The Death Penalty

[lilithu]

So the amendments are to be tossed out when you disagree with them or only when they do not support your argument?

The amendments are not tossed out. The POINT of the BoR is to preserve rights, not to take them away. There is no amendment stating the right to kill people when they kill others. There is an amendment saying that no one's liberties shall be taken away without due process of the law. That you think this means the death penalty is permissible is an interpretation. If the death penalty were a Constitutionally protected right, the Supreme Court could not have previously ruled it unconstitutional, could it?

 

[McBell]

The amendments are not tossed out. The POINT of the BoR is to preserve rights, not to take them away. There is no amendment stating the right to kill people when they kill others. There is an amendment saying that no one's liberties shall be taken away without due process of the law. That you think this means the death penalty is permissible is an interpretation. If the death penalty were a Constitutionally protected right, the Supreme Court could not have previously ruled it unconstitutional, could it?

Wow.
The straws you cling to...

You cited:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
​

Yet you deny the Fifth Amendment:

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.
​

Then you complain about decisions being nothing but interpretations.
Fine then.
Why does the INTERPRETATION that you agree with (the ruling the capital punishment is unconstitutional) hold more power than the INTERPRETATION that you disagree with (that capital punishment is constitutional)?

Seems to me that the very arguments you present to refute my arguments just as effectively refute your arguments.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Rationally speaking, I'll concede that the termination of the life of a killer is an effective short-term solution to the problem. It is a guarantee that the person in question will not commit another murder - ever.

I have difficulties swallowing the argument that this reality is something that should be state-sanctioned, however. Now, I have to face the fact that most countries in the world where Buddhism is the majority or the official religion practice the death penalty. There have been many examples that I've heard: "the sword that justly kills is the identical with the sword that gives life."

If death is issued as a means for prevention against future crime, then I think it is the proponents best argument. This is where I'll give a nod. But for vengeance? Absolutely not. I can't in my best conscience agree with it.

 

[Aqualung]

The question is: does society have the right to take human life, by administration of the death penalty.
Your assertion (as it appears to me) is that society does not have that right, because it does not have that right (only the individual at risk does).

If that is your assertion (that society does not have the right, because it does not have the right), then that begs the question.

Um, no it doesn't. If the question was, "Why is the individual the only person who claims that right" it would beg the question. But the question is, "Does society have that right." The answer is no, because the individual is the only one who has that right.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Rationally speaking, I'll concede that the termination of the life of a killer is an effective short-term solution to the problem. It is a guarantee that the person in question will not commit another murder - ever.

I have difficulties swallowing the argument that this reality is something that should be state-sanctioned, however. Now, I have to face the fact that most countries in the world where Buddhism is the majority or the official religion practice the death penalty. There have been many examples that I've heard: "the sword that justly kills is the identical with the sword that gives life."

If death is issued as a means for prevention against future crime, then I think it is the proponents best argument. This is where I'll give a nod. But for vengeance? Absolutely not. I can't in my best conscience agree with it.

Excellent post, Mystic. I admire your ability to cede a point, while also maintaining your position against the death penalty. Very well done.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Um, no it doesn't. If the question was, "Why is the individual the only person who claims that right" it would beg the question. But the question is, "Does society have that right." The answer is no, because the individual is the only one who has that right.

To me, it clearly begs the question. To you, it does not.

Let's just agree to disagree, and let it pass.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You do understand that a lot of people work while in prison, right?

Not to mention the cost of the legal fees as we go through the appeals process. (And for those who would shorten the appeals process I remind you that we have placed innocent people on death row.)

Not to mention, not to mention that the cost of one execution by lethal injection is equal to the cost to housing a prisoner for 35 years.

Not to mention, not to mention, not to mention that whether we KILL someone or not should NEVER hinge on MONEY.

I think that if the cost of imprisonment were a driving issue in Western society, there would be far fewer people serving sentences for minor drug offenses or "three strikes" convictions for minor crimes.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.​

That's the ideal, and it's beautiful. But if the rights to Liberty and the pursuit and the pursuit of Happiness can be forfeited, why not Life?

Because rights have value. If depriving a person of just liberty and the pursuit of happiness will do the job, then there's no reason deprive the person of life as well... and rights should not be infringed without reason.

Aha! This is where we disconnect. I do not accept the premise that there is an inherent right to life. As was stated in an earlier post (by another member), I subscribe to the position that it is quite possible to forfeit an individuals right to continue living - and willingly killing an innocent person would be one of the reasons (in my mind).

If we throw away the idea that people do not have an inherent right to life, then what other consequences for society and the law would this have?

If the right to life is dependent on merit of the individual... well, there are plenty of ways to measure the "merit" of a person other than criminality. Should a person's right to life be dependent on those (e.g. immigration status; employment status, etc.)?

Also, if the right to life is contingent on a person's criminal behaviour, why not other rights? If a person commits a serious enough crime, why shouldn't they lose, say, their right to habeas corpus or due process?

 

[lilithu]

Wow.
The straws you cling to...

You cited:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."​

Yup, Unalienable Right to Life.

Yet you deny the Fifth Amendment:

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 am NOT denying the Fifth Amendment. I am telling you that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee rights, not take them away. Look it up. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to due process. It does not guarantee the right to kill people.

Then you complain about decisions being nothing but interpretations.
Fine then.
Why does the INTERPRETATION that you agree with (the ruling the capital punishment is unconstitutional) hold more power than the INTERPRETATION that you disagree with (that capital punishment is constitutional)?

I did NOT say that. Please cite where I said any such thing. I said that I believe in the ideal of the UNALIENABLE Right to Life, as stated in Declaration of Independence. And I fully recognize that the DoI is not the Constitution. Again, Storm is the one who introduced the principles of the DoI in the first place.

The Constitutional argument against the death penalty has been that it is "cruel and unusual punishment." I recognize that what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" is up to interpretation, which is why I haven't bothered to bring it up. Personally, I don't think the Constitution as it stands right now speaks one way or the other to the death penalty.

 

[Storm]

I think that if the cost of imprisonment were a driving issue in Western society, there would be far fewer people serving sentences for minor drug offenses or "three strikes" convictions for minor crimes.

If only....

Because rights have value. If depriving a person of just liberty and the pursuit of happiness will do the job, then there's no reason deprive the person of life as well... and rights should not be infringed without reason.

Now that's a decent argument.

However, nobody is saying that criminals should be deprived of the right to life "without reason".

Also, if the right to life is contingent on a person's criminal behaviour, why not other rights? If a person commits a serious enough crime, why shouldn't they lose, say, their right to habeas corpus or due process?

Because, that to my mind, is the definitive difference between justice and vengeance, the rule of law and vigilantism.

I do not consider the death penalty to be vengeance, I consider it to be justice. My idea of justice is apparantly harsher than others'.

 

[lilithu]

Now that's a decent argument.

THAT's what I've been arguing! If you want to take away someone's right to life, the onus is on you as to why it's justified.

However, nobody is saying that criminals should be deprived of the right to life "without reason".

How about without SUFFICIENT reason?

 

[Storm]

Again, Storm is the one who introduced the principles of the DoI in the first place.

1) Actually, that was in direct response to you talking about the "right to life." Maybe it was a coincidence, but from your phrasing, I thought you were referring to the DOI

2) Does it really matter?

 

[Storm]

How about without SUFFICIENT reason?

What would be sufficient reason to you?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...If the right to life is dependent on merit of the individual... well, there are plenty of ways to measure the "merit" of a person other than criminality. Should a person's right to life be dependent on those (e.g. immigration status; employment status, etc.)?

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.

Also, if the right to life is contingent on a person's criminal behaviour, why not other rights? If a person commits a serious enough crime, why shouldn't they lose, say, their right to habeas corpus or due process?

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.

 

[PureX]

The question is: does society have the right to take human life, by administration of the death penalty.

To my understanding, no person or group of persons has ever had the "right" to end the life of another human being. And to anyone who contends otherwise, I would very much like to hear the justification for the presumption of such a right.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

To my understanding, no person or group of persons has ever had the "right" to end the life of another human being. And to anyone who contends otherwise, I would very much like to hear the justification for the presumption of such a right.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but the very existence of our laws that carry capital punishment gives us the right (as a society) to take the life of a human being.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but the very existence of our laws that carry capital punishment gives us the right (as a society) to take the life of a human being.

There are good laws and there are bad laws. Writing a law does not establish a right. It only establishes legality. This is why I asked for the justification.

 

[lilithu]

The question is: does society have the right to take human life, by administration of the death penalty.
Your assertion (as it appears to me) is that society does not have that right, because it does not have that right (only the individual at risk does).

If that is your assertion (that society does not have the right, because it does not have the right), then that begs the question.

Wouldn't the reverse be true as well?

We're talking about rights. You either believe that you have them or you don't.

 

[McBell]

Yup, Unalienable Right to Life.
I am NOT denying the Fifth Amendment. I am telling you that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to guarantee rights, not take them away. Look it up. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to due process. It does not guarantee the right to kill people.

Who is arguing the RIGHT to kill?
This is your strawman and is irrelevant because no one is arguing it.

Personally, I don't think the Constitution as it stands right now speaks one way or the other to the death penalty.

Nor do I.
I was merely pointing out that the law does in fact allow for the inalienable rights to be removed.
Now if you wish to toss out the law all to gether and argue whether it is moral/ethical to kill, then that is another matter.

 

[lilithu]

Who is arguing the RIGHT to kill?
This is your strawman and is irrelevant because no one is arguing it.

So you agree that we don't have the right to kill?

 

[McBell]

So you agree that we don't have the right to kill?

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.

Yes the right to kill exists.
Even God himself shows us this fact in the Bible.