by Amazing 272 Replies latest jw friends
Hi Abaddon,
Personally, I think we should chop off the hands of those who would steal here too. And as for anyone commiting adultry, male or female, they should be buriedup to their head in the sand and have rocks thrown at them.
Tell me, in Europe, do the police even carry guns? Or do they shout "Stop! or I'll say stop again!"
Hi SixOfNine: I read both your recent posts. I agree that Koresh and his hinchmen were primarily responsible for what happened at Waco. Koresh was an ex-convict who worked his way into the Branch Davidian. This was a mild cult that started over 150 years ago, but before long he was in total charge.
However, I believe that he may also have been somewhat mentally ill, because he believed his own crap. Mentally ill people can be 'pushed' over the edge.
My concern with the government in this case is that they had no business surrounding the compound, and then ordering a tank to penetrate walls. During the seige at Waco, Mr. Koresh left the compound many times to go into town and buy supplies. The government had plenty of opportunity to hold him then.
There are differing opinions on this situation, and differing views of the evidence. I will not debate those, other than to say that the federal government at times does go way beyond what it is authorized to do by law. Ruby Ridge, where Randy Weaver's wife, baby, son, and dog were gunned down is an example. And the ATF Agents who did this are finally standing trial as the criminals they are.
My point in bringing up Waco and Ruby Ridge is that these events are what triggered McVeigh to act out his revenge. Nevertheless, none of this gives McVeigh the right to take the law into his own hands. He could have focused all his energy and talent into forming a government watch group and bringing government people to justice, gettings laws changed, etc. Instead, McVeigh chose to kill in a cold-blooded fashion.
We live in a complex world. Sometimes killing is justified, such as self-defence, or in acts of justice. Most of the time killing is not justified. Sometimes peaceful solutions will work and other times the only remaining alternative is revolution which then involves killing. The results of a revolution will determine how the history books are written, and thus, whther the justifications are deemed valid. If George Washington had failed, and the British prevailed, then I am sure the history books we studied would have painted the revolution as bad. Whereas, because he won, the history books paint the revolution in a favorable light. In cases like McVeigh's, there is only one color - red - for blood - for the cold blooded murders of 168 innocent people who had nothing to do with his cause.
Amazing
This might sound like a dumb question, but...
What are inalienable human rights? Right to life seems to be one of them. Are there others? Is a right to freedom one of them? If it is (and I'm not sure if it is or not), then why is it acceptable to allow the government to take a criminal's right to freedom away, but not his right to life? Is there only one sacred right - that is life?
I'm really curious. I'm on the fence on this one. I've given it a lot of thought and it is scary to me to put that much power in the hands of the government, as far as taking life. But part of me asks what rights do we really have as humans, and are there situations in which we forfeit those rights, maybe including right to life? We usually have no problem taking the life of an animal if it kills a human - do animals not have a right to life, but humans do? Maybe I'm going way off base here, but I think there are some interesting avenues to discuss.
rem
If you admit that you killed over 150 men, women and defenseless children, then you die.
Slipnslidemaster: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
- Albert Einstein
Wow!!! What a thread! Mighty emotional topic.
Just a few thoughts. First off I truly pity those who think violent punishment is the answer for various crimes (at least in relatively civilized society). It is obvious they know little or nothing of how the mind works and how childhood will have lifelong effects on us. May as well still be JW imo......
One point I would like to make that many death-penalty supposrters need to know is this: the cost of a trial involving the death penalty is much more costly than housing and feeding an inmate for life so spare us those weak arguments please.
The fact that there is a death penalty in America clearly demonstrates that, as a people, we have not yet graduated to a more civilized way of thinking. But then again we are largely a "Christian" nation so no explantation is really necessary, is it?
Somewhere along the way in this thread I saw mention of how in this country the People call the shots. Bullshit. The people of America have one common (and shameful) problem when it comes to electing representatives at all levels: Apathy. Bush is president and Ashcroft is the attorney general so that pretty much blows that assertion, (that we call the shots) away, doesn't it? America is a Republic. Not a democracy. The reason for this is that the founding fathers many like to look so wistfully back on were actually a bit elitist. Of course it has it's advantages, i.e. the senate. If we weren't a republic we wouldn't have it. Then who would keep an eye on the House? (and no, I don't mean White House though it is a good idea)
I think McVeigh committed an atrocious crime, absolutely. I think he'd have suffered more for it if he had been sent to some horrible prison for life where he could be someone's "bitch" and have no control over his life. But hey, if it makes some of you happier to give him the shorter, easier (but more barbaric) way out, so be it.
And lastly, I saw a call for ideas on how to make the prison system better. I hope that there is at least someone out there who might agree that if we want to change the justice/prison system our first steps need to be taken elsewhere. If we put more resources into our children we would have far less young adults headed toward the courts and prison. But that is costly and requires admitting what we do wrong, delayed gratification, the list of things that makes this the less appealing choice goes on and on. I guess, in the meantime we can just assure ourselves we are doing a good job, throw our hands up in the air and wonder what went wrong. It does seem to be the American way.
Horrified at the whole mess--
Julie
Hi Rem: You asked, "What are inalienable human rights?"
These are rights that cannot be denied or segregated from each individual human. They are primarily 'life', 'liberty,' and 'pursuit of happiness.'
This is the 'legal theory' of the USA, that all rights are inherant in the people, and the people grant or loan power to a "limited" government. This is normal fundamental of a capitalist country.
In some nations you will see the same or more rights granted, but the 'legal theory' is that the 'State' has the rights and grants them to the people as it wishes. This is a fundamnetal of Communism.
I prefer the 'legal theory' that the people hold the rights. If for no other reason than what we witness when we observe the absolute power of the Watch Tower Society ruling from the Top down.
You continued, "Right to life seems to be one of them. Are there others? Is a right to freedom one of them? If it is (and I'm not sure if it is or not), then why is it acceptable to allow the government to take a criminal's right to freedom away, but not his right to life? Is there only one sacred right - that is life?"
You make a good point. And I can add, what is life without freedom? What kind of lunacy allows us to put people behind bars to suffer? Better to remove them from this world. Some believe that capital punishment make the rest of us as bad as the criminals, but I think that logic is flawed.
First, the criminal who takes a child, as in the case of Wesley Allen Dodd, rapes and tortures the child and then kills the child did so for wanton selfish reasons. The child was not given due process, nor was guilty of any crime. The child suffered torment and death at the hands of a criminal.
Whereas when the State arrests the criminal, like Mr. Dodd, and then puts him through 'due process' he has every opportunity to prove his innocence, argue his case, and the bruden was on the State to prove him guilty. He admitted guilt and requested the death penalty as did Mr. Mcveigh. In my opinion, we are not just as bad as criminals when we execute. We are in a completely different frame of reference. We are seeking justice, protection of the rights of the accused, and employ every opportunity to help the accused.
I believe that those who try to lump society in bed with criminals when we exercize the death penalty are reaching for straws to support their twisted notion that somehow the death penalty is immoral.
Example: If a criminal breaks into my house and threatens me and my family, and I manage to get hold of my gun and kill the criminal, that is called self-defense. I executed the criminal with the same level of death penalty to him as he would have received he been convicted of killing me. The only difference was the level of due process and that fact that I saved my own life.
I see nothing immoral about the death penalty. My only concern is that we have a mechanism to assure due process, 100% certainty of guilt, and then only in cases where the criminal acted with malice of forethought and planned the crime, and he/she wantonly killed people.
Amazing
I'm really curious. I'm on the fence on this one. I've given it a lot of thought and it is scary to me to put that much power in the hands of the government, as far as taking life. But part of me asks what rights do we really have as humans, and are there situations in which we forfeit those rights, maybe including right to life? We usually have no problem taking the life of an animal if it kills a human - do animals not have a right to life, but humans do? Maybe I'm going way off base here, but I think there are some interesting avenues to discuss.
Julie,
That was masterfully put, and I agree with you completely (and admire your writing style!).
If we put more resources into our children we would have far less young adults headed toward the courts and prison. But that is costly and requires admitting what we do wrong, delayed gratification, the list of things that makes this the less appealing choice goes on and on. I guess, in the meantime we can just assure ourselves we are doing a good job, throw our hands up in the air and wonder what went wrong. It does seem to be the American way.This says it all. Rather than take the time to really fix the problems in this country (i.e. neglecting their children and expecting society to do the job for them), most people would rather sit around and moan and groan about all these evil people in the world that need to be locked up or killed.
But you're right, that would require (gasp) effort on their part, and (gasp) admitting they are not leading perfect lives.
These are rights that cannot be denied or segregated from each individual human. They are primarily 'life', 'liberty,' and 'pursuit of happiness.'
That is exactly my point, Amazing. I'm having trouble understanding why it is acceptable to deny a criminal the right to "liberty" by putting him in prison, but not to deny the right to "life". To me it seems that if one says that denying the right to life is "barbaric", it is just as barbaric to deny the right to "liberty". So are we really any better than savages if we get rid of the death penalty, but keep prisons? This is the only point in which I can see the opponents of the death penalty talking from both sides of their mouth. Are certain human rights more valuable than others? If they are all inalienable, then how can we pick and choose which ones the government can take and which ones it can not?
What is the solution? I don't know, but this discussion has helped me see both sides of the issue much better. My hunch is that giving the state the power to execute is a bad idea, but I also see cases in which death seems justifiable.
rem
Hi Julie:
You said, "Wow!!! What a thread! Mighty emotional topic."
Yes it is, and there are many different views.
You said, "Just a few thoughts. First off I truly pity those who think violent punishment is the answer for various crimes (at least in relatively civilized society)."
I generally agree with you if you are speaking of the public whippings given out in some countries, etc. The death penalty, as administered in the USA is not violent, but a peaceful way to go. First, an injection to put the criminal to sleep, and then the lethal injection.
You continued, "It is obvious they know little or nothing of how the mind works and how childhood will have lifelong effects on us. May as well still be JW imo......"
I am not certain what you mean here, or what point you are maiing with this. I will say that the violence a child gets exposed to that causdes harm is noit the peaceful way that the justice system executes criminals, but the hitting by abusive parents, violence at school, and in movies, etc.
You continued, "One point I would like to make that many death-penalty supposrters need to know is this: the cost of a trial involving the death penalty is much more costly than housing and feeding an inmate for life so spare us those weak arguments please."
Then, prove your point. Where is the evidence to support your claim. The cost of a trial where a person gets convicted is going to occur whether they are sentanced to death or not. Secondly, once executed, they do not tie up court costs with numerous appeals and battles for life. I would have to see the actual cost from an objective study to be convinced of your claim.
You continued, "The fact that there is a death penalty in America clearly demonstrates that, as a people, we have not yet graduated to a more civilized way of thinking. But then again we are largely a "Christian" nation so no explantation is really necessary, is it?"
I disagree with you on both counts. The use of execution does not mean we are not civilized, nor does our being mostly Christian have anything to do with our being advanced or not. The evil criminal who raped, tortures, mutulates, and kills innocent victims are the uncivilized animals ... and taking away their life is the only fair thing to do.
I admitted at the beginning of this topic that I am in favor of suspending the death penalty where there is some shadow of doubt of guilt. In McVeigh's case, he proudly admits his guilt with cold malice ... Death is the only merciful way to deal with this evil man. Keeping these people in jail for 30, 40, 50 or more years does no one any good.
Uou continued, "Somewhere along the way in this thread I saw mention of how in this country the People call the shots. Bullshit. The people of America have one common (and shameful) problem when it comes to electing representatives at all levels: Apathy."
There is apathy, but I disagree with your premise that we are totally apathic. The political dynamics in the USA are a little more complex. Admitedly not always good, but it is still a workable system.
You continued, "Bush is president and Ashcroft is the attorney general so that pretty much blows that assertion, (that we call the shots) away, doesn't it?"[/i}
No! Tell me how Bush as President and Ashcroft as AG somehow blows the assertion that the people of the USA call the shots?
You continued, "America is a Republic. Not a democracy. The reason for this is that the founding fathers many like to look so wistfully back on were actually a bit elitist."
The reasons for the USA being a republic are not because the founding fathers were elitists. They simply recognized that a republic could operate more efficiently in some ways, and in others would operate more slowly so as to stem the tide of mob mentality. There are benefits and drawbacks to any political system.
You continued, "Of course it has it's advantages, i.e. the senate. If we weren't a republic we wouldn't have it. Then who would keep an eye on the House? (and no, I don't mean White House though it is a good idea)"
We have a system of checks and balances. Each branch has powers that check the other branches. Division of power is all-important to a system of government. The Congress, which is the most powerful is split into two levels to keeps its power in check. It is not perfect, but it works.
You continued, "I think McVeigh committed an atrocious crime, absolutely. I think he'd have suffered more for it if he had been sent to some horrible prison for life where he could be someone's "bitch" and have no control over his life."
So this is your definition of justice? To have some guy raped and tortured for life? How does that make you better than those of us who want McVeigh executed? How does that make you more civil and merciful? Tell me, is not this view you hold nothing but self-serving hypocrisy?
You continued, "But hey, if it makes some of you happier to give him the shorter, easier (but more barbaric) way out, so be it."
More barbaric way out? You have got to be kidding!!! You just endorsed making McVeigh someone's bitch for life, a life of torture and hell - to what end? So you can somehow feel better that he was not executed? Putting McVeigh to sleep and then lethally injecting him is barbaric? I could not disagree with you more.
You continued, [i]"And lastly, I saw a call for ideas on how to make the prison system better. I hope that there is at least someone out there who might agree that if we want to change the justice/prison system our first steps need to be taken elsewhere. If we put more resources into our children we would have far less young adults headed toward the courts and prison. But that is costly and requires admitting what we do wrong, delayed gratification, the list of things that makes this the less appealing choice goes on and on. I guess, in the meantime we can just assure ourselves we are doing a good job, throw our hands up in the air and wonder what went wrong. It does seem to be the American way."
I agree with you that a better job needs to be done at home. Our basic values system needs to be strengthened. But, even in the best of cricumstances some 'individuals' will never adapt good social training, and will go off on their own to kill, rape, and torture. Unless and until medical science can uncover why this happens, if indeed it is a medical problem and not just a moral problem, then we might be able to curb crime.
Ever since humans have walked the earth we have been both predator and victim. Survival has taken many turns in dealing with this. old age and premature death happens in nature all the time. Humans are struggling through many issues that affect our civilization. I support the death penalty only in those cases where 100% certainty is assured and only in those cases where the crime is heineous, such as McVeigh's, and only a peaceful lethal injection. I cannot see where after a trial where McVeigh was afforded due process, where he was given opportunity to continue appeals and stay alive, and where all else was done to protect his rights, that somehow we are barbaric because we mercifully put him to sleep. - Amazing
Hi Julie,
you said:
It is obvious they know little or nothing of how the mind works and how childhood will have lifelong effects on us.I do understand how childhood will have long effects on us. I myself endured much as a child from a mother who was manic depressive and took out her anger on me. I'm not looking for pity, I just want to make it clear that being raised in an abusive home did not turn me into a killer. In my opinion, those who blame childhood, or traumatic experiences on their wrongdoings are cowards.
In this country many states have the death penalty. Everyone knows this. Even the person who decides to plant a bomb and kill children knows this. They are not blind to the consequences that face them if they commit these crimes.
I think he'd have suffered more for it if he had been sent to some horrible prison for life where he could be someone's "bitch" and have no control over his life.Is it your opinion then that these violent criminals should be tortured and suffer inhumane consequences? Sodomy as an alternative? Personally, I would rather die than be raped over and over again.
