Originally posted by Bardock42
As for your last question, I think the reason to waste resources on a "wasted human" is because society should hold human life as precious. Condoning and using the death penalty sends a message that degrades the sanctity of all life, and I do not think it should be done. Additionally I don't think the government should have that power either.
So wouldn't you say you actually agree that a wasted human should be executed because you hold human life as precious? Lemme better explain.
You hold human life as precious.
Therefore, a person who kills humans and does not even care to change his or her ways, is an existence that lives directly opposed to your belief about the preciousness of human life. This person is a huge risk to kill more human lives, even in prison. So, because you view human lives as precious, it is better that this life is extinguished to support the greater good, right?
I mean...riiight?
Also, doesn't your logic mean that you oppose abortion? I am saying that we should downgrade a human to "not deserving of life" because they are unrepentant, 100% proven murderers. That's the same step pro-abortionists make to downgrade the developing human life: it's less than human so let's justify killing it.
Originally posted by dadudemonThe abortion argument is a completely different topic in this case. It's the debate of when does life start.
So wouldn't you say you actually agree that a wasted human should be executed because you hold human life as precious? Lemme better explain.You hold human life as precious.
Therefore, a person who kills humans and does not even care to change his or her ways, is an existence that lives directly opposed to your belief about the preciousness of human life. This person is a huge risk to kill more human lives, even in prison. So, because you view human lives as precious, it is better that this life is extinguished to support the greater good, right?
I mean...riiight?
Also, doesn't your logic mean that you oppose abortion? I am saying that we should downgrade a human to "not deserving of life" because they are unrepentant, 100% proven murderers. That's the same step pro-abortionists make to downgrade the developing human life: it's less than human so let's justify killing it.
And I don't agree with your first point at all. If you choose to use that as a reason t justify killing a murder fine but don't push that logic on some else saying they believe in the preciousness of life.
I do believe that if you belief in the preciousness of life for humans than locking a human away shows more maturity than wanting them dead.
As to them killing in prison again that speaks more to the horrible state of our prison system than to someone's lack of compassion for human life.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Doesn't that seem ripe for abuse though? The person whose sentencing is meant to be tested by an appeals process gets to decide whether his sentence gets tested.
Considering that the requirement for the Judge to issue the Capital Punishment sentence would mean there's a videotape of the suspect committing the crime which is corroborated by dna and ballistics evidence, no.
It's not a pure judgment call on the part of the Judge. There'd be concrete benchmarks which would have to be met for the Judge to pass a sentence of Capital Punishment. If there's a lack of video evidence clearly identifying that the defendant was the perpetrator there wouldn't a be a possibility of an execution even if the defendant was found guilty.
Originally posted by MF DELPHSo you don't believe with your system there could ever be a grey area call from the Judge?
Considering that the requirement for the Judge to issue the Capital Punishment sentence would mean there's a videotape of the suspect committing the crime which is corroborated by dna and ballistics evidence, no.It's not a pure judgment call on the part of the Judge. There'd be concrete benchmarks which would have to be met for the Judge to pass a sentence of Capital Punishment. If there's a lack of video evidence clearly identifying that the defendant was the perpetrator there wouldn't a be a possibility of an execution even if the defendant was found guilty.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So wouldn't you say you actually agree that a wasted human should be executed because you hold human life as precious? Lemme better explain.You hold human life as precious.
Therefore, a person who kills humans and does not even care to change his or her ways, is an existence that lives directly opposed to your belief about the preciousness of human life. This person is a huge risk to kill more human lives, even in prison. So, because you view human lives as precious, it is better that this life is extinguished to support the greater good, right?
I mean...riiight?
Also, doesn't your logic mean that you oppose abortion? I am saying that we should downgrade a human to "not deserving of life" because they are unrepentant, 100% proven murderers. That's the same step pro-abortionists make to downgrade the developing human life: it's less than human so let's justify killing it.
No, I value human life and while taking another humans life maliciously or accidentally is something that needs to be punished, and the person that did it controlled in a manner that they do not offend again and if possible rehabilitated, the act does not forfeit the preciousness of their life.
We probably shouldn't have the abortion debate here, but suffice to say that I have two main reasons why I fall on the pro-choice side of things and that's a) I do not consider the developing foetus a human being and b) I do not think that we have the right to force someone to forgo their bodily integrity to support another human being whether grown or not.
Originally posted by Newjak
So you don't believe with your system there could ever be a grey area call from the Judge?
No. If there's a clear video evidence of the crime in question which is corroborated by all of the secondary evidence it's airtight. The defendant's only reprieve would be a case for self defense (Which is very possible. There's still context of the video. Say, for example, a woman shoots and kills an abusive partner who is attacking her which is caught on surveillance tape), the Jury for some reason not finding them guilty despite the 100% corroborated and irrefutable evidence, or a pardon.
Originally posted by Bardock42
taking another humans life maliciously or accidentally is something that needs to be punished,
1. If it was an accident, why punish for it?
2. Why do they need to be punished? I don't think they do. They need to be isolated from society and rehabilitated and then reintegrated back into society. I think punishing criminals is barbaric and archaic. I feels humans should progress beyond ideas such as "punish criminals." It feels infantile to desire such a thing.
Originally posted by Bardock42
and the person that did it controlled in a manner that they do not offend again and if possible rehabilitated, the act does not forfeit the preciousness of their life.
"I value the preciousness of this unrepentant human's life beyond any others that this human may take, in the future, regardless of how innocent those future victims might be." You could argue that I'm creating a false dichotomy because they may never have the opportunity to kill anyone else, again. I would tend to agree. But the statistics just don't agree with you. 71% of violent offenders offend again. Seems like a comfortable majority, right?
Originally posted by Bardock42
a) I do not consider the developing foetus a human being
Yes, I know you believe this. I was demonstrating that you choose to relegate that developing human life to be subhuman to justify its destruction. Similar to what I'm doing with an unrepentant murderer.
Originally posted by Bardock42
b) I do not think that we have the right to force someone to forgo their bodily integrity to support another human being whether grown or not.
"Bodily integrity"?
I have no idea what that means. This isn't 1203 C.E. Giving birth doesn't have a very high mortality rate, anymore...in most places. What do you mean, here?
I think what he means by "bodily integrity" is that a person (well, a woman) has a choice as to whether they wish to allow another entity to be supported by them biologically.
Kind of like if there was a way to keep someone alive via life support but it meant that person being connected to a healthy person's vital systems and carried around in a harness for 9 months or that person would die, they'd have the right to say yes or no to that proposition.
Originally posted by dadudemon
1. If it was an accident, why punish for it?2. Why do they need to be punished? I don't think they do. They need to be isolated from society and rehabilitated and then reintegrated back into society. I think punishing criminals is barbaric and archaic. I feels humans should progress beyond ideas such as "punish criminals." It feels infantile to desire such a thing.
"I value the preciousness of this unrepentant human's life beyond any others that this human may take, in the future, regardless of how innocent those future victims might be." You could argue that I'm creating a false dichotomy because they may never have the opportunity to kill anyone else, again. I would tend to agree. But the statistics just don't agree with you. 71% of violent offenders offend again. Seems like a comfortable majority, right?
Yes, I know you believe this. I was demonstrating that you choose to relegate that developing human life to be subhuman to justify its destruction. Similar to what I'm doing with an unrepentant murderer.
"Bodily integrity"?
I have no idea what that means. This isn't 1203 C.E. Giving birth doesn't have a very high mortality rate, anymore...in most places. What do you mean, here?
Hmm, I am not sure we define punishment the same way, I would agree with you that vengeance as a motivating factor is barbaric, but punishment (i.e. the method of what to do to offenders) is necessary.
Sure, we could and should do better with rehabilitation (we can, btw, in Germany the reoffending rate of violent offenders lies below 50%).
I would argue that I'm not relegating the foetus to a lower tier, but that it is on one just by its nature, which is different to revoking a previously, undeniably human being's status as such.
Pregnancy is a strain on the human body that I do not think we have the right to impose on anyone and if a person wants to be free of this connection that should be their right.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
I value human life as well, which is why I understand that there are in fact times where sacrificing a life is necessary. Which is why I'm pro choice as well as pro Capital Punishment. The person who is possibly going to die isn't the only life to be considered in that equation.
Is your worry that a murderer may break out and kill again?
Not even break out. The other inmates in the prison, some of which could be incarcerated for non-violent crimes and rehabilitated to civilian life, could also be at risk from a murderous inmate, and their lives matter as well. I don't see the purpose of incarcerating a known murder in special isolation away from the general population of the prison for decades, neither do I see the purpose in keeping such a person incarcerated for an extended period. It's impractical from a logistics and risk to others standpoint.
I'd just remove the risk.
Permanently.
I'd remove the 'sane' requirement as well. I don't think psychological issues remove culpability for murder. If a person is incapable of knowing right from wrong and kills someone I'm not necessarily sure that medicating that person in isolation for the rest of their natural life is a practical solution. They could kill a member of the staff that's responsible for their care at the asylum or prison just as easily as they killed their victim that put them there in the first place.
For example, I'd have executed Charles Manson if there was a recording of the crimes of the Manson Family.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
I'd remove the 'sane' requirement as well. I don't think psychological issues remove culpability for murder. If a person is incapable of knowing right from wrong and kills someone I'm not necessarily sure that medicating that person in isolation for the rest of their natural life is a practical solution. They could kill a member of the staff that's responsible for their care at the asylum or prison just as easily as they killed their victim that put them there in the first place.For example, I'd have executed Charles Manson if there was a recording of the crimes of the Manson Family.
Even though Manson never killed anyone himself?
Originally posted by Newjak
You see I don't get this. All you want to do make them suffer but how is that going to help anyone?I'm not saying they need resorts but to go out of your way to make their life miserable seems like a horrendous thing to wish upon another human being whether they deserve it or not.
It's not meant to help anyone because murderers do not deserve help. They do not deserve rehab. They deserve death. If we can't give them that then lets at least make them wish we had. Yep, it is horrendous. But then so is taking someone's life and taking them away from their family. It's an ache that never heals, so no these f*cks shouldn't be reading books or watching movies or working out or basically doing anything. They can sit and think about what they did until they die.
It's meant to be horrendous, and I guarantee you the family of the person they murdered is still suffering more then these pieces of shit in jail.