Certain types of crimes warrent the death penalty IMO.
Murder for hire, rape/murder, murder of a child, murder during the commision of a robbery, serial killers. .. and a few you could remind me of.
Anyone that kidnaps a child i'd give life in prison.
Anyone that harms a child i'd give life in prison.
Pedophiles i'd lock up for life on the 1st conviction.
Rape .. 25 yrs for 1st time offense (no parole), life in prison for repeat offenders.
Originally posted by jammerShould the american soldiers in iraq be trialed for murder?
Certain types of crimes warrent the death penalty IMO.
Murder for hire, rape/murder, murder of a child, murder during the commision of a robbery, serial killers. .. and a few you could remind me of.
Anyone that kidnaps a child i'd give life in prison.
Anyone that harms a child i'd give life in prison.
Pedophiles i'd lock up for life on the 1st conviction.
Rape .. 25 yrs for 1st time offense (no parole), life in prison for repeat offenders.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardYAWN.
Im going to asume that the thousands of people killed in iraq did not die from natural causes.
Get over it. That's war. American and British soldiers out there aren't dying from natural causes either.
Neither did the thousands of Kurds who were gassed by Saddam.
So take a hike!!
If one looks at China, even though they have maybe four times our population, they have much less crime. Why? Part of the reason is capital punishment.
True, China is a very oppressive country, and I am glad I live here in America, but America's legal system is something of a joke. We have all these rights and liberties, now inmates are sueing over things like chunky peanut butter instead of smooth. Somebody burglarizes a home, hurts themselves, and then sues the owners. There is a happy medium between these to extremes that can be achieved.
I believe that everyone has a right to life, but that right can be revoked. Everytime I turn on the news and here that some convicted sex offender sodomized the neighbor's daughter after serving just ten years in prison and then being released, I feel like puking. We pay the government to make this happen people!
When people get to the point where they do the worst kinds of things, murder, rape, etc, when people become sociopathic predators that prey on society, they don't usually come back from that. There isn't a doctor, or drug, or treatment that we can do to make these guys normal again.
So what are the options? Life in prison? Let the tax payers pay untold millions to keep these guys alive? Why? So they can prey on other inmates? I believe that we should have a cheap, humane, and effective way to execute these guys. God can help them, and so it makes sense to send them back to God.
With six billion people in this world, I don't believe that we should be bending over backwards to keep the worst ones alive, while there are good people facing real problems.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe right to life cannot be revoked by anyone. It is not a right given to you by a government only to revoked or not renewed. It isn't a membership to some sort of club.
I believe that everyone has a right to life, but that right can be revoked.
No-one has the right to take a life, not even a government.
I don't think there's any ethical inconsistency at all, since the principal point of capital punishment is its supposed effect of deterrence. However, the ethical superstructure behind the death penalty is multiform anyway, so even if it were a flier in one country the argument about the sovereignty of individual life would almost certainly not apply equally everywhere.
However, what makes me laugh is that no-one who is in favour of capital punishment seems to take the views of executioners seriously - I've just finished reading Albert Pierrepoint's Executioner: Pierrepoint (great book, grab a copy if you can), which reveals just how pointless the entire exercise is - most of the people he executed (not including the innocent ones, who were understandably put out) went to their deaths bravely and jauntily, and he himself is on record as saying the following:
"It did not deter them then and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder."
The reason the death penalty is a bad idea is that people generally at least partly identify with the bravery of someone who the system executes, no matter how heinous his crime (think of all those Ted Bundy groupies writing in to console him in his final ten years on Death Row). The reason there are so few public executions these days is because capital punishment in its purest, original form does not deter - it simply makes people despise the state.
As for the breezy argument that "Well, maybe not, but it sure deterred him" (hur hur)...of course, but then you have to accept the moral responsibility for the executions of people like this:
http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/timothyevans/
Originally posted by knightwestSo killing justifies killing in your eyes?
YAWN.
Get over it. That's war. American and British soldiers out there aren't dying from natural causes either.
Neither did the thousands of Kurds who were gassed by Saddam.
So take a hike!!
Then where will it end?
Originally posted by knightwestWho told you?
The right to life cannot be revoked by anyone. It is not a right given to you by a government only to revoked or not renewed. It isn't a membership to some sort of club.
No-one has the right to take a life, not even a government.
Do you agree that the victims who get murdered have the right to kill in self defense? Should they respect the murderers right to life? Should cops trade in their guns for squirt guns?
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressSelf defence is a tricky one. When does self defence cease to be self defense and turn into aggression?
Who told you?
Do you agree that the victims who get murdered have the right to kill in self defense? Should they respect the murderers right to life? Should cops trade in their guns for squirt guns?
If you punch a robber and he hits the deck that is self-defence. If you then proceed to kick the crap out of him until he's dead, that is no longer self defense.
And yes, if someone is trying to kill you and you can immobilise that person, by hitting him over the head or something, you then have to respect the person's right to life, because the second you hit him unconcious (SP) there is no reason for you to kill him. Otherwise it is cold-blooded murder and not self defense.
Originally posted by zeeblebotNo argument from me, except do you execute people who are just
no extenuating circumstances, except self-defense, in which case it's not counted as murder.
we don't need careerists hairsplitting criminals' childhood deprivations so as to give them a break. put them on an island or execute them. no recourse.
plain nuts? hear voices, the devil made me do it, ect.?
There is evidence they actually hear voices in their heads and think
it must be somehow supernatural in nature so they act it out on
real people. These are to me, extenuating circumstances. They
maybe don't even remember doing the job. For instance,
multiple personality, although rare, it does occur, so if Roger the meek
shows up and Oscar the killer receeds into the guys unconscience,
do you kill oscar in spite of the fact that Roger also lives in the same
brain?
I would never kill anyone because my social intelligence tells me its wrong. (I would not want anyone to do it to me)
Murderers often lack this basic reasoning and see others as objects that can be removed to suit their needs.
These murderers where born like this so they cant help it, its not something they can change.
Why kill them for being born?
Wouldn't it be better to just keep them out of society instead of murdering them?
When they are in prizon they can still contribute to society by doing labour so even from a capitalist point of view it would be wrong to murder the murderers.
Originally posted by knightwestThat's not always possible though. If somebody pulls a gun on a cop, the cop is within his/her rights to use deadly force. So you agree then that their are things people can do to loose their right to life?
Self defence is a tricky one. When does self defence cease to be self defense and turn into aggression?
If you punch a robber and he hits the deck that is self-defence. If you then proceed to kick the crap out of him until he's dead, that is no longer self defense.
And yes, if someone is trying to kill you and you can immobilise that person, by hitti ...[text shortened]... here is no reason for you to kill him. Otherwise it is cold-blooded murder and not self defense.