Fair enough. So when a man acts as if he’s autonomously deciding to forfeit his life, you said we should have no problem and let him do so as if it were an autonomous decision; some folks would say because it is, and you’d say though it’s not.
And once we spell out that doing X or Y or Z is deciding to forfeit one’s life, I say we should have no problem and let him do so as if it were an autonomous decision; some would add because it is, and you’d say though it’s not, but ain’t that a parallel?
But such a decision is objectification and goes against the underpinning of our model of humanity by the recognition of the myth of free will.
We need to recognise the myth when it enhances humanity (humanitarian libertarianism), but to ignore it when it acts against humanity.
I think it’s safe to say that like a lot of us he makes a lot of assumptions about foreign countries. You’ll note earlier he was unaware that the children of illegal immigrants in the US automatically gained US citizenship despite this being extremely common knowledge in the US.
He’s hardly alone. There are lots of things about British law I’m not aware of as demonstrated on the Gerry Adams thread.
That said, I’d recommend asking others rather than merely assuming that victims’ families have some say and making nasty comments about them.
There are some western nation which incorporate Sharia into their legal system but the US isn’t one of them.
Again, this isn’t meant as a personal attack. It’s simply noting mistakes we’re all guilty of making.
When talking of the question of jus soli being definite under US law, I was talking about moves to disavow citizenship (or ignore it when convenient) in attempting to deny education and such to children of illegal.
As noted above I have an enduring interest in the US through education, residence and continued contact over the decades.
And yet here you are, explaining things to me as if I could autonomously reach decisions upon recognizing facts, ignoring a myth once it’s brought to my attention that it goes against the underpinning of a particular model. Which is exactly what you’d do if you thought the opposite, I suppose.
Which is it, incidentally? Do I vote in favor of executing certain criminals because, as you say, I cannot act otherwise, in which case arguing with me is pointless? Or is it because I autonomously choose to do so, in which case your argument is kinda weird?
Each individual is affected by the actions of others. Although I may not be the prime cause of my arguments and beliefs (my genetics and experience determine that) my arguments might modify your beliefs and thus you would have a different future to that which you would have had, had you not heard the argument.
If a person takes his own life, he has made the decision to do so, and any time between the time he has done so and the time that action is completed and he is dead he may change his mind. In your scenario he has not directly decided to take his own life(now matter how you see it in your own mind) by his actions, the State declares that he is to die, and the State kills him. At no time after the initial crime has been committed can the person decide not die.
Respectfully, when looking at what you actually posted, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
In response to John Mace declaring that in the US the children born to illegal immigrants were automatically granted US citizenship you objected to his statement declaring in post #290.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17338922&postcount=290
It’s pretty clear that you didn’t realize that the status of the children of illegal immigrants born in the US was extremely clear and several posters then corrected your wrong but perhaps understandable assumptions.
We all make such mistakes.
I’m a fan of the UK and have visited it but that didn’t stop me from mistakenly believing that the UK could no longer hold a former MP in custody for up to 28 days without charging him or releasing him regarding forty year old charges.
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to start another sidetrack though this thread seems to have abandoned the question of whether the executed murderer will be the Rosa Parks of the anti-death penalty movement but it’s best not to go even farther afield. I was merely noting it’s common for lots of people to make bad assumptions regarding the laws of foreign countries.
And if he decides to commit a crime for which we will lock him up for the rest of his life with no chance of parole, then after that action – well, the State declares that he’s to be locked up for the rest of his life, and then does so, and at no point after committing the crime can the person decide to call a mulligan, though he may now wish to.
He can’t change his mind, post-crime, in either scenario; the State treats him as if he autonomously decided his permanent fate either way, no?
No.
During life with no chance of parole, if a mistake has been found to happen, it can at least be partially rectified.
edited to add: No one goes out with the conscious intent of committing a crime that with give them the death penalty. That is not how people reason.
No just that he struggled and got tased. I’m sure Mr “I like to bury my gun shot rape victims alive” suddenly decided to cooperate.
That doesn’t make any sense. Why are we suppose to love this person?
He knew the consequences of his actions. If he wanted to rape and murder others and get free room and board for it he should have moved to Europe.
Free room and board? Is that what you really think life in prison is like?
edited to add: Once again, there are no reports that he caused any problems on the table when they tried(and failed) to insert the tube.
compared to being raped, shot and buried alive. Yes. Seems like a pretty sweet gig in comparison.
Getting kicked in the balls would be better than being raped, shot and buried alive…but I sure as hell wouldn’t call that a “pretty sweet gig”. Calling a life sentence in prison “free room and board” is disingenuous at best.
But that’s an entirely separate point. I respect that entirely separate point, but it’s irrelevant to the discussion of why one would okay the death of someone who decided to commit suicide, but not the death of someone who decided to commit a capital crime while knowing the no-takesies-backsies consequences – but okay the life imprisonment of someone who decided to commit a no-takesies-backsies life-sentence crime.
My point is that we let such a decision permanently determine the person’s fate; no matter that they might change their minds later, it’s up to the State once the life-sentence crime is freely committed. Likewise for the death-sentence crime.
I’d say they maybe go out with the conscious intent to – roll the dice? Maybe gamble their lives? If someone says I’ll pay you fifty thousand dollars to murder my wife, and you mull it over and eventually take the deal, I’d say you both knew what you were getting into and can but throw yourselves on the mercy of the court after forfeiting any right to life or liberty. Let’s go rob a bank by rushing in and waving guns around is also a foreseeable-consequences kind of proposition, y’know?
depends on the prison.
Those who challenge birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and so neither are their American-born children; these children, they argue, cannot therefore automatically become citizens. Since there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant at the time of the amendment’s adoption — immigration was not restricted or regulated back then — opponents also contend that the amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants.
The Supreme Court, however, has upheld the right to birthright citizenship throughout history, granting citizenship to all people born here, except to children of foreign diplomats and Native American sovereign tribes. Supporters of birthright citizenship consider it an important element of the American ethos that prizes welcoming and assimilating diverse people.
Three paths to modifying or repealing birthright citizenship have been proposed:
Legislate change at the federal level: Under the proposed Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009, to be considered a citizen, a child must have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, a legal permanent resident or an undocumented immigrant serving in the military. Sponsored by 93 Republicans and two Democrats in House, the bill has been sitting in subcommittee, and experts say it is unlikely to survive court challenges if it becomes law.
Amend the Constitution to revoke birthright citizenship: Sen. Lindsey Graham and other leading Republicans have proposed hearings on an amendment. But amending the Constitution is an extremely difficult process.
Get the Supreme Court to change its interpretation of the 14th Amendment: State Legislators for Legal Immigration, a coalition of Republican lawmakers from 15 states, is drafting state legislation that will deny citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, possibly by barring the issuance of birth certificates. Birth certificates are under state authority, but issues of citizenship fall under federal jurisdiction, and so a change in state law that clashes with federal law will likely lead to lawsuits. Arizona State Rep. John Kavanagh said that is precisely the intention: provoke lawsuits that will end with the Supreme Court reexamining the 14th Amendment.
Opponents of birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants come to the United States to give birth to a child – a so-called “anchor baby” – as a way of gaining quick access for themselves to citizenship. However, supporters contend that in fact, the law requires these children to wait until they are 21 to petition for legal residency status for their parents.
A study by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, observes that an end to birthright citizenship would increase the illegal immigration population, not reduce it, leading to “the establishment of a permanent class of undocumented workers.” The study predicts that the number of unauthorized immigrants could swell from 11 million to between 16 and 24 million by 2050, depending on how restrictive new laws would be.
This was in reply to a criticism that I called judicial killing advocates ‘haters’. You need to hate someone to kill them against their will- hence- haters.
That aside, I think Jesus and most other religions talk of the necessity of love in one way or another as the defining human value.
Ok, this post was so hysterically funny I nearly spit water all over my computer.
In post #290, you foolishly insisted:
[QUOTE**]
Pjen**
The USA situation seems unclear with no firm decision on the status of children of illegals.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, as anyone with an even cursory knowledge of the American law and current American society know the status of the children of “the children of illegals” who are born in America is extremely “clear” and is not “disputed” by any but a fringe.
The children of illegal immigrants are automatically US citizens if they are born in the US.
There has been no serious legal challenge to this and the children of illegal immigrants being granted citizenship has been the law of the land since the 19th Century.
Look, if you want to argue that it’s been in dispute because in a country of over 300 million people you can find a few assholes on the internet who disagree with the Supreme Court then there are all sorts of things that are “in dispute”.
You can find people who insist that the 14th Amendment is invalid, that it’s unconstitutional to forbid restaurants from discriminating and that all contracts not signed in black ink are invalid so if you sign your mortgage in blue ink you can refuse to pay the bank and they can’t do anything about it.
Dude, I was trying to defend you when Monty and Iggy suggested you had really odd opinions about American law and society and that your knowledge and understanding of it left much to be desired.
I pointed out that you simply made a mistake about the legal system of a foreign country that you weren’t fully familiar with, which is something we all do, and yet now you seem to have decided to choose this hill to die on for no other reason than you don’t want to admit you made a mistake and move on.
Look, you meant well, but you clearly didn’t understand how American law and society worked in this regard and made a mistake.
It’s really not even relevant to the thread topic, though admittedly I think we ditched the thread topic several pages ago.
Just admit you made a mistake and move on.
Yes, please.