That's great and all but how it relates to what I said completely escapes me.presidentsheep wrote:
what makes one life more important than another then?Macbeth wrote:
There is almost 7 billion people in the world, the life is precious argument doesn't really hold up.....
Just to say before you try to answer that there is no answer.
Jens, I'd like to think that we've been internet friends for awhile now (we've always gotten along as far as I remember), and I respect you as a person. I agree with what you say, and I wish I wasn't so fucking pessimistic about the human race. When I see some dirtbag get a life sentence (or less) after they shoot a couple of random strangers on the street, in which I know they can parole and get out early, it reminds me that something is seriously not right in the world. Admittedly, I can't think of anything specific, but both you and I have seen something similar to this happen and it's made us sick to our stomachs. This is why I have a hard time justifying a piece-of-shit human life for countless innocent other lives.Jenspm wrote:
Shocking, a life is much more than economics. It is the idea of creative thought, the base of our own existence, a human fucking right. The whole "an eye for an eye" idea is barbaric and primitive. Basing human life on "worthiness" or economic value is Hitler-esque, at best.heggs wrote:
Why pay for a piece of shit human being for life when we can just be rid of the vermin in one fell swoop?
I wish our justice system wasn't such a goddamn clusterfuck, but it is, and people get away with things that they shouldn't. On the other hand, I wish we could come up with a better system in which we would know for sure if someone is innocent before we send them to get zapped (metaphorically speaking).
It's hard to have compassion for a species when it doesn't have compassion for itself.
Remember Me As A Time Of Day
so, dave's life is superior than brads.Jenspm wrote:
Huh? Dave kills Brad. Brad is now gone.
How does killing Dave help us? Brad is already gone, and chances are Dave won't repeat his offense. Is it not better to help Dave contribute to society?
RIP brad, your worthless life was terminated by the judgement of dave. we barely knew ya . . .
it's a good thing i'm not a mod then, because my membership in this forum is more important than anyones. i would permaban those members i deem less worthy than me.
in who's judgement is my forum membership more valuable than another members?
It becomes an issue when that person gets back into society and he feels that he needs more blood on his hands.Jenspm wrote:
A life has been taken, what does it help to take yet another one?
edit - Re: burnzz
Remember Me As A Time Of Day
Once their dead the state will go to great lengths to stop case review.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Because as the system is right now, it's more expensive to kill 'em than to let them just sit in jail for life. Now yes, that could be solved by simply changing the laws so that anyone sentenced to death is immediately dragged out to the back of the court house and shot, but given the number of people who are later cleared of any wrongdoing while on death row, that would result in a lot of innocent people dying.heggs wrote:
Why pay for a piece of shit human being for life when we can just be rid of the vermin in one fell swoop?
I remember, about five or six years ago, that a family wanted a case review on the conviction of there son. He was convected of rape/murder.
He claimed innocent right up to the time of execution, even to his last words " today you kill an innocent man".
DNA from the crime and a sample there son left before his execution were asked to be compared.
At the time of the trial all there was available was the ABO test.
Their son had been it the ground for a couple of years and the state said no to a test.
Family went to court to force a test.
Judge sided with the state.
They appealed to the appeals court, overturned and ordered the test.
State injunction for time to appeal the appeal, granted.
The state's case was that no public interest would be served in a review as he was dead.
Went to the State supreme court and a test was ordered.
At the end of it all......
The samples matched.
It's not superior, it is equal. Dave has a right to life, and so does Brad, and that is exactly my point. A murderer's right to life isn't any less than yours.burnzz wrote:
so, dave's life is superior than brads.Jenspm wrote:
Huh? Dave kills Brad. Brad is now gone.
How does killing Dave help us? Brad is already gone, and chances are Dave won't repeat his offense. Is it not better to help Dave contribute to society?
RIP brad, your worthless life was terminated by the judgement of dave. we barely knew ya . . .
it's a good thing i'm not a mod then, because my membership in this forum is more important than anyones. i would permaban those members i deem less worthy than me.
in who's judgement is my forum membership more valuable than another members?
and my point is - when a murderer takes a life, he forfeits his own.Jenspm wrote:
It's not superior, it is equal. Dave has a right to life, and so does Brad, and that is exactly my point. A murderer's right to life isn't any less than yours.
and if you ask me, it's a necessary evil to avoid executing an innocent manKarbin wrote:
Once their dead the state will go to great lengths to stop case review.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Because as the system is right now, it's more expensive to kill 'em than to let them just sit in jail for life. Now yes, that could be solved by simply changing the laws so that anyone sentenced to death is immediately dragged out to the back of the court house and shot, but given the number of people who are later cleared of any wrongdoing while on death row, that would result in a lot of innocent people dying.heggs wrote:
Why pay for a piece of shit human being for life when we can just be rid of the vermin in one fell swoop?
I remember, about five or six years ago, that a family wanted a case review on the conviction of there son. He was convected of rape/murder.
He claimed innocent right up to the time of execution, even to his last words " today you kill an innocent man".
DNA from the crime and a sample there son left before his execution were asked to be compared.
At the time of the trial all there was available was the ABO test.
Their son had been it the ground for a couple of years and the state said no to a test.
Family went to court to force a test.
Judge sided with the state.
They appealed to the appeals court, overturned and ordered the test.
State injunction for time to appeal the appeal, granted.
The state's case was that no public interest would be served in a review as he was dead.
Went to the State supreme court and a test was ordered.
At the end of it all......
The samples matched.
Oh I agree with you, it is a necessary evil. Just in this case, it was after he was executed and the state tried to block the test.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
and if you ask me, it's a necessary evil to avoid executing an innocent manKarbin wrote:
Once their dead the state will go to great lengths to stop case review.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Because as the system is right now, it's more expensive to kill 'em than to let them just sit in jail for life. Now yes, that could be solved by simply changing the laws so that anyone sentenced to death is immediately dragged out to the back of the court house and shot, but given the number of people who are later cleared of any wrongdoing while on death row, that would result in a lot of innocent people dying.
I remember, about five or six years ago, that a family wanted a case review on the conviction of there son. He was convected of rape/murder.
He claimed innocent right up to the time of execution, even to his last words " today you kill an innocent man".
DNA from the crime and a sample there son left before his execution were asked to be compared.
At the time of the trial all there was available was the ABO test.
Their son had been it the ground for a couple of years and the state said no to a test.
Family went to court to force a test.
Judge sided with the state.
They appealed to the appeals court, overturned and ordered the test.
State injunction for time to appeal the appeal, granted.
The state's case was that no public interest would be served in a review as he was dead.
Went to the State supreme court and a test was ordered.
At the end of it all......
The samples matched.
Think of the fallout if the DNA test had NOT matched.
Thats what I think the state was afraid of.
And I guess that's just where we disagree. It is not a zero-sum game in my opinion - there aren't 6.9 billion "rights to life" in the world, where anyone taking someone else's loses their own.burnzz wrote:
and my point is - when a murderer takes a life, he forfeits his own.Jenspm wrote:
It's not superior, it is equal. Dave has a right to life, and so does Brad, and that is exactly my point. A murderer's right to life isn't any less than yours.
It is a right, it is irrevocable and infinite. Saying anything else would be hypocritical - hey, you cannot kill, therefore we must kill you. Hey, you violated his freedom of speech, therefore you may not speak freely.
why was brads life worth less than daves?Jenspm wrote:
And I guess that's just where we disagree. It is not a zero-sum game in my opinion - there aren't 6.9 billion "rights to life" in the world, where anyone taking someone else's loses their own.burnzz wrote:
and my point is - when a murderer takes a life, he forfeits his own.Jenspm wrote:
It's not superior, it is equal. Dave has a right to life, and so does Brad, and that is exactly my point. A murderer's right to life isn't any less than yours.
It is a right, it is irrevocable and infinite. Saying anything else would be hypocritical - hey, you cannot kill, therefore we must kill you. Hey, you violated his freedom of speech, therefore you may not speak freely.
Agreed. Nothing is worse than executing an innocent man. The system is so flawed it's mind boggling.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
and if you ask me, it's a necessary evil to avoid executing an innocent manKarbin wrote:
Once their dead the state will go to great lengths to stop case review.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Because as the system is right now, it's more expensive to kill 'em than to let them just sit in jail for life. Now yes, that could be solved by simply changing the laws so that anyone sentenced to death is immediately dragged out to the back of the court house and shot, but given the number of people who are later cleared of any wrongdoing while on death row, that would result in a lot of innocent people dying.
I remember, about five or six years ago, that a family wanted a case review on the conviction of there son. He was convected of rape/murder.
He claimed innocent right up to the time of execution, even to his last words " today you kill an innocent man".
DNA from the crime and a sample there son left before his execution were asked to be compared.
At the time of the trial all there was available was the ABO test.
Their son had been it the ground for a couple of years and the state said no to a test.
Family went to court to force a test.
Judge sided with the state.
They appealed to the appeals court, overturned and ordered the test.
State injunction for time to appeal the appeal, granted.
The state's case was that no public interest would be served in a review as he was dead.
Went to the State supreme court and a test was ordered.
At the end of it all......
The samples matched.
Remember Me As A Time Of Day
It isn't. Both have irrevocable and irreplaceable rights to life. As I said, it isn't a zero-sum game - one person having his rights unrighteously taken away does not lessen the value of the rights of others.
by your arguement, you give any killer authority to deem who is worthy of life, and who isn't.Jenspm wrote:
It isn't. Both have irrevocable and irreplaceable rights to life. As I said, it isn't a zero-sum game - one person having his rights unrighteously taken away does not lessen the value of the rights of others.
you*re right, i don't agree to that.
By your argument, you give any killer AND the government the authority to deem who is worthy of a life, and who isn't. There are enough murderers in this world, adding the government wouldn't help the cause.burnzz wrote:
by your arguement, you give any killer authority to deem who is worthy of life, and who isn't.Jenspm wrote:
It isn't. Both have irrevocable and irreplaceable rights to life. As I said, it isn't a zero-sum game - one person having his rights unrighteously taken away does not lessen the value of the rights of others.
you*re right, i don't agree to that.
my argument is, if you take a life, you forfeit your own.Jenspm wrote:
By your argument, you give any killer AND the government the authority to deem who is worthy of a life, and who isn't. There are enough murderers in this world, adding the government wouldn't help the cause.burnzz wrote:
by your arguement, you give any killer authority to deem who is worthy of life, and who isn't.Jenspm wrote:
It isn't. Both have irrevocable and irreplaceable rights to life. As I said, it isn't a zero-sum game - one person having his rights unrighteously taken away does not lessen the value of the rights of others.
you*re right, i don't agree to that.
if the government finds you guilty and takes your life, despite your best defense, what can you do? my argument doesn't involve government, my argument is - if you have reason to kill someone else, it had better be a reason worth dieing for.
what i'm saying is if you pass the judgment to take away a human life, you will have forfeited the right to live your life. the government doesn't always kill the killers, and if the 'eye for an eye' argument does not suit your palate, what reason is left to keep people from killing others, if all life is holy?
murderers don't pay with their lives, and in the end you win the argument - because people don't drop dead when they kill someone. GG.
Call me an idealist, but thats the main point.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
and if you ask me, it's a necessary evil to avoid executing an innocent man
Of course it doesn't.AussieReaper wrote:
Of course it does. "All life" should be inclusive of "all life".unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Death for existing =/= death for unforgivable acts. It might seem silly that a pro-lifer would ignore their 'all life is sacred' stance when it comes to criminal death penalties, but it doesn't make the abortion and the DP remotely comparable.
I mean, I don't think I should have to define all life to prove to you that I mean to say all life, now do I?
=====Spark wrote:
ar it's not that simple. if you're talking about religious opposition then the "all life is sacred" principle then yes they should consistently be anti-dp, but for a lot of other people who don't like abortion, it's the simple fact that the baby has done nothing to deserve death. on the other hand, a serial murderer, well, has.
What I'd like to know is why Dave should get the chance, apart from mitigating circumstances like self-defense, manslaughter, etc.Jenspm wrote:
Huh? Dave kills Brad. Brad is now gone.
How does killing Dave help us? Brad is already gone, and chances are Dave won't repeat his offense. Is it not better to help Dave contribute to society?
Are you willing to accept execution if wrongly convicted of a capital murder?Hurricane2k9 wrote:
to me it's more "some life is sacred." Call it dark, call it barbaric, but you cannot honestly say that a rapist or murderer's life is as valuable as, say, Mother Teresa's. I'm really only against the death penalty because of the economics of it, not the morals.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
i was told by a professor, the way to tell if you are against capital punishment or not.
he said, "if you can't stand in line with men with a rifle in your hand, and pull the trigger, you are against capital punishment."
if a man is facing a firing squad for taking another man's life, maybe i'm one with the blanks, maybe not.
he said, "if you can't stand in line with men with a rifle in your hand, and pull the trigger, you are against capital punishment."
if a man is facing a firing squad for taking another man's life, maybe i'm one with the blanks, maybe not.
Well constructed counter argument that one.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Of course it doesn't.AussieReaper wrote:
Of course it does. "All life" should be inclusive of "all life".unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Death for existing =/= death for unforgivable acts. It might seem silly that a pro-lifer would ignore their 'all life is sacred' stance when it comes to criminal death penalties, but it doesn't make the abortion and the DP remotely comparable.
I mean, I don't think I should have to define all life to prove to you that I mean to say all life, now do I?
Is not!
Is too!
Is not!
Is too!
I think we can agree to disagree. Abortion and state-sponsored execution run on a different set of ethics. It is not unreasonable for one who supports the execution of violent criminals to not feel the same way about killing off babies, considering one group's huge list of offenses and another group's non-existent one.
Also, I followed up with a quote rather than type the same thing.
Also, I followed up with a quote rather than type the same thing.
Then why do they put forward the argument, when they are pro-life, that "all life is sacred"?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think we can agree to disagree. Abortion and state-sponsored execution run on a different set of ethics. It is not unreasonable for one who supports the execution of violent criminals to not feel the same way about killing off babies, considering one group's huge list of offenses and another group's non-existent one.
Also, I followed up with a quote rather than type the same thing.
Not to get all superior on anyone.
Where I live, life automatically gets commuted to 25 years. Depending on the Judge, you can be up for parole after as little a 5 years, the Judge has control of that.
Lets say the Judge hands out life, no parole for 15 years. The offender after 5 years can ask for a parole under the faint hope clause, that's just what it is, faint hope.
However, for real nasty cases, the Crown ( D.A. for the Yanks) can ask for a "Dangerous Offender" designation. If the Judge agrees, you don't get out before 25 years AND a Judaical review. if the Judges say yes, then you get a parole hearing. If the Judges say no, your still in.
If you get a "Dangerous Offender" designation, your in a 12X12 cell 23 hours a day under 24 hour CCTV watch. You do get a 13 inch tv, that you pay for, and 6 channels, that you pay for.
Where I live, life automatically gets commuted to 25 years. Depending on the Judge, you can be up for parole after as little a 5 years, the Judge has control of that.
Lets say the Judge hands out life, no parole for 15 years. The offender after 5 years can ask for a parole under the faint hope clause, that's just what it is, faint hope.
However, for real nasty cases, the Crown ( D.A. for the Yanks) can ask for a "Dangerous Offender" designation. If the Judge agrees, you don't get out before 25 years AND a Judaical review. if the Judges say yes, then you get a parole hearing. If the Judges say no, your still in.
If you get a "Dangerous Offender" designation, your in a 12X12 cell 23 hours a day under 24 hour CCTV watch. You do get a 13 inch tv, that you pay for, and 6 channels, that you pay for.
Last edited by Karbin (2011-03-12 21:50:32)
Oh no, I agree that taking a life should be an action worth dieing for - hell, it should be worth a whole lot more. I think we agree on that.burnzz wrote:
my argument is, if you take a life, you forfeit your own.Jenspm wrote:
By your argument, you give any killer AND the government the authority to deem who is worthy of a life, and who isn't. There are enough murderers in this world, adding the government wouldn't help the cause.burnzz wrote:
by your arguement, you give any killer authority to deem who is worthy of life, and who isn't.
you*re right, i don't agree to that.
if the government finds you guilty and takes your life, despite your best defense, what can you do? my argument doesn't involve government, my argument is - if you have reason to kill someone else, it had better be a reason worth dieing for.
what i'm saying is if you pass the judgment to take away a human life, you will have forfeited the right to live your life. the government doesn't always kill the killers, and if the 'eye for an eye' argument does not suit your palate, what reason is left to keep people from killing others, if all life is holy?
murderers don't pay with their lives, and in the end you win the argument - because people don't drop dead when they kill someone. GG.
However, once the crime is done, I do not think killing the murderer solves anything other than filling a need for revenge and justice.
I could point to the whole "murder rates aren't really lower in places with capital punishment" argument, but that's a bit beside my point. I mean firstly, there could be several reasons for this (social, economical or just the fact that the punishment process takes so long and isn't instant), but more importantly I just disagree with the whole idea in principle. There is no good excuse for murder, in my opinion. And that's my problem with it.
Capital punishment gives off the idea that murder is a valid response to murder. By sending out signals saying that murderers don't have the right to life, you're setting society back several steps. You are, in essence, justifying the killing of a group of people. The "if you pass the judgment to take away a human life, you will have forfeited the right to live your life" idea is not one I want in my society.