors, like poverty. Nor do they, for instance, compare crime rates in the same state wth and without the death penalty, which is what would be necessary to bolster your argument that the death penalty raises crime rates. In short, they're crap.