by Amazing 272 Replies latest jw friends
Seeker,
I understand your point, but what about the children's right not to hear that word? Haven't their civil rights been violated as well? I guess what I am trying to say is I think sometimes we get so involved in a person's right to say something, that we forget about the rights of the person that is listening. Does that make any sense?
Thanks,
Rutht
Ruth,
What you say makes perfect sense. Rights come with responsibilities. If a person was violating a child's right not to hear such talk, other adults would step in and do something about it.
Roaming feline,
I'm not at all opposed to people defending themselves and agree that the law leans too heavily on the rights of the criminal.
I am, however opposed to legal killing. Most civilised societies are. I am stunned at Amazings attitude particularly in view of the intelligent stuff of his that I usually enjoy reading.
Englishman.
..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
If executing this man does not deter another adult militia type from blowing up another building full of innocents(it probably won't) it very well could however deter a frustrated 14 year old from shooting up his(her) schoolmates or someone else.My point is if executing a convicted killer convinces one person not to kill today, it was well worth it.
Cowboy,
I don't agree. Legalised killing only makes violence more common place, more the norm.
Just in case anyone thinks that I'm a bleeding heart, you couldn't be more wrong. I would kill to defend my family. My argument is that the state should be above this sort of thing, instead it panders to basic instincts of retribution seeking whilst it gives in to populism.
During the 1700's, there were, in the UK, literally hundreds of different crimes for which one could be hanged, including stealing a loaf of bread. Bread was still stolen, deer was still poached, proving that the idea of the death penalty being a deterrent was based on a false premise.
The death penalty does not a decent society make.
Englishman.
..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
I never thought I would a "bleeding heart liberal" like you JanH! I am a Libertarian by philosophy, but that's irrelevant. I do not support the Libertarian party, nor many of their platforms.
For almost my entire life I've been "for" the death penalty, and it's only been in the last year that I've given serious thought to the matter. I've concluded that all my reasons for supporting it were irrational: it makes the victim's survivors "feel good" or "have closure"; it guarantees that the murderer will never be in prison and be released should laws change in the future; the severity of the punishment fits the severity of the crime. These reasons are ALL irrational.
Our society does not torture and rape rapists who've done the same thing to their victims, does it? We don't shoot people in the leg who have shot someone else in the leg. We don't beat the beaters and we don't run over with cars the vehicular man-slaughterers.
If we kill the killers, then we are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
The more evidence I see about DNA tests absolutely confirming the innocence of people who've been on death row for decades, the more I'm convinced we are not qualified to issue such a permanent and irrecovable punishment.
But my BEST argument against the death penalty is that it is EXACTLY the same penalty that "Jehovah God-of-the-Bible" enjoys the most. I don't like "Jehovah God-of-the-Bible" and don't want to emulate him. Whatever he has done has always been proven to be wrong. And stupid.
Just because some humans have no respect for life does not mean that governments have to stoop to their level.
Farkel
I don't disagree with your logic Englishman,but I do believe the death penalty has some value as a deterrent.Granted, we'll never know what's in anothers mind,but I can feel justified in my stand because of it.I admit though that anyone willing to commit pre-meditated murder is probably too far gone to care about the consequences.As I said before I'm too biased in this case...
t very well could however deter a frustrated 14 year old from shooting up his(her) schoolmates or someone else.
I would tend to think that it would have the opposite effect, to be honest. That frustrated 14-year-old, being an impressionable 14-year-old, will learn an important lesson: society solves its problems through the use of violence. Therefore...
Our society does not torture and rape rapists who've done the same thing to their victims, does it? We don't shoot people in the leg who have shot someone else in the leg. We don't beat the beaters and we don't run over with cars the vehicular man-slaughterers.If we kill the killers, then we are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
The more evidence I see about DNA tests absolutely confirming the innocence of people who've been on death row for decades, the more I'm convinced we are not qualified to issue such a permanent and irrecovable punishment.
Very good point! I had not considered this. Something I had considered, however, was how likely the alleged killer would be to kill again... if the death penalty is available at all, this should be thoroughly considered. Something else to consider as far as the gov't issuing the death penalty... Is it just to intimidate? Just to clear another prison cell? A criminal should be punished according to the crime(s) committed, NOT according to public opinion and outcry when the public has not been privy to all evidence available.
******I will always hope. Reality has a vile habit of shattering the spirit...
when it is already broken.******
the answer to this problem is simple - have janh rewrite the american constitution and then run the country as dictator - in fact janh should rule the world as he personally has the answer to all its problems.
AG
this would also allow him ample opportunity to steal more ideas form the thesis of kim oyhus and say they were his.
http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~kim/Thesis.html
Cowboy very sad to hear about your little nephew - belated condolences.
