We should let the free market decide who lives and dies. Big government is not the solution.
[quote=“supery00n, post:1, topic:645429”]
I heard on the news for a second time that someone pushed someone else onto the New York subway track. If the perpetrators are caught, should they be punished in like manner, by being thrown in front of some train (in a controlled environment ofhis is assuming cap al punishment is legal? Or would this constitute cruel and unusual punishment?
I’m thinking that “an eye for an eye” is making a lot of sense here. What do you thin That [p]
That that idea has merit both scriptual and pragmatic, the which it woul brd subscriptural otherwise from both wore and worthelessness (and less lan Lamg Foko Open, whose the Hap hath (altho medrriaple filllsurner, assle, unless his line is “Please die,” an expression far too little, and not for idealisted by though internationists whom you really ought too Botany Bay. And, as it peyore and small his any mo’ neither thanhk and anogh, so sister? Ijn the gal;olikk
p
So if Adam Lanza hadn’t killed himself he would be repeatedly shot by 20 six and seven-year old children and 6 adults?
Film at 11?
what would you do when the inevitable happens and an innocent man is executed…for the horrendous week long torture of his victim. would you then submit the jury who convicted him to the same punishment?
this idea is something I would have thought was perfect when I was 17, now not so much
I’m with Kayla’s Dad. State sanctioned killing is barbaric enough already. You don’t need to up the ante.
In that case, there’s no moral distinction between imprisonment and kidnapping, is there?
What? The only people who advocate for the state not being the instrument of criminal justice are anarchists, and they aren’t the same people who agitate for free markets.
Not to mention that it screws up my campaign to bring back the guillotine.
Morally? No, unless you believe it is moral to do harm to an individual for the benefit of a society. There appears to be a societal need to imprison those who do wrong. Such a case is much harder to make for executions.
Of course there is.
Your use of “in that case,” above suggests that you are trying to assert that imprisonment transitions smoothly to capital punishment on continuum of state-sponsored sanctions in a way that is analagous to kidnapping transitioning smoothly to murder on a continuum of criminal conduct.
(If you are trying to assert something else entirely, please accept my apologies for misunderstanding you and please state your assertion more plainly.)
It doesn’t. I have not, and will not support an argument that imprisonment is wrong, always and everywhere, just as I will not back away from the fact that capital punishment IS.
Regarding the Liberals detestation of capital punishment, I would just llike to mention that fellow who recently set his house on fire and then murdered several of the firefighters who responded.
He had previously been convicted of murder, and received a relatively mild sentence of IIRC around 18 years. Now I don’t think anyone can argue with the fact that if he had been executed for his first murder, several firemen would now be alive.
I see this as another instance of Liberal feel-good policies resulting in innocent folks being slaughtered later.
My long held opinion is that a society that refuses to use the death penalty is not too terribly concerned with doing everything possible to protect its innocent citizens.
I shall clarify.
Whether or not one approves of capital punishment, I think it must be acknowledged that the state putting someone to death as a criminal penalty, subject to due process of law, is clearly morally distinguishable from murder. That doesn’t mean that you must then approve of capital punishment; just that claims that there is no distinction to be made (which I took your post #16 as claiming) are baseless. You can say both are wrong, but they are different.
And I would just like to mention that fellow who was executed for setting his house on fire and immolating his two children. Crime lab determined that gasoline had been used as an accelerant, had him dead to rights.
After his execution it was proven that the builders had used gasoline as a thinner for the floor shellac. No longer dead to rights; just dead.
No, it mustn’t. That’s WHY it’s wrong, always and everywhere. :smack:
:dubious: At the very least it means that one must withhold disapproval enough to accept the assertion that it is a legitimate activity for a state to perform (which it isn’t, by the way, what with being wrong, always and everywhere).
The only “difference” is that states don’t prosecute themselves for carrying out executions.
You can’t claim an absolute moral judgement is so duh-head-smacking obvious. Others obviously disagree. That doesn’t in itself make their disagreement stupid.
Thus, executioners are murderers?
No, you must only accept that it’s a lawful activity, subject to due process. Which murder is not.
Because they are not murders.
As an aside, is waging war a legitimate activity of the state?
I think that the U.S. practice of finding the 18 year old guilty, then years later executing the 40-something year old is indeed a Cruel and Unusual punishment.
When we had the death penalty here in the UK, the guilty party would generally be executed within six weeks.
No. Just wrong.
In the last 23 years, 18 people have been exonerated and released after they were convicted of murder and sentenced to death row. It is my opinion that a society that uses the death penalty is not too terribly concerned with doing everything possible to protect its innocent citizens.
I recall reading of that unspeakable horror.
The discovery and use of DNA evidence (as shown in your cite), now allows a much more reliable method of determining guilt and innocence. My contention is that this method of proof can, if used properly, eliminate the mistakes that have occurred in the past, and therefore remove one of the most pervasive arguments against the death penalty.