Death Penalty

With a mandatory death sentence for murder you have to kill everyone on the planet, there is no other option.

Except that murder is only unlawful killing, so, by definition, the State (dictator of Laws) is incapable of murdering someone.

Murder

–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Why do people confuse killing of any sort with murder. Murder is a subset of killing, not a synonym.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except that murder is only unlawful killing, so, by definition, the State (dictator of Laws) is incapable of murdering someone.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Would you consider an innocent man being killed on death row, murder?

No more than an innocent man killed in a car accident. That's what it is when that happens, a tragic accident. Not Murder.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Would you consider an innocent man being killed on death row, murder?

its murder in everything but name

the state decides what constitutes murder and thus they are never able to be the murderers

Originally posted by docb77
No more than an innocent man killed in a car accident. That's what it is when that happens, a tragic accident. Not Murder.

that analogy might be more apt if the driver of the car was intentionally speeding at the person, was allowed to kill people, and the person being hit was put there by a corrupt, racist, and highly fallible system.

but no, you are right, the government says it is ok so we should just accept that.

Originally posted by inimalist
its murder in everything but name

the state decides what constitutes murder and thus they are never able to be the murderers

Originally posted by inimalist

but no, you are right, the government says it is ok so we should just accept that.

Right. 😐

Because the government hasn't ever made a mistake. Ever.

Originally posted by inimalist
its murder in everything but name

the state decides what constitutes murder and thus they are never able to be the murderers

that analogy might be more apt if the driver of the car was intentionally speeding at the person, was allowed to kill people, and the person being hit was put there by a corrupt, racist, and highly fallible system.

but no, you are right, the government says it is ok so we should just accept that.

The state used to decide that black people should be segregated, too.
Does that make it right?

Is the state only right if its Western white Christian? Does that fact alone gives it moral right in everything it decides?

I don't bloody think so.

Killing a man on death row, or on the street or in his bed, is murder, regarldess if it is done by one person or a state.

NATO lead by State of US America commited genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, not just murder, through bombing and collateral damages and shot civilians who 'looked dodgy''.
It doesn't make it any less of a murder if it is done by the state.

Originally posted by inimalist

that analogy might be more apt if the driver of the car was intentionally speeding at the person, was allowed to kill people, and the person being hit was put there by a corrupt, racist, and highly fallible system.

but no, you are right, the government says it is ok so we should just accept that.

A- to everyone that was criticizing this guys last sentence - Uh, guys? He was being sarcastic. Can't you read between the lines there. He disagrees with me.

B- actually my original analogy is more accurate. The government doesn't go looking for innocent people to kill, just like the average driver isn't trying to kill anyone when they start the car. If you or I hit someone while driving, it's a tragedy. If the jury convicts and sentences the wrong person it is also a tragedy.

The system is only as corrupt as the people who are a part of it, and I think the vast majority of them are good, well meaning people. Racist? This isn't the 50's anymore. I'm not saying that there is no racism, but I will say that institutionalized racism is over (except for racially based hiring, scholarships, etc). which leaves "highly fallible" if you left out the word highly I would agree with you. The system isn't perfect. But I would bet that in death penalty cases errors leading to execution are probably less than 0.5% (yes that's still too much).

We need to make the system better not take out an appropriate punishment.

Right. 😐

Because the government hasn't ever made a mistake. Ever.

The smilie indicates that I was also being ironic.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The state used to decide that black people should be segregated, too.
Does that make it right?

Is the state only right if its Western white Christian? Does that fact alone gives it moral right in everything it decides?

I don't bloody think so.

Killing a man on death row, or on the street or in his bed, is murder, regarldess if it is done by one person or a state.

NATO lead by State of US America commited genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, not just murder, through bombing and collateral damages and shot civilians who 'looked dodgy''.
It doesn't make it any less of a murder if it is done by the state.

hey, I agree.

Originally posted by docb77
I'm not saying that there is no racism, but I will say that institutionalized racism is over (except for racially based hiring, scholarships, etc).

really?

I think we should get rid of lethal injection and execute prisoners the humane way-Nitrogen Intoxication. It's painless, it's euphoric, and it's cheap!

But when it comes to major white collar or people who try to subvert the democracy and liberty of the United States as a country, I have absolutely no moral problems with beheadings or cutting them in half with a gattling gun.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think we should get rid of lethal injection and execute prisoners the humane way-Nitrogen Intoxication. It's painless, it's euphoric, and it's cheap!

But when it comes to major white collar or people who try to subvert the democracy and liberty of the United States as a country, I have absolutely no moral problems with beheadings or cutting them in half with a gattling gun.

Oh, I was thinking of cutting them in half with a small metal spoon.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think we should get rid of lethal injection and execute prisoners the humane way-Nitrogen Intoxication. It's painless, it's euphoric, and it's cheap!

But when it comes to major white collar or people who try to subvert the democracy and liberty of the United States as a country, I have absolutely no moral problems with beheadings or cutting them in half with a gattling gun.

It's always amazed me that Federal Crimes tend to mostly involve money or loss of major assets.

I am for it in extreme cases where there's absolute proof they are guilty.

Originally posted by Kinkin
I am for it in extreme cases where there's absolute proof they are guilty.

To this, I concur. The should remove all the red tape around this and make it damn fast. 10 years on death row is stupid.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To this, I concur. The should remove all the red tape around this and make it damn fast. 10 years on death row is stupid.

It's awfully short when you've been wrongly convicted and 5 years after the state government has put you to death someone finds DNA evidence of your innocence.

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
It's awfully short when you've been wrongly convicted and 5 years after the state government has put you to death someone finds DNA evidence of your innocence.

Now how can you get a inexorable conviction without proper evidence?

You really suck at this internet thing, don't you?

What is hard to understand about "extreme cases where there's absolute proof they are guilty."

Edit- Also, you're so new to this so I figure I'll give you a hint. "extreme cases where there's absolute proof they are guilty" is not the first time that was mentioned in this thread. 😉

So which cases would those be then?

Ridiculously high paid lawyers are ridiculously highly paid for reason.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So which cases would those be then?

Ridiculously high paid lawyers are ridiculously highly paid for reason.

There's DNA evidence, video evidence, etc. combined with guilty pleas...and it becomes rediculous. I already covered this with Robard, I don't need to go over it again.

You can probably think of a million of them 😉

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now how can you get a inexorable conviction without proper evidence?

http://deathwatch.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/breaking-innocent-man-released-from-death-row/

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/national/12DEAT.html

Beyond those few examples, my point finds contention soley with your statement that 10 years is too long for someone to languish on death row. According to your perspective, they should be put to death moments after being found guilty; they should walk out of the court room and right on to the gallows. There is a reason the laws that govern these practices are in place...and it's not just to outrage those who are easily outraged. I'm no opponent of the death penalty, but it's just silly and reactionary to assume that the sentence should be carried out as soon as the initial judgment is made.

On a side note, you've hurled a lot of insults at me tonight. Are you feeling threatened?