I don’t think anyone has a problem with that. I think the idea that the state executioner is committing murder is where we part ways. A person from the state, who kills another person is indeed, by definition committing homicide, they are not however, comitting murder:
**mur·der /ˈmɜrdər/ Pronunciation Key [mur-der]
–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).
hom·i·cide /ˈhɒməˌsaɪd, ˈhoʊmə-/ Pronunciation Key [hom-uh-sahyd, hoh-muh-]
–noun 1. the killing of one human being by another. **
I don’t think you can say there’s only one really strong argument against the death penalty, although I agree with you that the one you mentioned is a strong one. For me the first and foremost reason I am against the death penalty is that I want nothing to do with the taking of another person’s life. I think the death penalty is an antiquated vision of ‘justice’ that the human race really should have grown out of by now.
standard disclaimer that I have no problems with death penalty proponents holding their views it’s just that I don’t agree with it.
A large segment of American society disagrees. Why is your opinion on what justice should be more important than theirs? That’s what I meant when I said that the possibility of innocent people being killed is the only strong argument against the practice—it’s easy to trap the majority of DP proponents in contradictory positions with that argument. Everything else is pretty wish-washy, IMO.
I think I see what you mean, basically that the possibility of killing an innocent by means of the death penalty is the only point that is not based on an mostly emotional point of view (or at least less emotional assuming you rule out people who may suggest that x number of innocent lives is worth removing the convicted felons from society). Fair point and would certainly agree with that, if I’ve not misinterpreted you.
As far as your earlier question, I have no objection to the proponents of the death penalty holding their opinion and do not call into question that their views are worth any more or less than mine. My personal opinions are just that it’s not something I want to participate in and I think it lowers us as a race to participate in it. As far as justice goes…well at least no one has capitalised it yet, then we’d be in serious trouble (Terry Pratchett channelling going on there).
The word “homicide” simply refers to the killing of a human being by another human being.
In law, the word generally means the same thing. Not all homicides are crimes: a hunting accident is a homicide, but no criminal intent means no crime.
And I’m sorry to sayit to those opposing your view, but yes: a legal execution of a convicted person is, legally, a homicide, although obviously it too is not criminal.
Well, thank you, The Stink of Poop, for efforts to clarify your post with fourth-graders. I’m sure you’re quite comfortable with them, fourth grade having been the three most difficult years of your academic experience.
You, and others, continue to protest a lawful death sentence and incorrectly attempt to equate it with the act(s) of depravity which earned Richard Cooey his date with destiny.
Small words for you: They Are Not The Same.
Perhaps an example will help you to grasp the concept.
If a stranger forces open your door, takes your property, and sells it on the front lawn, giving the money to someone else, that would typically be called a crime, or more than one.
If, however, that stranger is an officer of the court who is seizing your property and selling same to satisfy a judgement filed against you, no crime has been committed.
There is a difference between criminal acts and lawful acts of the court. Try to remember.
Small words for me, true. But definitely on the large side of those you should attempt until you get smarter.
Your triumphant discovery that a state-sanctioned execution has a different legal status than criminal murder does you credit – usually your grasp of even this obvious a concept doesn’t kick in until the thread’s over, if at all. So you should be proud of yourself. It’s a pity, though: had you the capacity for even one more coherent thought, it might have been that I hadn’t compared your legal status to Cooey’s, only your mental state and moral intelligence.
And it’s not simply a matter of supporting the death penalty. There are plenty of principled and ethical people who support it who also would (or should) want nothing to do with you: because the prospect of visiting excruciating pain upon a helpless victim would give them pause, because the eighth amendment would matter to them, and because even if they decided that this execution was justified and permissible, they would do so with none of the childish, sadistic glee you display. They have the wisdom to know that every execution represents multiple failures for us all and take no pleasure in the exercise.
You, Dunce, are a festering mass of impotent malice and off-the-shelf-mob-ready-ignorance, and you are too small in every way that matters. If I could, I would stop the execution (Cooey having been rendered harmless anyhow) just to deny your sickness a feeding.
I harbor no contempt for normal death-penalty supporters. But as the OP has both demonstrated and provided words to suit: They Are Not The Same.
For some of us, it’s possible to do both, but only when there’s an actual argument to be attacked. In my case, I’m happy to demonstrate that a poster lacks an actual argument, which is often interpreted as attacking the poster (and I admit it does kind of reflect on a poster for people to perceive that they’re a pea-brained sadist). My direct attacks on other posters are clearly labeled, and I often find, as I did in this thread in post #105, that the substantive arguments have to be re-explained as well. Or sometimes, as I found in this thread, re-re-explained. Which I’ll usually decline to do, but did anyhow in post #129, when I patiently explained the difference between the OP and any ethically or intellectually sound position with respect to the death penalty.
But that was small potatoes: when compared to a poster who spends all his efforts cheering and booing without ever coming close to an actual sincere (if not original) contribution, I suppose even the OP deserves a modicum of respect.
Don’t waste your time, Weirddave. Refer to the old adage about wrestling with a pig-you’re getting dirty and he enjoys it. He lives for thread shitting while attempting to display superior intellect, which, he sadly lacks. While his points could be made in 10 words, he will instead use 40, and sprinkle the verbosity with contempt for those who don’t share his views.
Honestly, dunce. Thread shitting? In one of your threads? That’s kind of like shitting into a septic tank or sewer: just something civilized people are apt to do in the normal course of events. Let’s not forget, if only for Weirddave’s sake (because he so reveres the sanctity of legitimate argument), that this thread was not started to debate but to demean: the OP was all about cheap and easy gloating over a condemned man’s fate. When you were politely offered a chance to discuss the issues, you, um, well, let’s go to the tape:
“Turned tail and ran,” I believe is the term. And I’d love to acknowledge your generosity in not linking to all those threads proving my verbose inferiority, except that the omission obviously serves quite a different purpose. Let’s face it – whenever you really get suckedintoarealargument, you always come off even worse than when you started, and you always start off as a cement-headed bigot.
Just a few letters-to-the-editor in various local papers expressing outrage and saying that he should be put on a starvation diet, made to suffer an alternate form of execution, etc. Nothing new on the case itself.
You’ve gotta do what your mom said, Poopy, and quit smoking that stuff in her basement. It’s altering your perception of reality.
“Turned tail and ran?” Hardly. It’s more like, I’ve initiated a discussion with others on the public sidewalk abutting the property where you live. You’re happily engaged with licking your testicles when you suddenly notice me, the person you hate, and others, on the public sidewalk. Rushing towards the fence, snarling, snapping, and yapping, you make it short of impossible for the exchange to continue, drowned out by the noise of your hatred. So, I do what rational people do, which is move on.
Please, little bug-eyed-rat-dog, go back to your pen. If you’re lucky, my kitty friends have left you Tootsie Roll snax in the garden.
No, it’s more like you started laughing and throwing insults at a condemned man because you find his wanting to live worth your childish attempts at ridicule. Far from initiating a discussion, you tried your best from the OP on to prevent one – no death-penalty debate shall sully *your * uncluttered empty head. Non-stone-throwers are always unwelcome in the kind of mob you were trying, again unsuccessfully, to create. Since you are so (self-confessedly so) unable to deal with opposing views, I merely posted showing how much common ground you have with the object of your attack. People like Cooey are your natural constituency, and you have to protect them – there aren’t many souls capable of laughing at a helpless person begging for his/her life, and you guys tend to disgust everybody else. On your side there’s you, our president, a few others, and Cooey. Hey, dunce: it’s not my crowd, but you need to take your friends where you find them.
And though I don’t lick, my possession of testicles is just another happy proof that I’m not you, you ballless, mindless knob. They keep me from engaging in infantile, impotent, sadistic vicarious pleasure at the prospect of someone’s death.
It would be good to know you’ve moved on, except we all know how limited your scope is. You should probably know that your kitty friends do not dispense Tootsie Rolls: your insistence that they do explains as much about *your * perceptions as it does about why you haven’t tortured them all to death up 'til now.
Holy fuck, you’ve smoked enough shit to totally rot out most of your addled brain cells.
You’re grouping me, the POTUS, a few others, and a convicted rapist/murderer together?
Sorry, Poopy, but I’ve never raped or murdered anyone. I cannot speak for Mr. Bush, but don’t believe he has, either. “A few others” is as idiotic as any other of your rantings.
Cooey is your buddy. You’re part of the coalition which lacks the fortitude necessary to carry through and complete that which the court affirmed. Rather than face the fact that your champion is a piece of shit, you attack those who would simply desire to see justice served.
Wow. I’m not a fan of the death penalty by any stretch. In fact, if I had my way it would be abolished, but you comparing DWC with this rapist and murderer because he is insulting the guy on a message board is lunacy.
To compare DWC to someone like that because you disagree with him on a message board? Is the air thin in the realm of consciousness where you live? Get a grip on yourself because you’ve lost all sight of perspective.
I don’t wish for Cooey’s death because it isn’t up to me to decide who lives and dies even though he willfully made that decision for two women. But pardon me if I don’t defend him because now, in the final months of his life, he is suddenly scared of facing an easier passage to the place he sent two others to go before him. If I had it my way he’d live in a 5x5 concrete cell with no windows, books, correspondence, or entertainment of any sort, eating 1200 calories a day while seeing no one but the occasional guard for the rest of his natural life.
But really, don’t let sanity keep you from your protecting the condemned from those scary insults and laughter.
weight, then execute him. 