One wonders how a person without rights can have any responsibilities, such as the responsibility to pay for the violation of the rights of others. It's a double edged sword.

(July 17, 2014 at 10:03 pm)Rhythm Wrote: One wonders how a person without rights can have any responsibilities, such as the responsibility to pay for the violation of the rights of others. It's a double edged sword.

Indeed. But the common citizen prefers arguing in favor of concentration camps and can't grasp with those those concepts. B sides using the an eye for an eye method would lead to absurdities, the case of an individual being sentenced for robbing or theft, what would the punishment be? Since the punishment for murder is death, the punishment for robbing would be... A prohibition of owning patrimony... Sounds rubbish

I guess maybe I don't support inalienable rights then. By default you should have certain rights, but it is possible to take some actions that deem you unworthy of the right to life. We are social creatures. If an individual is completely incapable of working within a group, that person must be removed. Permanently if necessary.

What's the necessity? I'm onboard with removing them, but even permanently removing someone doesn't spell out a death penalty, you know? Convicted murderers do sometimes get out of prison, and then manage not to kill anyone else (lord knows how..lol).

(July 17, 2014 at 10:13 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I guess maybe I don't support inalienable rights then. By default you should have certain rights, but it is possible to take some actions that deem you unworthy of the right to life. We are social creatures. If an individual is completely incapable of working within a group, that person must be removed. Permanently if necessary.

It's a legitimate position if you prefer but you don't support human rights then, if you read trough the whole concept and substance you'll notice they have certain characteristics, such as inalienability... The same applies to fundamental rights on a national scale... Either everyone has them or not, you can't just create a special category of people and say 'these people can't have rights A and B'. At most you could incapacitate someone temporarily from having a right.

We can go into semantics if you want, but the idea of people having any rights is a human concept anyway. Concepts are up to interpretation. They aren't set in stone. One such right is liberty. You may say someone with a life sentence just has their liberty restricted, but I could make a case that it has been removed as well. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All of which are subjective to an extent.

(July 17, 2014 at 9:06 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Did you miss the part where it's estimated that 4% of prisoners on death row are innocent?

Or to put it in starker numbers: 1 in 25

Since 1976, around 1,300 people have been executed in the USA. If 4% of them happened to be innocent, then in the last 38 years we may have executed as many as 52 people for crimes they did not commit.

(July 18, 2014 at 7:37 am)Tonus Wrote:

(July 17, 2014 at 9:06 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Did you miss the part where it's estimated that 4% of prisoners on death row are innocent?

Or to put it in starker numbers: 1 in 25

Since 1976, around 1,300 people have been executed in the USA. If 4% of them happened to be innocent, then in the last 38 years we may have executed as many as 52 people for crimes they did not commit.

Can I ask how does the US get so many sentences wrong? Is there a cause? For instance Japan still has capital punishment, but they very rarely use it, this year the first execution was on June I think.

I'm against the death penalty primarily for the many reasons already given, and also because I think more research into the neurobiology of criminals will continue to reveal that they are just not wired like the rest of us... many times due to injustices that have been done to them at one time or another in their lives... and to some degree I pity even the worst.

(July 18, 2014 at 8:19 am)Blackout Wrote: Can I ask how does the US get so many sentences wrong? Is there a cause?

Crime investigation isn't easy. Crime scenes tend to be very messy and often just as uncooperative as any prospective witnesses. Human memory is a very fickle and unreliable thing, even if we assume that the witnesses to a crime are indeed witnesses and are telling the truth. Confessions are shockingly easy to obtain, sometimes even when the police aren't trying to force one out of a person. Even with more modern methods of crime scene investigation and forensics, it's not uncommon for evidence to point at the wrong person and for innocent people to become suspects or be convicted of a crime they had no part in.

This uncertainty is exacerbated when the crimes are shocking or frightening, because there is considerable pressure on the police to show that they're making progress towards solving it and bringing the perpetrator(s) to justice. And if the crime is horrifying enough, there is added pressure to apply the death penalty (in those states that have it). The desire to seek closure in those instances makes it very easy for the public to accept that John Doe is definitely the guy, regardless of how thin the case might be, and thus the prosecutors are under pressure to make sure the case holds up. In those instances where we might be applying the ultimate punishment, there could be immense pressure in favor of getting it done, as oppose to getting it right.