I guess we just differ on what constitutes a moral difference in a society. I feel that once you have the information, it doesn’t legitimize your position to, in theory, be going after only murderers, when you have the information that that is not what is happens in real life.
Both systems choose to take innocent lives because, in theory, others will be persuaded to act differently. The only dispute is over the statistics.
Unless, of course, you can tell me the difference between a person who is wrongly convicted of murder and a person who is “guilty” of shrillness or sexual activity. How can it be a difference in any more than degree?
One quick note here, I do agree that, even in the specifics of this case, the U.S. system has an advantage, and it has even been mentioned in this thread, however it is not the one we have been debating.
Namely, this ONE person had the power to be judge, jury, and literally, executioner. Checks and balances do make the American system vastly superior to the system in this particular case, especially since the extraordinary powers given this judge allowed him to act even outside the actual law!
Even if it doesnt always work out that way in America, when it comes down to the application of the DP in particular, the appeals process and the division between judge and jury do indeed impart a different flavor to justice, American-style. Just not the same difference others have been arguing in here.
Let’s say that there are three societies, all perfectly equal, except that
Society A has no death penalty
Society B has a death penalty for murderers only and generally only kills murderers, though it’s to be expected that some innocent folks might get killed, too. But you have to be very, very unlucky for that sort of thing to happen to you.
Society C has death penalties for a lot of things, including being too sexy in a judge’s opinion (I don’t give a shit what the old fart came up with as cover for his hate crime). You could easily get killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or saying the wrong things to the wrong people.
Which society would I choose to live in?
Society A
They seem humane.
What if I can’t get into Society A because I’m not sensitive enough
I’ll go for Society B
I’d rather be in Society A but Society B at least strives for fairness and doesn’t hand out the death penalty in a way that makes you think they could give a shit about human life.
I’d REALLY, REALLY REALLY hate to get stuck in Society C because its widespread use of the death penalty can only mean one of two things – it’s either run by a bunch of mean-spirited assholes, who have a certain amount of popular support, or it’s run by mean-spirited assholes who have their boots on the people’s necks. In either case, it’s not gonna be a good group to hang out with.
The people of Society B are better human beings than the people of Society C, because they live in a society that lets them BE better human beings.
But you still don’t get it, do you Ludovic?
This ends my attempts to talk at the brick wall that is your head.
I’d agree with everything you posted except the last two paragraphs: see my last post, did I not make it clear that I was not talking about the extreme power the judges have?
Surely there are enough people in society B( and A for that matter) who would not hesitate to abuse power if they had it (and don’t think this hasn’t ever happened in America, just not on a legally recognized basis as often.) The extreme power of the judges certainly exacerbates their extremity.
It doesn’t make society B better humans, however, except again, in degree. After all, if a society is willing to tolerate X number of unjust executions, it has a slight moral high ground over those willing to tolerate 5X.
With bon mots such as this, no wonder you are winning the debate.
Leila, a girl of 19 to be hanged in Iran for acts “contrary to chastity”. Sold into prostitution at the age of 8, giving birth to her first child at the age of 9. Concubine to an Afghan man at the age of 12, again forced into prostitution by him until the age of 14 when she gave birth to twin daughters. Leila was then given to a 55 year old married man whom continued the abuse until her arrest at the age of 18, when she was found guilty of prostitution or. Prostitution carries the death penalty under the Islamic laws of Iran. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=592910 http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4611
But not to worry because the last hanging (slow strangulation actually) of the girl with the impertinent mouth was really a sparkling success story – after all she wasn’t stoned to death. Lets rejoice! She wasn’t broken on a wheel either, or dismembered, crucified, impaled, burned on the stake, or immersed in boiling oil. Sharia is Mercy! Shiny happy hanged people.
So after long and delicate negotiations they’ve agreed to not marry off their girls before they’re 10. Of course they can still hang them when they’re 9. (girls as young as nine and boys as young as 15 can be executed)
Anyway time to celebrate Leila won’t be stoned.
World Eaters resurrection of the Bush bashing thread didn’t get to you – but this did. Even though most of the new comment was on the old case, and the two are clearly related.
I agree, the death penalty sucks and would well be done away with. But at least we TRY to confine it to murderers and such and don’t put it on women who complain too much for being tried for adultery after being raped.
I am opposed to the death penalty because it’s too hard to take it back if you change your mind.
There is a world of difference between killing a child and Ted Bundy.
Sold into prostitution at the age of 8. Those words are shocking. My daughter is just 9, and although we’ll be having a sex talk soon, the idea of her having sex, much less giving birth is a difficult concept to embrace at her age.
Children do what we teach or force them to. What penalty is paid by those parasites who do such a thing to a tender one? IMO she should be free, and the persons mentioned in the post by Rune should serve the sentence.
You may be being sarcastic, but I am not when I say yes, yes, a hundred times yes. I don’t buy moral absolutism. It is wrong and evil to kill a 16 year old girl for “having a sharp tongue”. Killing a mass murderer? Not so much. People try and excuse it by saying “It’s part of their culture”. That’s well and good, but it cuts no ice with me. That part of their culture is wrong and evil, and I’ll say so flat out.
You know what? FUCK COMPLETELY OFF. I’m tired of people assuming the people we murder are guilty, guilty, guilty. By and large they are the same people who laugh at the “terrorists” we torture at Abu Ghraib.
I dealt with two murderers today. There’s no reasonable doubt about what they did. One murder was witnessed by 3 other people, including the victim’s 3 year old child. Another confessed fully. Wise of him, since the evidence was virtually insurmountable.
Now I oppose the death penalty. Because of the certainty that some people are wrongly convicted, and because I think incarceration serves justice better than execution. But if you see no difference between a government executing a serial torture-murderer (and yes, I deal with one of those type of murderers pretty much weekly) where there is no shadow of a doubt about the guilt and a government executing a 16 year old girl for sexual misbehavior and inappropriate language, then frankly I can find no common ground for dialogue.
If anything, you would lack a common frame of humanity in the other direction, against me: given perfect knowledge, I, and I state this again, would find just cause to kill many non-victimless felons. It would purify society.
But we don’t live in a perfect world, and I’m tired of people talk about killing “murderers” without at the same time acknoledging that many die innocently.
No, killing 16-year-old sexually active girls is not the same as killing convected murderers, but the difference is one of degree, not quality (we don’t murder as many innocent people here.)