I never said that the US was. And I see no reason to look upon the common viewpoint towards invading armies as “nutty”; what do you think the average American would like to happen to soldiers that invaded the US ? Unless, of course, you are taking the viewpoint that American troops are special.
Considering your constant apologetics for America, yes I think it does.
And the point of the death penalty is to benefit the general public, either by deterring similar crimes, or by preventing that particular criminal from repeating. I don’t actually know that it works that way, but that is it’s purpose. Again, I’m not really sure where I stand on it right now, but that argument just doesn’t work.
It works, because the death penalty doesn’t do what it’s proponents say it does, and isn’t even attempted to be implemented that was ( given how grossly unfair it’s targeting and prosecution are ). As far as I can tell, it’s an exercise in sadism more than anything else. Executing people for the sake of executing them.
The verbiage that is almost always used surrounding executions – that “(this week’s victim) finally has justice,” that the victim’s family “finally has closure” – are the words of revenge cloaked in ostensibly gentler terms. When Gary Lee Davis was killed in Canon City, Colo., in 1997, the general feeling among my fellow Coloradoans was that, by God, we’d given that worthless sonofabitch what he deserved. And, as far as I know, Virginia May is still dead, and Davis’ execution certainly didn’t deter Raul Gomez-Garcia from executing Detective Donald Young and it didn’t deter Shawna Nelson from shooting Heather Garrus to death on a Greeley sidewalk. Neither was sentenced to die, yet their victims are as dead as Ginny May is. Somehow, being raped in a cornfield before being shot 14 times requires ultimate vengance, but cold-blooded execution merits only lifetime sentences. (Actually, Gomez-Garcia was sentenced to 80 years, but it’s doubtful he’ll ever draw free breath again.)
I’m posting this separately because it’s important to me.
Der Trihs, I find your blanket condemnation of U.S. troops in the Mideast deeply and personally offensive. My son is serving there now and, with the silliness over Israel insisting on bombing Iran and Iran insisting it will retaliate by striking U.S. bases, I’m very worried for my son’s life. I spent over 18 years raising that young man, he’s deeply loved by my entire family and by his wife, and his death would be an unbearable tragedy to us, especially because my wife and I – indeed, our entire family – have opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. But we don’t get to choose where he is posted, and neither does he.
I know, you will try to defend your insensitive and offensive position by pretending that my son has choices that he has never really had. Just know that every time you posit this ridiculous notion, you erase any credibility you may otherwise have.
Well, a couple of things. First of all, as I said, your view isn’t that the Iraqi’s should defend themselves…it’s that American’s deserve to die. There is a difference there…unless you are denying now that you hold that view of course (which would be rather a switch for you). Secondly, YOU aren’t Iraqi…and third, it’s not as common of a view as you seem to think that all Iraqi’s (or even a majority of them) hate us, or want to kill us.
As for the view point that American soldiers are special…of COURSE I take that view point, since I am an American. Just like I’m sure (non-nutty) folks from other countries take the not so strange view point that THEIR soldiers are ‘special’.
Ah…so, my supposed ‘apologetics for America’ is what you base your strawman of me on, ehe? And your own American antipathy is no factor I suppose, hmm? :dubious:
Whatever Der. I’d say let’s not hijack this thread further on this stuff…especially since it’s unlikely you can discuss the subject rationally. The thread is about Capital Punishment and we seem to generally be in agreement on THIS subject at least, if for different reasons at a guess.
-XT
I have no special moral objection to the death penalty in a purely theoretical sense. My objection is based on two things: the possibility of error, and my belief that it’s too soft a punishment for those who really are guilty. Capital punishment punishes the the family and loved ones of the executed far more than it punishes the executed persons themselves. In my opinion, this makes it extremely unjust if the executed person is innocent, and (in my opinion) unsatisfying for those who are guility. The latter is not a moral objection, though, so if we had a way to guarntee that no innocent person could ever be executed, I’d have no ethical problem with it. Until we have that guarantee, I don’t think we have any ethical choice but to suspend it.
I would also suggest that the OP’s question be reframed in terms of whether anyone is willing to be that innocent person strapped to a gurney, or even worse, whether they wasnt to see their own son/daughter/spouse/brother/best friend as the innocent person strapped to the gurney.
Same thing.
It’s the common view of the Iraqis. Oddly enough, slaughtering them and wrecking their country has made them take a dislike to the people doing so. But of course, it’s “nutty” to say that our victims won’t love us for being victimized.
Too bad. Perhaps they shouldn’t run around conquering and destroying.
So ? He’s participating. And yes, he has a choice.
But of course, it’s OK for HIM to kill people. I’m supposed to get all teary eyed at the idea of your conquistador son getting a little sweaty while he serves in an army of conquest. After all, the people he helps kill aren’t American, and are therefore just cattle, to be slaughtered at our convenience.
How many people would blink an eye if I wish annihilation upon an army that somehow invaded and occupied America ? Very few. But wishing the same thing upon an American army doing so to someone else - oh, that nutty. It’s evil.
Does that include people accidentally run over by police cars?
You’re absolutely right. I remember clearly the statement by my political science professor that for punishments to be effective, the “three S-es” have to be present.
Swift, Severe and Sure. This works for kids as well as deadly, violent felons.
The thing is, capital punishment as it stands, only meets one of the S-es, and that’s “Severe”.
If it was more swift, and more sure, the incidence of capital punishment crimes would go down.
Think of it this way- which sounds worse- a relatively low chance that you’ll be sentenced to death at all, and if you are, a relatively low chance you’ll actually be executed, and if you are executed, it’ll be years later
Or…
An almost 100% chance you’ll be sentenced to death for certain crimes, and that by law, you have to be executed within a month of the sentence?
That’s my problem with capital punishment… it’s not very effective in deterring anyone, and doesn’t particuarly inspire fear in the criminal element.
You might not want to use Kerik as a source for anything. He became commissioner out of favoritism (he was Rudy’s driver) his nomination for homeland security crashed and burned, and he is now under indictment.
As for the more general point, during Shakespeare’s day they had very public executions for murder, robbery, and even for trying to spread Catholicism. Not only that, they left heads on the bridge. This didn’t seem to prevent any of these “crimes.”
The Death Penalty Worldwide Argent Towers here are the countries that don’t have the death penalty and those that do. We are grouped with developing countries African Nations, Middle East nations and various dictatorships. These are your peeps.
Because rape victims are always eager to come forward in cultures where that act is likely to lead to getting killed by your own family.
I was speaking of intentional executions.
I figured - just being facetious. Still, the state uses violence to enforce its laws, and some bystanders do get taken out as a result.
I was going to bring this up, but you did it for me.
The cops accidentally shoot the wrong guy, with unsettling frequency. Certainly more innocent people are accidentally shot by police officers, than are accidentally executed by capital punishment. While we condemn these accidental police shootings - as we should, by all means - we also accept them as an unfortunate side effect of having an armed police department that protects the citizens.
Why should it be any different with executions?
Oh, I’m not equating the two, just pointing out that an absolute position is untenable.
I think at a visceral level people are more averse to the (lower probability) of someone getting executed by the state for a crime they didn’t commit than they are about an accidental shooting by police (which while infrequent happens more often than accidental executions).
Personally, while tragic for the person or family who it happens to, you can’t base your entire judicial system on preventing every last miscarriage of justice or wrongful execution…if you did, nothing would ever get done. You have to strike a balance…sort of like with everything else in life…between risk and reward (so to speak). It’s tragic when a loved one dies for any reason after all…and there are a lot of ways the government kills it’s citizen through legislation. Every little tweak to laws (or whatever) has consequences when you are talking about hundreds of millions of people. Increasing the speed limit (to name one) from 55 to 65 costs some small percentage of lives after all…as does tweaking some small regulation in the car industry.
For my part, my problem with CP is that it is so inefficient and costly that society (a.k.a. you and me and everyone else) get no real benefit out of it, except some vague sense of ‘justice’.
Also, as DtC said, frankly I think locking someone up forever is a MUCH worse punishment for a human than a quick and (relatively) painless death. As I said before, I would much rather we drop the death penalty and focus more on the parole system for capital crimes (i.e. eliminate it for those convicted of capital crimes). This will have the effect that if there IS a miscarriage of justice it could, theoretically, be rectified…and if not, then those harmful to society can be safely locked away forever to rot in a cell and contemplate their crimes for years or decades.
-XT
Because executions are unnecessary, whereas sometime the police simply need to use their weapons.
Sometimes they need to use them. Sometimes they don’t need to, and use them anyway, and kill someone. This is a risk that the population at large accepts.