(January 19, 2014 at 2:11 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 1. The case can be (and I think, has been) made that it is a moral imperative for a private citizen to stop a crime if it is in his power to do so. An individual may legally restrain a wrong-doer, for example. But for an individual to exact the ultimate penalty is generally termed 'vigilante justice.'

Yes it is legal to restrain a criminal, but I am talking about actual imprisonment. You are saying that it immoral for the state to kill someone because it would be immoral for a person to do so. But by that same logic it should be immoral for the state to imprison someone for 3 years for robbery because it would be immoral for an individual to imprison that robber for the same amount of time.

(January 19, 2014 at 2:11 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 2. I'm unconvinced that even in the face of overwhelming evidence (such as multiple corroborative witness or a confession) that the death penalty is a good idea. As for the Aurora shooter, the case can be made that the mentally ill are not normally put to death for their actions.

Well I do believe that more than just eyewitnesses or a confession should determine if someone should be placed on death row. I think there should be a healthy combination of video evidence, DNA evidence, and eyewitnesses. I think the video evidence should be necessary to place someone on death row. Essentially what I am supporting is a much more limited death penalty, until crime scene technology catches up to a point where it can be used more liberally.

(January 19, 2014 at 2:11 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 3. I agree that prison sentences, even hefty ones, are no more a deterrent to crime than is the death penalty. I was simply answering a point often brought up by death-penalty supporters. And, honestly, how much of a burden are life-time inmates to the taxpayers? Isn't it worth the little bit it costs to keep them locked up and away from other people, especially when the very real alternative is executing an innocent person?

It doesn't cost a little bit though, prisons are expensive to maintain. I don't think it is worth it to keep them locked away rather than killed, however as I mentioned previously there should be more stringent rules in place to prevent innocents from being executed.

(January 19, 2014 at 2:11 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 4. Same answer, with the caveat that you can't exonerate a dead man.

Again why I believe in a limited death penalty for the time being. We should only be killing prisoners where the state has met a standard (separate from a guilty verdict) necessary to allow the death penalty.

(January 19, 2014 at 2:11 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 5. I suppose I'm simply not as willing as you are to put a price on human life.

Human life unfortunately does have a price however.

(January 19, 2014 at 2:11 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: 6. I think of imprisonment as segregation rather than vengeance. I speak of someone who was falsely imprisoned for a number of months.

I disagree. It should be about segregation but I don't believe that is how most people view it and why it exists.

Quote:The list of innocents killed would likely only shrink over time as we get better at determining who is really innocent or guilty.

Nowhere near a good enough excuse. I presume you think that you would never be one of the unfortunate "accidents?"

Quote: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.

Your method would make it incredibly worse. Death for the poor who get some over-worked public defender to handle their case? Sorry man. Don't go killing everyone in my name...which is what the state professes to do.

Quote:Human life unfortunately does have a price however.

Really? What is your own life worth? Actual figures would be appreciated.

Boru

(January 19, 2014 at 4:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The list of innocents killed would likely only shrink over time as we get better at determining who is really innocent or guilty.

Nowhere near a good enough excuse. I presume you think that you would never be one of the unfortunate "accidents?"

I would hope, but I don't think something should be abandoned because a few accidents slip through the cracks. I feel it's something that should be kept, but improved over time. I don't think you should give the death penalty to someone who just killed another person, but someone who skins people alive and wears their skin or uses it as furniture upholstery should probably be put down and forgotten.

Quote:You wouldn't just kill those who disagree, but only those who participate in active counterrevolutionary activity. Freedom of the press & speech will remain,

That's a lovely thought, but I'm not sure history has every recorded such toleration of dissent by any group of revolutionaries. Opposition presses are routinely burned and individuals are routinely jailed, tortured and killed for speaking against the revolution. This is true even of your own American Revolution.

Quote:but Revolutionary Guards must be established to put down any who would take up arms against the revolution.

'Revolutionary Guards' tend - of necessity - towards fanaticism. I think you're too eager to impart noble motives to people who may not have them.

Quote:Everyone must be armed so that the popular revolution can suppress any uprising.

You realize, of course, that this means the counter-revolutionaries must also be armed, right? This quickly turns your 'uprising' into a second civil war (the first being the initial revolution that sparked the counter one).

Quote:Of course, all this is merely a temporary measure in the building of a Anarchistic Republic.

Has history ever, even once, recorded a successful Anarchistic Republic?

Quote:When the republic has been created the death penalty will be abolished.

I admire you, Ego, I really do. I don't think I've ever run across someone with so many patently unworkable plans.

Boru

What if I were the innocent one who got a guilty conviction?
If I were the one to get dealt that bad hand, that would truly suck, and of course, I would be angry at the system.

However, there's a difference, and THIS is my point right here:
If I was about to be executed rather than put into prison for the remainder of my life, I would STILL support the death penalty. Imprisonment is FAR worse an injustice than death by lethal injection IMO. My anger at that moment would not be over the fact that I was about to be executed, but rather that the system had failed me in proving my innocence. Opponents to the death penalty think that life in a cage is somehow "less unjust" for an innocent man. I do not for a moment feel that that is a legitimate defense of life imprisonment.

Additionally, as the human race finds more and more ways (DNA, fiber analysis, lie detection, etc) to prove one's innocence, this already comparatively small amount of injustices will continue to diminish.

But lets look at the real issue: Why the bleeding heart? Why the injection of morality to the subject?
A homicidal scumbag kills 3 innocent people. Your child was one them. He appears to show no remorse and never admits to killing anyone even though the evidence against him is overwhelming and astonishing. Why keep him around? What moral obligation do I have to feed and house a worthless sack of shit that has never and will never give anything to society? What god has deemed his life valuable? Who's religion are we following?

It's ok to kill in a war. It's ok to be soldier. It's ok to kill in self defense. It's ok to kill billions of animals. Most will even turn a blind eye if a father kills someone who raped and murder his little girl, but hey, it's not ok to legally execute a filthy cold-blooded killer.
I don't buy it and although I hate the fact that I'm on the same side as many religious halfwits on this issue, I cannot understand why an atheist would ascribe some kind of moral dilemma to having justice be done.

It's simple really: You took an innocent life. You forfeit your own.

(January 19, 2014 at 4:12 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Human life unfortunately does have a price however.

Really? What is your own life worth? Actual figures would be appreciated.

Boru

It's hard to give actual figures, but I know my life is not worth much at all. It would also vary from person to person. We all know there is worth attributed to our lives anyways. I would give up myself and 9 other guys like me if it meant that MLK wasn't assassinated, because I do believe that the value of his life would have been greater than mine (or most people). People also sacrifice themselves for loved ones too because they place the value of that person's life over their own. It's the same reason why millions mourned over JFK, versus about 100 for my grandfather.

(January 19, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Cinjin Wrote: What if I were the innocent one who got a guilty conviction?
If I were the one to get dealt that bad hand, that would truly suck, and of course, I would be angry at the system.

However, there's a difference, and THIS is my point right here:
If I was about to be executed rather than put into prison for the remainder of my life, I would STILL support the death penalty. Imprisonment is FAR worse an injustice than death by lethal injection IMO. My anger at that moment would not be over the fact that I was about to be executed, but rather that the system had failed me in proving my innocence. Opponents to the death penalty think that life in a cage is somehow "less unjust" for an innocent man. I do not for a moment feel that that is a legitimate defense of life imprisonment.

The difference is between reversible harm and irreversible harm in punishing an innocent; you can compensate a wrongly convicted lifer and return them to society; you can't bring the dead back to life.

I honestly didn't read the rest as it started with a fallacious appeal, ignored well understood principles of law and justice, and proceeded to ramble ever more incoherently.

(January 19, 2014 at 5:14 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(January 19, 2014 at 5:06 pm)Cinjin Wrote: What if I were the innocent one who got a guilty conviction?
If I were the one to get dealt that bad hand, that would truly suck, and of course, I would be angry at the system.

However, there's a difference, and THIS is my point right here:
If I was about to be executed rather than put into prison for the remainder of my life, I would STILL support the death penalty. Imprisonment is FAR worse an injustice than death by lethal injection IMO. My anger at that moment would not be over the fact that I was about to be executed, but rather that the system had failed me in proving my innocence. Opponents to the death penalty think that life in a cage is somehow "less unjust" for an innocent man. I do not for a moment feel that that is a legitimate defense of life imprisonment.

The difference is between reversible harm and irreversible harm in punishing an innocent; you can compensate a wrongly convicted lifer and return them to society; you can't bring the dead back to life.

I honestly didn't read the rest as it started with a fallacious appeal, ignored well understood principles of law and justice, and proceeded to ramble ever more incoherently.

Compensation is subject to the person being compensated. There is no amount of money that I would trade away my freedom for. I stopped reading after the rest, since your argument is fallacious and your point heavily biased.

I'm just kidding. I read it and I can only conclude that you read mine as well and simply copped out on being able to respond to my very rational and well though points.

What about this is "incoherent" to you? "If you take a life, you forfeit your own."

Quote:I would hope, but I don't think something should be abandoned because a few accidents slip through the cracks.

When talking about life and death I could not possibly disagree with you more strongly.