• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is capital punishment a deterrent?

Is capital punishment a deterrent?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 10.7%
  • No

    Votes: 25 89.3%

  • Total voters
    28

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar:
Martyr schmartyr. The guy's a gangster, not a beloved holiday icon. Not executing him on the grounds that his followers would then idolize him even more ignores the fact that not executing him will tell his followers that they too have a chance to get away with it.

And I certainly don't want to create any more inspirations to follow that kind of lifestyle.

Besides, so what if he said he didn't do it? The jury rejected his plea of "not guilty", and all appeals since then have backed the jury, not the darling author of children's stories. The best thing to do with his stories is to write at the end "the author of this story was a bad man who was killed for his evil acts, so be good for goodness sake".
How would you know what a gangster or a bad man was? Your willing to believe that a couple of jailhouse snitches with a vested interest to lie, are telling the truth.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Billo_Really said:
How would you know what a gangster or a bad man was? Your willing to believe that a couple of jailhouse snitches with a vested interest to lie, are telling the truth.

I was just watching pne of the officials at the prison at he said Williams has been a real problem in the last 24 years and has caused a lot of problems with the other inmates on death row.........

I think one can be for this guy because he or she is against the death penalty but I don't think there is any doubt that he committed the crimes........

Even the 9th Circuit Appeal Court, the most liberal in the land has turned down his appeal..........
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
Don't get me started on that issue. I've got more to say about the 70% of people we lock up for victimless crimes. I believe if their is no victim, there is no crime. But that's just my belief. I don't advocate breaking the law. Even the dumb ones. If they want to reduce crime in America, stop making so many god-damn laws.

Billo and George_washington please read the "Nature of man and His government" link in my Sig.

The State HAS NO MORAL DUTY to lock up or kill the sick nor evil. And what about when the state is run by the sick and evil (Mugabe, Castro, Komeni, etc)?

And the state makes every effort to turn everyone into a crimminal, it can't help it. please read that link.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
libertarian_knight said:
Billo and George_washington please read the "Nature of man and His government" link in my Sig.

The State HAS NO MORAL DUTY to lock up or kill the sick nor evil. And what about when the state is run by the sick and evil (Mugabe, Castro, Komeni, etc)?

And the state makes every effort to turn everyone into a crimminal, it can't help it. please read that link.

The state has EVERY OBLIGATION to lock away the criminal that causes physical and financial harm to others. The purpose of the state is to protect it's citizens from force and threats of force by others.

(If someone isn't harming others, he's not a criminal, right?)
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
They always say there's evidence just around the corner. It's like tomorrow. Tomorrow never gets here either.

Yeah, of course, if it weren't for the frequency of Prosecutors, Cops or Labs fudging evidence, we wouldn't be concerned about that problem.

I mean, if they just did their jobs in the first place, instead of trying to skirt the system...
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
libertarian_knight said:
Yeah, of course, if it weren't for the frequency of Prosecutors, Cops or Labs fudging evidence, we wouldn't be concerned about that problem.

I mean, if they just did their jobs in the first place, instead of trying to skirt the system...

Yeah the police are always the bad guys...........Every scumbag in prison is innocent.......If you don't believe that just ask them.......
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This is just the tip of the iceberg.

In 1993, the court ruled in Herrera vs. Collins that a prisoner cannot simply argue in federal court that new evidence points to his innocence. He first must prove that his trial contained procedural errors (the technicalities that may free the guilty but also protect the innocent). In this case, Leonel Herrera had been convicted of shooting two police officers. Ten years later, he submitted affidavits from witnesses who said that his now-dead brother had been the killer (one witness was his brother's son, who says he saw the murders). Without considering the statements, the court told Herrera to sit down and shut up. "Federal habeas courts do not sit to correct errors of fact but to ensure the individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution," it said.

In other words, being falsely imprisoned is not a violation of your rights.
Herrera was executed four months after the ruling. In his final statement he said: "I am innocent, innocent, innocent. . . . I am an innocent man, and something very wrong is taking place tonight."

Legislators have cut off other escape routes. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, championed by Senator Orrin Hatch and passed in 1996, gives an inmate 12 months after his or her conviction to file a writ of habeas corpus, which is a request for a federal court to review the case for constitutional violations. Most states also impose restrictive deadlines — some require prisoners to present new evidence within 30 days after their trial (the average time between conviction and exoneration is 12 years). A number of states have "closed discovery" statutes that prevent defense attorneys or journalists from reviewing the evidence after a conviction.
If judges refuse to consider new evidence, who's left to correct the errors? Prosecutors aren't lining up for the job, despite an oft-cited admonition by the Supreme Court that they operate with "the twofold aim that guilt shall not escape nor innocence suffer."

The state of Virginia has made a mockery of that ideal. In its most callous moment, it denied a condemned prisoner the chance to prove his innocence with DNA. Joseph O'Dell, a career criminal, was convicted in 1986 of a rape and murder. The jury based its verdict on tire tracks said to be "similar" to those of his truck, bloodstains on his clothes found to be "consistent" with the victim's (he said, and witnesses agreed, that he had gotten into a bar fight) and the testimony of a jailhouse informant. After the trial, the informant recanted (then reasserted, then recanted again) and tests on O'Dell's shirt determined that the blood didn't belong to the victim or O'Dell (tests on the jacket were inconclusive). As early as 1988, O'Dell asked for DNA testing of semen evidence. In a note to a judge, O'Dell wrote, "If I were not innocent of this crime, I would have to be insane to request DNA fingerprinting."

Prosecutors challenged the request (suggesting at one point that persons unknown may have contaminated the sample by mixing in someone else's semen), and the courts denied O'Dell's appeals. In 1997 the state killed him. Following his execution, the Catholic Church and O'Dell's widow asked a judge to release the semen sample and O'Dell's bloody jacket for DNA testing. A state's attorney objected, telling the judge that if tests showed O'Dell had not committed the crime, "people will shout from the rooftops that the Commonwealth executed an innocent man." The judge declined to release the semen or the jacket (the state argued that because O'Dell had stolen it, it didn't belong to his family). Prosecutors then asked for permission to burn the evidence. Permission granted. Case closed.

Our system of justice is the best in the world. We're justifiably proud. But what happens when that pride turns to arrogance?



http://www.chiprowe.com/articles/false-justice.html
If the court cares more about procedure than truth, what does that say about our nation and our citizens that think this is OK.
 

Columbusite

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
808
Reaction score
6
Location
Columbus
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
It absolutely is not. We still have an unusually high rate of homocides compared to many other countries and they don't use the death penalty as a deterrent. We have some serious social dysfunctions we need to face. We are a lot more violent on average.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The state has EVERY OBLIGATION to lock away the criminal that causes physical and financial harm to others. The purpose of the state is to protect it's citizens from force and threats of force by others.

(If someone isn't harming others, he's not a criminal, right?)

The State is AMORAL, if you will. If it has an obligation, is it a moral one? I don't think so, I think the state is an executor of will, sometimes the public's will or more often the leader's will. The public or leaders may make claims to the state moral obligations, but they are falsehoods. The government is a tool of men, and the state has no more moral obligation to punish crimminals than a hammer has a moral obligation to pound nails in straight.

It is men that have moral obligations, and it is men's moral capacity that must be examined while they reamin employed as an agent of the tool of public will, which in a democratic society, is supposed to be the state. Again the state is a TOOL, and TOOLS don't think. Of course, the State is a tool of power and will and violence and theft, which men use to their corruption.

I would say, the most "moral state" is the state that ONLY Secures the Blessings of Liberty. This is an Ideal state, one that only punishes aggression, and does not initiate any agression. However, this state is of course, a fiction. ALL States are agressive, and all states violate the moralities generated by the population, the Wise, or the influential.

Power tends to corrupt, Absolute power corrupts absolutely. -Lord Acton

As the state is an insitution of power, it corrupts the morality of men.
Read "The Nature of Man and His Government"
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
The part I don'tt understand is when some liberal judge down the road decides that the scum is rehabilitated and lets him out to rape and murder again and I don't like supporting these scum until that happens......
DO you think, just this once, you can actually prove what you've written? In simple terms Navy Pride, please prove that someone who was sentenced to life without parole was released on parole (not for an overturned conviction).

Are you able to do that? If not do think you can stop your liberal bashing in this thread since you've not proven anything yet you write hate fillled comments like "I don't understand is when some liberal judge down the road decides that the scum is rehabilitated and lets him out to rape and murder again."

Are you able to back up your personal attacks against me and my fellow liberals or are you simply going to write posts that are pure, unadulterated hate? Or, let me guess, you'll simply ignore this post and just write more of the liberal bashing stuff you're famous for? We're watching....or is it waiting?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
libertarian_knight said:
The State is AMORAL, if you will. If it has an obligation, is it a moral one? I don't think so, I think the state is an executor of will, sometimes the public's will or more often the leader's will. The public or leaders may make claims to the state moral obligations, but they are falsehoods. The government is a tool of men, and the state has no more moral obligation to punish crimminals than a hammer has a moral obligation to pound nails in straight.

It is men that have moral obligations, and it is men's moral capacity that must be examined while they reamin employed as an agent of the tool of public will, which in a democratic society, is supposed to be the state. Again the state is a TOOL, and TOOLS don't think. Of course, the State is a tool of power and will and violence and theft, which men use to their corruption.

I would say, the most "moral state" is the state that ONLY Secures the Blessings of Liberty. This is an Ideal state, one that only punishes aggression, and does not initiate any agression. However, this state is of course, a fiction. ALL States are agressive, and all states violate the moralities generated by the population, the Wise, or the influential.

Power tends to corrupt, Absolute power corrupts absolutely. -Lord Acton

As the state is an insitution of power, it corrupts the morality of men.
Read "The Nature of Man and His Government"

The only moral state is a state that fulfills it's obligations to the people. The first obligation is to protect the people from criminals, and that is done by locking them up or shooting them.

Thus the state cannot be moral unless it runs prisons.

How's them apples?
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Navy Pride said:
Yeah the police are always the bad guys...........Every scumbag in prison is innocent.......If you don't believe that just ask them.......

I said that? nope. I would wager, most police are decent people, some even good people (as such, they are poor as cops), same with prosecutors, lab tech, state shrinks, etc. They, at times, can't help doing bad things as agents of the State.

And certainly, not every person in Prison is innocent, I never said that or even made allusions to such. However, a great deal are, of course, non-violent.

My point was, there is a track record of abuse of position, malicious prosecution, evidence falsification or tampering and a whole host of other activities to such an extent, it makes the public skeptical of the honesty and virtue of the agents of the system.

If only in 1 in 1000 cases do these problems arise, for whatever reason, stress, racism, laziness, abundant caseloads, whatever reason, the entire realiability of the system WILL come into question, especially by those adversly affected by such malignancies.
 

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
Bottom line is Tookie had been advised by a good public relations agency in his attempts to cheat justice but it won't work..........Tookie will fry tonight and this country will be a better place for it........
:thumbdown :damn :stop: :hammer:
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The only moral state is a state that fulfills it's obligations to the people. The first obligation is to protect the people from criminals, and that is done by locking them up or shooting them.

Thus the state cannot be moral unless it runs prisons.

How's them apples?

How are these Oranges. How does a state protect people from crimminals, by engaging in actions that would be crimminal if not done by state agents?

See, here two things happen. The government says "we will protect you from theives" then it steals money (it's not freely given, therefor it is stealing) to fund itself, and calls the name "taxation." Then being clever, then they write laws, saying this is stealing, this is taxing, only people that steal are crimminals, only people that tax are allowed to steal.

So, there are two options. Poeple set up government's to stop people from being bad, or governments are set up by men who would be governors (legislators, kings, cheifs, whatever), and they define what bad is.

If governments are set up to stop people from being bad, and they in turn do the very same bad things, then the expiriment was a failure.

If governments are set up by the men who would be governors, the bad is irrelivant, and all that matter's is the governor's will.

I also think, a state executed by Moral Men, is that which secures the blessings of liberty, and should those Blessings be violated, offer an impartial means of redess, while never violating those Blessings themselves.

However, Moral Men are not attracted to power. Moral Men have little need for the state, and therefor seek not to act as agent for it. Corruptable men, are drawn to power like flies to a rotting carcass. They know, that power can partly fill the unbridled and endless hole that their corruption demands be satiated.

Mind you, most people are niether moral nor corruptable, they are just normal. Meaning fearful, ignorant, followers.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
How would you know what a gangster or a bad man was? Your willing to believe that a couple of jailhouse snitches with a vested interest to lie, are telling the truth.

Billo, I don't see how executing a gangster will make him an inspiration for other people to go commit crimes. I think if anything it will show criminals that the government isn't going to tolerate crime. I think a gangster would much rather spend life in prison than be executed. Because at least by going to prison, you'd know what to expect and you might be able to, "pull some strings" and run the joint, if you know what I mean. But death is the unknown and I think the unknown frightens most people. Can you just imagine how scarey it would be to be strapped down to a mat and know that in a matter of minutes you were going to die? I'd wet myself. I'd be so scared, I'd probably die of a heart attack before I even got the lethal injection. Seriously. Not because I'd be afraid of going to hell or something. But just because the situation would be so scarey.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Columbusite said:
It absolutely is not. We still have an unusually high rate of homocides compared to many other countries and they don't use the death penalty as a deterrent. We have some serious social dysfunctions we need to face. We are a lot more violent on average.

Two words: Drug War

The Drug War is at the center of a great deal of social ills, including homocides. It is a nexus, the center of a spider's web.

HUGE Portions of the Murders commited in the USA (not to mention cop killings and cops killing) are a result of the Drug war by means of drug gangs, black market pricing (which heavily increase killings for money to buy drugs), and other associated factors. (see DOJ statistics)

Gangs largely exist because of drugs and the black market profits. Not to mention, the Black Market Profits also aid terrorism. As much as 40-60% of major city murders are because of Drug Gang related activiteis alone (see LA crime stats for starters).

It makes crimminals out of not violent citizens. (I don't recall exactly the following state, so I am using a broad range). Betweem 1/5 and 1/3 of Prison populations are filled with non-violent drug offenders, most without ANY history of violence EVER. (check the Bueau of Prisons, and DOJ)

Prisons are filled with soo many non violent crimminals, that often VIOLENT crimminals are being released to make room, because drug laws carry MANDATORY sentences, whereas rape, assault, robbery and murder do not. This has also lead to kickbacks and corruption by Government officials, who are lobbied and bribed by prison builders, prison workers, and Private Prison operators. (see Rockefeller Dug Laws for NY state)

It a source of Local, State and federal Corruption. Not a year goes by when I don't hear or read about numerous City officials and particulalry police officers and detectives being caught as participants in drug rings. Federal agencies have been often implicated in buyig, selling, and distributing drugs for other illict activities. (see: Oliver North. CIA.)

The "necessity" of fighting drugs has led to tremendous strain on police and prosecution resources that either result in ever increasing taxes, or poorer service from public agents, most often both. Polcing spend so much time tracking and prosecuting non-violent drug offenders that a significant portion of societies greatest crime, murder, remain unsolved or under-invesitgated. It's even worse for violent non-murders (assaults, rapes) and property crimes. Some cities have property crime resolution rates as LOW as 6%. Public Defenders are often overworked or understaffed, that they can not give adequate defenses/ Prosecutors are also often overworked that they are often lured to skirting the rules, even breaking the law themselves, in order to secure a conviction, and move on to the next case. Court systems are overbooked and judges and staffers over worked that fair trials are seriously in jeopardy in this country. (not sure if there are any stats kept, often read it in the news though)

The Black Market prices allow gangs to afford to purchase guns, and motivates them to steal guns, or motivates others to steal or sell guns to gangs, OUTSIDE LEGAL CHANNELS. This increase in gun running and resulting gun violence (even violence over gun smuggling) is often used as a reason to further infringe upon the American's Right to Bear Arms. (see DOJ, Democratic Party, and Second Amendment to the US Constitution)

The prohibition of drugs has lead to increased potency and unclean cutting. During the years of prohibition's major start in the united state (1960's) and even until now, drugs are becomeing more and more potent, because the more potent the drug, the less drug needed to be transported, and cutting can be done at local distributions. The less drug transported, the harder to catch. The distrubution network, through malice, greed or ineptidue will often realse unclean or "unsafe" drug with irregular potencies or impurities that can lead to permanent injuries or fatalies. Furthermore, increade potencies are more likely to lead to addiction (Pepto Bismol contains opiates, as do many other anti-diarheals, but in such low doses they pose no risk of addiction, and can be sold Over the counter), Opium, certainly addictive, is by no means as addictive as Heroin. The same is true of Cocaine, which Coca farmers regulars chew the leaves of the coca plant, and suffer no addiction. the reason "hard drugs" are as hard as they are, is because of prohibition. (see NIH, possibly CDC, and DEA)

Prohibition has cut of many Medical Avenues for treatment. Doctors' can lose their licences if they attempt to treat addictions, at least without prior state approval, and possibly a new crimminal record for the patient. (ask your doctor about the legal implications, Doc may know)

Prohibition has been used as an excuse to violate people's Property Rights, by siezing homes, cars, or anything even SUSPECTED of being part of the drug trade. Even upon exhonortion by a jury, the state keeps the property, and the acquitted must sue the state to get it back. Which is often not likely, ebcause either most people don't have enough money, or they spent so much in being acquitted that they can no longer afford further suit, by which time the state may have auction off the goods already anyway. (see asset forefieture and 4th, 5th, and 7th amaendments)

Normal, peaceful citizens are often required to associate with the violent dregs of society, in order to attain drugs, or satisfy their addiction. Prohibition itself, is the GATEWAY to violence and addiction.

I literlaly could wring a book, and some day may, on the nexus of prohibition, and it's HUGE implications. I have literally, only scratched the surface.

Drug abuse, drug addiction, and addles minds are by no means things we as a society should promote. However, the alternative: Violence, Corruption, Abuse of power, Violation of the rights numerous civil and Consitutional rights, economic costs, increased taxation, growth of central power, Medical costs, International Conflict, Medical allfiction exasperated by restricted treatemnts, and a myriad of other factors, are not worth the price or prohibition.

What started out as two words, obviously went on a great deal. The Two words are central to a significant portion of many of the societal problem we face in the, including murder, for which the death penalty is oft used.
 

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
69,516
Reaction score
15,437
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
libertarian_knight said:
Two words: Drug War....

QUOTE]

Amen! I couldn't have said it better. We have already been through this social expiriment with the prohibition of alcohol and we know how that turned out. People's biggest flaw is that they make decisions based on emotion instead of reason and logic. That is why we are repeating history again.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
libertarian_knight said:
How are these Oranges. How does a state protect people from crimminals, by engaging in actions that would be crimminal if not done by state agents?

The people surrender certain powers to the group when forming the State. One of those is the power of vengeance and vigilantism. The reason they formed the state was to combine their individual strengths to create a stronger whole for mutual protection. This is how the state can arrest and try suspected criminals and impose punishments on those deemed guilty while the average citizen cannot.

libertarian_knight said:
See, here two things happen. The government says "we will protect you from theives" then it steals money (it's not freely given, therefor it is stealing) to fund itself, and calls the name "taxation." Then being clever, then they write laws, saying this is stealing, this is taxing, only people that steal are crimminals, only people that tax are allowed to steal.

Uh huh. So you think there should be no government at all? You can't identify ANY reasons why people should have government?

Hint: Read the Oresteia. It'll give you a clue to the origins of Western Civilization.

libertarian_knight said:
So, there are two options. Poeple set up government's to stop people from being bad, or governments are set up by men who would be governors (legislators, kings, cheifs, whatever), and they define what bad is.

"Bad"? Can't be any more specific than that? There's no moral purpose in government, none at all?

libertarian_knight said:
If governments are set up to stop people from being bad, and they in turn do the very same bad things, then the expiriment was a failure.

And? This means?

libertarian_knight said:
If governments are set up by the men who would be governors, the bad is irrelivant, and all that matter's is the governor's will.

Is that a legitimate government serving the will of free people, or is it a form of thugs-ruling-by-force?

libertarian_knight said:
I also think, a state executed by Moral Men, is that which secures the blessings of liberty, and should those Blessings be violated, offer an impartial means of redess, while never violating those Blessings themselves.

Should everyone in this state be wearing white robes and singing hosannahs?

Why should the state be liable for redress when a criminal robs, rapes, or murders someone? I can't believe someone claiming to be a libertarian is suggesting that all people bear the burden of loss incurred by any individual.

Better re-think your handle, you're no libertarian.

libertarian_knight said:
However, Moral Men are not attracted to power. Moral Men have little need for the state, and therefor seek not to act as agent for it. Corruptable men, are drawn to power like flies to a rotting carcass. They know, that power can partly fill the unbridled and endless hole that their corruption demands be satiated.

Oh. So a Moral Man, seeing the abuses of power by immoral men, could not seek power as a means of denying it's abuse by others? Is the refusal to act as needed a moral or an immoral act?

libertarian_knight said:
Mind you, most people are niether moral nor corruptable, they are just normal. Meaning fearful, ignorant, followers.

All people are corruptible, no person is 100% moral. As the saying goes, "every man has his price".
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by George Washington:
Billo, I don't see how executing a gangster will make him an inspiration for other people to go commit crimes. I think if anything it will show criminals that the government isn't going to tolerate crime. I think a gangster would much rather spend life in prison than be executed. Because at least by going to prison, you'd know what to expect and you might be able to, "pull some strings" and run the joint, if you know what I mean. But death is the unknown and I think the unknown frightens most people. Can you just imagine how scarey it would be to be strapped down to a mat and know that in a matter of minutes you were going to die? I'd wet myself. I'd be so scared, I'd probably die of a heart attack before I even got the lethal injection. Seriously. Not because I'd be afraid of going to hell or something. But just because the situation would be so scarey.
Some have said that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

He has been an outspoken advocate against gangs in those children books he had written. How many lives is he saving by keeping them away from that culture? I'm against the death penalty, period. Tookie, or no Tookie. Thou shall not kill. Vengence is not ours. But I do think that every Christian that considers St. Paul a saint, yet supports this execution, can go to hell!
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Billo_Really said:
Some have said that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

He has been an outspoken advocate against gangs in those children books he had written. How many lives is he saving by keeping them away from that culture? I'm against the death penalty, period. Tookie, or no Tookie. Thou shall not kill. Vengence is not ours. But I do think that every Christian that considers St. Paul a saint, yet supports this execution, can go to hell!

He's a gangster.

He killed those people

How about some tears for his victims, instead?
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The people surrender certain powers to the group when forming the State. One of those is the power of vengeance and vigilantism. The reason they formed the state was to combine their individual strengths to create a stronger whole for mutual protection. This is how the state can arrest and try suspected criminals and impose punishments on those deemed guilty while the average citizen cannot.

Uh huh. So you think there should be no government at all? You can't identify ANY reasons why people should have government?

Hint: Read the Oresteia. It'll give you a clue to the origins of Western Civilization

"Bad"? Can't be any more specific than that? There's no moral purpose in government, none at all?

And? This means?

Is that a legitimate government serving the will of free people, or is it a form of thugs-ruling-by-force?

Should everyone in this state be wearing white robes and singing hosannahs?

Why should the state be liable for redress when a criminal robs, rapes, or murders someone? I can't believe someone claiming to be a libertarian is suggesting that all people bear the burden of loss incurred by any individual.

Better re-think your handle, you're no libertarian.

Oh. So a Moral Man, seeing the abuses of power by immoral men, could not seek power as a means of denying it's abuse by others? Is the refusal to act as needed a moral or an immoral act?



All people are corruptible, no person is 100% moral. As the saying goes, "every man has his price".


I think you better re-read what I posted, and absorbe the whole thing. CLEARLY by your bit-and-piece responses, you did not.

To be clear, there is no moral purpose to a government, any more than there is moral purpose to a hammer. One is a tool of force over nails and wood and hard things, the other is a tool of power over men. Both are tools, tools CAN be used morally, by men.

Therefor Government CAN be used morally by men, rarely is it so. There is no tool, to my knowledge, that men have devised or understood, that can not be use for immoral purposes. Some tools, particulalry instruments of death or pain, may rarely serve any turly moral purpose, and may even be totally incapable for use in any genuine moral way. Such as nice things governments have devised, like The Rack, The Iron Maiden, and the litany of the implements of torture used by governments or gangsters over the millenia.

But enough of that, reread my post, and see how your comments do not fit, especially when dissociated from related senetences in a single paragraph. My statements are not to be taken in isolation.

For your benefit, i will restate what I said, and help you to better understand what you misread. (and it is clear you misread, except for the one phrase I was being overly poetic and ommitted a word, as your statements do not follow logically from what I stated)

As for "bad" i was purposefully being vague and broad, to fit all subjective possibilities, and my statement was organized as such. Therefor the desire for more specificity is unecessary, and ungranted.

"Is that a legitimate government serving the will of free people, or is it a form of thugs-ruling-by-force?" this is what I was refering to with you disassociating my statements, because really, all you do is repeat what I say, then turn it into a question, when it was an expansion of prior statement.

"Better re-think your handle, you're no libertarian." you better re-think, you're no thinker. Read my statement again, intelligently this time. It is a description of the role of the ideal state. Two parts; neither of which suggest necessarily the state should be LIABLE for redress, rather statement one as the mechanism of redress.

Moral men are more interested in diminishing the instrument of corruption and abuse, than chancing the botched may sieze it.

As to the corruptable men, here is where I was overly poetic, trying to finish with a flourish, that didn't quit work. It should have read "Most Corruptable Men." As in those who are corruptable most, because they are easily and greatly corrupted. Those men, ready to sell their soul, for an easy price, if you will.

Upon Request, I shall use smaller words, and simpler language if a reader feels overwhlemed by literacy. However, though I have well mastered the use of the English Language (though not to perfection, as I would never claim such), I am wholly ignorant of any language consisting of neanderthal grunts. Requests for simplification must be above the language level of a feral child please.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Why should the state be liable for redress when a criminal robs, rapes, or murders someone? I can't believe someone claiming to be a libertarian is suggesting that all people bear the burden of loss incurred by any individual.

And I can't believe that someone claiming to be a libertarian is suggesting that the state should have the power to kill people, under circumstances that you acknowledge will do nothing to protect the citizenry from force or fraud.

Why should the state have the right to execute people for the purpose of shedding "tears for the victims," or for vengeance?

Bottom line is that there is no practical or philosophical reason for the death penalty to exist. Arguments in favor of the death penalty tend to be entirely based on emotion, of the "this murdering mother****er needs to die" variety.
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
He's a gangster.

He killed those people

How about some tears for his victims, instead?
I feel for them too.

How about this women. Killer or Victim?

jacobs3nq.jpg


You and I killed her husband. And if you had your way,
she'd be dead too. For me, I don't want this sh_t being
done in my name.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=1149#rn20
 

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,716
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Navy Pride said:
your thoughts please:

well the murder rate in the uk has quadrupled since we aboilished it so i am inclined to say yes
 
Top Bottom