(January 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 12:58 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Think about some of your peers and ask yourself (honestly) if you'd trust them with your own life.

I trust hardly no one, but I'm not willing to use that mindset as a reason to feed and house human garbage.

The system is far too imperfect.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocenc...-death-row

(January 19, 2014 at 1:08 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 1:05 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Than you don't oppose the death penalty. Killing people is killing people regardless of your agenda.

Yes I do, but revolutionary times call for revolutionary measures.

Sorry pal, there's no "but" allowed. A prisoner of war is still a prisoner. If you have no problem executing him - than there is NO difference.

The death penalty is always wrong, for several reasons:

1. If it is not moral for an individual to take the life of a criminal, it can never be moral for the State to do so.

2. Given the number of death sentences commuted or vacated since the advent of DNA testing, there is never 100% certainty that the proper person is being executed.

3. The death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent to crime.

4. Corollary to #3: If someone commits a capital crime and isn't apprehended immediately, there is nothing to stop them from repeating the crime (you can only kill them once).

5. The whole point of punishing criminals (in a practical sense) is to remove them from society, thus preventing further harm. This can be accomplished as efficiently and as cost-effectively by life imprisonment.

6. Since the death penalty is effectively vengeance and not justice, killing offenders makes no sense. If you kill a criminal you end all possibility for punishment - the dead don't suffer.

I hold this position as someone who HAS lost a loved one to violence. I make no exceptions.

Boru

(January 19, 2014 at 1:09 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm)Cinjin Wrote: I trust hardly no one, but I'm not willing to use that mindset as a reason to feed and house human garbage.

The system is far too imperfect.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocenc...-death-row

The list of innocents killed would likely only shrink over time as we get better at determining who is really innocent or guilty. That doesn't mean we should never kill people that can't be rehabilitated. And there are people who just can't be rehabilitated.

(January 19, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 1:08 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote: Yes I do, but revolutionary times call for revolutionary measures.

Sorry pal, there's not "but" allowed. A prisoner of war is still a prisoner. If you have no problem executing him - than there is NO difference.

There are buts, it isn't exactly an either or.

Quote:I oppose the death penalty, but believe in summary execution for counter-revolutionaries during revolutionary times.

What if it happens to be a revolution with whose goals you disagree? In other words, would you support summary execution for those counter-revolutionaries in a revolution whose goal was to put the Taliban into power?

Boru

But in the situation you gave about my loved one being killed, I would not support the death penalty unless they were killed by a counterrevolutionary insurrection.

---

(January 19, 2014 at 1:16 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:I oppose the death penalty, but believe in summary execution for counter-revolutionaries during revolutionary times.

What if it happens to be a revolution with whose goals you disagree? In other words, would you support summary execution for those counter-revolutionaries in a revolution whose goal was to put the Taliban into power?

Boru

Islam is by definition counter-revolutionary.

(January 19, 2014 at 1:09 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm)Cinjin Wrote: I trust hardly no one, but I'm not willing to use that mindset as a reason to feed and house human garbage.

The system is far too imperfect.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocenc...-death-row

The system is imperfect. I wish it wasn't, but the handful of lives that are lost is just a part of the imperfect world we live in. It would be nice if alcohol didn't cause people to kill others with motor vehicles, but the far greater majority outweighs the need to do away with cold beers and good bourbon. Most of us have never killed anyone after a night of drinking. The examples of any imperfect system are endless, but that doesn't mean we do away with them. If your son or my son is murdered, and the person on trial is found guilty, I'm not about to assume that he's actually innocent simply because 1 out of 40 got dealt a bad deal.

Additionally, life in prison would be worse for me. It would be more merciful IMO to kill me rather than put me in a cage for the remainder of my life.

(January 19, 2014 at 1:16 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote: But in the situation you gave about my loved one being killed, I would not support the death penalty unless they were killed by a counterrevolutionary insurrection.

---

(January 19, 2014 at 1:16 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: What if it happens to be a revolution with whose goals you disagree? In other words, would you support summary execution for those counter-revolutionaries in a revolution whose goal was to put the Taliban into power?

Boru

Islam is by definition counter-revolutionary.

Please don't dodge the question. I asked about putting the Taliban into power, not Islamics.

Suppose we take Indonesia as a hypothetical. It has the largest population of any Muslim nation on earth, but the government is completely secular and the constitution guarantees religious freedom, which is enforced by numerous laws.

Suppose a group aiming to set up a Taliban-controlled government began a revolution. Moderate Muslims along with the minority Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and the non-religious in the country begin a counter-revolution to stop the Taliban supporters. Would you support the summary execution of these counter-revolutionaries?

Boru

(January 19, 2014 at 1:30 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 1:16 pm)EgoRaptor Wrote: But in the situation you gave about my loved one being killed, I would not support the death penalty unless they were killed by a counterrevolutionary insurrection.

---

Islam is by definition counter-revolutionary.

Please don't dodge the question. I asked about putting the Taliban into power, not Islamics.

Suppose we take Indonesia as a hypothetical. It has the largest population of any Muslim nation on earth, but the government is completely secular and the constitution guarantees religious freedom, which is enforced by numerous laws.

Suppose a group aiming to set up a Taliban-controlled government began a revolution. Moderate Muslims along with the minority Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and the non-religious in the country begin a counter-revolution to stop the Taliban supporters. Would you support the summary execution of these counter-revolutionaries?

Boru

I was referring purely to a Sadean, republican, anti-clerical & radical revolution.