Death Penalty

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]and1bball4mk wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
nope, sorry - don’t accept the argument - it is based in isolation. If our society prevented EVERY preventable innocent death in this country, then that argument would have some validity, but we allow thousands to die every year in preventable deaths. [/quote]

He makes a perfectly fine point and your rebuttal doesn’t make any sense. The fact that our society doesn’t prevent every preventable death has nothing to do with anything. At the end of the day, an innocent person will DIE because the State deemed it so. To get rid of that possibility we keep them locked up for life, no parole. If, at a later date, we find out that the person is innocent, we release them and give them a bunch of money for screwing up their life. [/quote]

No, his point was that the state started a process that will result in the death of an innocent individual. This is no different that the state starting a process whereby an individual can get licensed to operate a vehicle and then they cause a vehicular homicide - it starts with a desire on the part of the individual, the intervention by the state, the imposition of a standard and the awareness of the potential outcome (no death penalty is a certain fact, BTW) and then the non-prevention of that outcome.

If the standard is to prevent all innocent loss of life by the action/inaction of the state and ONE LIFE is ONE TOO MANY, there is no rationale ground for not imposing that same standard on every facet of state activity. That’s why the argument is weak/fallacious on its face. It is not possible for the state to engage in any activity if the standard is that not ONE single life can be lost - if that’s the standard, no state anywhere would be able to start ay chain of events, because it cannot prevent the potential for a death to result.

There are plenty of good arguments out there against the death penalty, but this one is not one.

This is an arguement for refinement of the process, improvement of the justice system, standards for attorneys and judges - a host of different component arguments - but not for this issue.[/quote]

You are talking about the difference between secondary and primary effects. The Death Penalty (fact or not) has one purpose, to kill a man, to take away his life. There are secondary effects, sure, but those are not needed in this conversation. Giving someone a license to drive a vehicle does not lead to a primary effect of vehicular homicide, its primary effect is being able to drive a vehicle on state operated streets.

The idea that one is too many came from the idea that you cannot convict someone if there is a shadow of doubt. I would rather let 10 guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man.

[DBCooper]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

However, the reason for the death penalty was the group as a whole or its representatives “the State” was claiming self-defense and that is the “justified homicide” known as the death penalty comes from.[/quote]

no, I’ll disagree with you here too. The death penalty is not intended to be a deterrent, it is not intended to be a “defense” of society". It is the establishment of the value of life.

If I robbed you of $48 and broke your arm and terrorized your girlfriend - i would be punished in equitable terms - restore your $48, pay your medical expenses and any punitive (punishing) charges the court deemed appropriate for my crime - the values are equal and easily understood. The judge is not going to say that your $5,000 in medical expenses is actually only worth the $48 dollars I stole from you . . .

Lets extrapolate - If I killed you for your money, say $48, and the judges sentences me to jail for 40 years, then we as a society accept that I can kill you for $48 and 40 years spent in prison. We have just valued your life at $48 and 40 years in prison. If, on the other hand, we say no, a human life is worth more than that - a human life is more valuable than that - we would utilize the death penalty to take the most valuable thing from the killer, me, that we could - in this case we value nothing above human life - so my life must be taken from me to restore the value of all life.

This is the punishment that fits the crime - the most valuable thing I have is taken from me to punish me for taking the most valuable thing you had from you. all else is secondary.

The death penalty affirms the value of life! anything less, lowers it.[/quote]

Your argument mandates then that there is in fact a definitive value we can place on our lives. In other words, if I get the shit beat out of me by someone, and that person gets 10 years in prison, then my personal safety has been valued at 10 years. If some fucker kills me, and then he is put to death, the value of my life is equal to his. I don’t accept that my life is the same value as a murderer’s. The death penalty affirms the value of life? Killing affirms the value of life? Give me a fucking break.

[Gambit_Lost]

I think some people are better off dead. However, I don’t generally support the death penalty for many of the reasons listed both here and by Mr. Bill O’Reilly

[IrishSteel]

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Your argument mandates then that there is in fact a definitive value we can place on our lives. In other words, if I get the shit beat out of me by someone, and that person gets 10 years in prison, then my personal safety has been valued at 10 years. If some fucker kills me, and then he is put to death, the value of my life is equal to his. I don’t accept that my life is the same value as a murderer’s. The death penalty affirms the value of life? Killing affirms the value of life? Give me a fucking break.[/quote]

Swing and a miss . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You are talking about the difference between secondary and primary effects. The Death Penalty (fact or not) has one purpose, to kill a man, to take away his life. There are secondary effects, sure, but those are not needed in this conversation. Giving someone a license to drive a vehicle does not lead to a primary effect of vehicular homicide, its primary effect is being able to drive a vehicle on state operated streets.

The idea that one is too many came from the idea that you cannot convict someone if there is a shadow of doubt. I would rather let 10 guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man.[/quote]

semantics - the loss of ONE innocent life due to actions of the state is ONE life too many . . .

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

However, the reason for the death penalty was the group as a whole or its representatives “the State” was claiming self-defense and that is the “justified homicide” known as the death penalty comes from.[/quote]

no, I’ll disagree with you here too. The death penalty is not intended to be a deterrent, it is not intended to be a “defense” of society". It is the establishment of the value of life.
[/quote]

So now the State knows the value of people’s lives?

If I robbed you of $48 and broke your arm and terrorized your girlfriend - i would be punished in equitable terms - restore your $48, pay your medical expenses and any punitive (punishing) charges the court deemed appropriate for my crime - the values are equal and easily understood. The judge is not going to say that your $5,000 in medical expenses is actually only worth the $48 dollars I stole from you . . .

About the 48 dollars read below, if you stole that unless they found the property on you they would just send you to jail for robbery and assault and battery. I would have to go to civil court to get my money and punitive damages restored.

Lets extrapolate - If I killed you for your money, say $48, and the judges sentences me to jail for 40 years, then we as a society accept that I can kill you for $48 and 40 years spent in prison. We have just valued your life at $48 and 40 years in prison. If, on the other hand, we say no, a human life is worth more than that - a human life is more valuable than that - we would utilize the death penalty to take the most valuable thing from the killer, me, that we could - in this case we value nothing above human life - so my life must be taken from me to restore the value of all life.

Most valuable thing is your life, but it means shit to me or my family if it is no longer there. That is like saying because you stole my car we are going to blow up your car.

The idea of compensation is okay, not every time does someone feel the compensation is worth it, however by killing you the value of life is not restored it is diminished because we just killed you. And is more so vengeance than compensation.

This is the punishment that fits the crime - the most valuable thing I have is taken from me to punish me for taking the most valuable thing you had from you. all else is secondary.

Killing you is still vengeance if it affects anyone, and how can they value what I and you deem equal. My life is actually not the most important thing to me, it’s secondary so how would the state know that and make the compensation equal? So, if my life is actually of secondary value to something else what are they going to make it equal. Say your wife is secondary to your life, so since my life is equal to your value of your wife they should take her life? Doesn’t make sense, you can’t put a value of life, if you want punishment and deterrent, and compensation, monetary is about as close as you are going to get otherwise you are just killing more people.

The death penalty affirms the value of life! anything less, lowers it.[/quote]

Not really, I’ve been robbed before and my property was never returned to me, not one penny of it, but they asked me to testify in court and the case was aptly named State vs. Sanders, which I know that if they did find my property it would have been returned but they never made him pay in the criminal court case. They would have gone through with the case even if I was not there.

However, I took the guy to civil court and the man had to pay for my property there which the case was named Brother Chris vs. Sanders.

They say the judicial system is a deterrent, well it might be but theoretically that is not the purpose of the legal system when it comes to crimes. It is for the defense of the society, they can say what they want, but that is the reason it is how it is. “Self-Defense” because if want compensation, 40 years of a man being unproductive is not worth my life, neither is killing him. I would rather him pay 10 million dollars to my family than to be put to death.

Do you actually want to counter with a real argument, or will this be the extent of your reasoning on this?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ do you have a real question or are you just going to pussy-foot around the issue?[/quote]

Its a real question.[/quote]

no its a lead-in. Ask the real question . . .[/quote]

If different circumstances surrounding a murder produce different punishments, does that mean that the value of a persons life is somehow decided by the circumstances of their murder?

[IrishSteel]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ do you have a real question or are you just going to pussy-foot around the issue?[/quote]

Its a real question.[/quote]

no its a lead-in. Ask the real question . . .[/quote]

If different circumstances surrounding a murder produce different punishments, does that mean that the value of a persons life is somehow decided by the circumstances of their murder?[/quote]

There it is - despite some of your posts (the same can be said of me too) I think you have a pretty good head on your shoulders . . .

Let me answer by the use of the following statement - life is cheap in the border regions of Mexico. Why do we say that?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ do you have a real question or are you just going to pussy-foot around the issue?[/quote]

Its a real question.[/quote]

no its a lead-in. Ask the real question . . .[/quote]

If different circumstances surrounding a murder produce different punishments, does that mean that the value of a persons life is somehow decided by the circumstances of their murder?[/quote]

There it is - despite some of your posts (the same can be said of me too) I think you have a pretty good head on your shoulders . . .

Let me answer by the use of the following statement - life is cheap in the border regions of Mexico. Why do we say that? [/quote]

Thanks man, you too.

Um. I don’t know… never heard the quote before… indicates that its a dangerous territory and people get killed a lot around there?

Just guessing.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Thanks man, you too.

Um. I don’t know… never heard the quote before… indicates that its a dangerous territory and people get killed a lot around there?

Just guessing.[/quote]

Yes, exactly. It is easy to be killed for the littlest thing in that region. What this means is that live is very poorly valued there. A few dollars, some alcohol, a pissed off thug who wants to rape your wife . . .

that makes the answer to your question the reality that society are always determining the value of life and it rises and falls according the mores and values of that society. That was the point of my post. As I said above, if we say that someone who kills someone for $48 should spend 40 years in prison - we valued life of the deceased accordingly - $48 and 40 years of imprisonment. If I kill you for your shoes, your shoes are more valuable to me than your life - if society refuses to punish me, they agree with my valuation of your life. If they punish me, the level of that punishment declares the value that that society places on your life.

That is why is comes down to that simple equation - if I take a life, I placed a value on that life - it was worth less than whatever my motivation was - society steps in as says, no this is wrong and an improper valuation of your life. Sentencing is taking something from me as punishment for what I have taken from you. They then impose a sentence on me that simultaneously punishes me (takes something of value from me) and reestablishes at what level society values your life.

That is why the death penalty reestablishes the value of life - it simply places the value of life as the most valuable thing in our world and states that the only just punishment (something taken from the offender) for the crime of taking a life (something taken from the victim) is the life of the murderer - nothing else is as valuable as life itself - not imprisonment, not a million billion trillion dollars - life for life. the highest value there is . . .

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Thanks man, you too.

Um. I don’t know… never heard the quote before… indicates that its a dangerous territory and people get killed a lot around there?

Just guessing.[/quote]

Yes, exactly. It is easy to be killed for the littlest thing in that region. What this means is that live is very poorly valued there. A few dollars, some alcohol, a pissed off thug who wants to rape your wife . . .

that makes the answer to your question the reality that society are always determining the value of life and it rises and falls according the mores and values of that society. That was the point of my post. As I said above, if we say that someone who kills someone for $48 should spend 40 years in prison - we valued life of the deceased accordingly - $48 and 40 years of imprisonment. If I kill you for your shoes, your shoes are more valuable to me than your life - if society refuses to punish me, they agree with my valuation of your life. If they punish me, the level of that punishment declares the value that that society places on your life.

That is why is comes down to that simple equation - if I take a life, I placed a value on that life - it was worth less than whatever my motivation was - society steps in as says, no this is wrong and an improper valuation of your life. Sentencing is taking something from me as punishment for what I have taken from you. They then impose a sentence on me that simultaneously punishes me (takes something of value from me) and reestablishes at what level society values your life.

That is why the death penalty reestablishes the value of life - it simply places the value of life as the most valuable thing in our world and states that the only just punishment (something taken from the offender) for the crime of taking a life (something taken from the victim) is the life of the murderer - nothing else is as valuable as life itself - not imprisonment, not a million billion trillion dollars - life for life. the highest value there is . . .
[/quote]

But what about the difference between two guys getting in a fight, the one grabs a bat and hits the other in the head, killing him… and the BTK killer? I certainly don’t think those two cases of one person murdering the other should get the same punishment.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But what about the difference between two guys getting in a fight, the one grabs a bat and hits the other in the head, killing him… and the BTK killer? I certainly don’t think those two cases of one person murdering the other should get the same punishment.[/quote]

Aye! excellent thought to follow on - that’s why our courts do consider intention, premeditation, etc to weigh whether or not they will choose to allow the death penalty to be considered, and then at sentencing mitigating factors (items, issues, emotions not relevant to the guilt or innocence) are considered by the judge as he chooses whether or not to impose the death sentence - then the appeal process is put into place to further provide opportunity to ensure that the verdict was right and the sentence was right. it is because we do value life that we want to make sure that the application of the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime is applied judiciously and correctly. in both the process and application the death penalty reaffirms the value of life.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But what about the difference between two guys getting in a fight, the one grabs a bat and hits the other in the head, killing him… and the BTK killer? I certainly don’t think those two cases of one person murdering the other should get the same punishment.[/quote]

Aye! excellent thought to follow on - that’s why our courts do consider intention, premeditation, etc to weigh whether or not they will choose to allow the death penalty to be considered, and then at sentencing mitigating factors (items, issues, emotions not relevant to the guilt or innocence) are considered by the judge as he chooses whether or not to impose the death sentence - then the appeal process is put into place to further provide opportunity to ensure that the verdict was right and the sentence was right. it is because we do value life that we want to make sure that the application of the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime is applied judiciously and correctly. in both the process and application the death penalty reaffirms the value of life.[/quote]

But it sounds like you’re saying any murder is inherently a value judgement on the other persons life. Is that your position? Are there cases of muder where it’s not?

[DBCooper]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Your argument mandates then that there is in fact a definitive value we can place on our lives. In other words, if I get the shit beat out of me by someone, and that person gets 10 years in prison, then my personal safety has been valued at 10 years. If some fucker kills me, and then he is put to death, the value of my life is equal to his. I don’t accept that my life is the same value as a murderer’s. The death penalty affirms the value of life? Killing affirms the value of life? Give me a fucking break.[/quote]

Swing and a miss . . .[/quote]

Could you explain to me why you think I swung and missed?

[IrishSteel]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But it sounds like you’re saying any murder is inherently a value judgement on the other persons life. Is that your position? Are there cases of muder where it’s not?[/quote]

No, “taking a life” (note the terminology we use) is always a value judgment. I choose to take that person’s life because I value ___________ (fill in the blank).

It’s why accidents are treated different than pre-meditated murder. It’s why self-defense (I value my life more than your motivation for taking it) or defending others (civilian or military sense) is understood to be different that pre-meditated murder. But the conscious taking of a life is always a value declaration.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But it sounds like you’re saying any murder is inherently a value judgement on the other persons life. Is that your position? Are there cases of muder where it’s not?[/quote]

No, “taking a life” (note the terminology we use) is always a value judgment. I choose to take that person’s life because I value ___________ (fill in the blank).

It’s why accidents are treated different than pre-meditated murder. It’s why self-defense (I value my life more than your motivation for taking it) or defending others (civilian or military sense) is understood to be different that pre-meditated murder. But the conscious taking of a life is always a value declaration.[/quote]

I never really thought of it that way.

[DixiesFinest]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But it sounds like you’re saying any murder is inherently a value judgement on the other persons life. Is that your position? Are there cases of muder where it’s not?[/quote]

No, “taking a life” (note the terminology we use) is always a value judgment. I choose to take that person’s life because I value ___________ (fill in the blank).

It’s why accidents are treated different than pre-meditated murder. It’s why self-defense (I value my life more than your motivation for taking it) or defending others (civilian or military sense) is understood to be different that pre-meditated murder. But the conscious taking of a life is always a value declaration.[/quote]

Well said

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You are talking about the difference between secondary and primary effects. The Death Penalty (fact or not) has one purpose, to kill a man, to take away his life. There are secondary effects, sure, but those are not needed in this conversation. Giving someone a license to drive a vehicle does not lead to a primary effect of vehicular homicide, its primary effect is being able to drive a vehicle on state operated streets.

The idea that one is too many came from the idea that you cannot convict someone if there is a shadow of doubt. I would rather let 10 guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man.[/quote]

semantics - the loss of ONE innocent life due to actions of the state is ONE life too many . . .[/quote]

That is what I said, or at least mean.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

However, the reason for the death penalty was the group as a whole or its representatives “the State” was claiming self-defense and that is the “justified homicide” known as the death penalty comes from.[/quote]

no, I’ll disagree with you here too. The death penalty is not intended to be a deterrent, it is not intended to be a “defense” of society". It is the establishment of the value of life.
[/quote]

So now the State knows the value of people’s lives?

If I robbed you of $48 and broke your arm and terrorized your girlfriend - i would be punished in equitable terms - restore your $48, pay your medical expenses and any punitive (punishing) charges the court deemed appropriate for my crime - the values are equal and easily understood. The judge is not going to say that your $5,000 in medical expenses is actually only worth the $48 dollars I stole from you . . .

About the 48 dollars read below, if you stole that unless they found the property on you they would just send you to jail for robbery and assault and battery. I would have to go to civil court to get my money and punitive damages restored.

Lets extrapolate - If I killed you for your money, say $48, and the judges sentences me to jail for 40 years, then we as a society accept that I can kill you for $48 and 40 years spent in prison. We have just valued your life at $48 and 40 years in prison. If, on the other hand, we say no, a human life is worth more than that - a human life is more valuable than that - we would utilize the death penalty to take the most valuable thing from the killer, me, that we could - in this case we value nothing above human life - so my life must be taken from me to restore the value of all life.

Most valuable thing is your life, but it means shit to me or my family if it is no longer there. That is like saying because you stole my car we are going to blow up your car.

The idea of compensation is okay, not every time does someone feel the compensation is worth it, however by killing you the value of life is not restored it is diminished because we just killed you. And is more so vengeance than compensation.

This is the punishment that fits the crime - the most valuable thing I have is taken from me to punish me for taking the most valuable thing you had from you. all else is secondary.

Killing you is still vengeance if it affects anyone, and how can they value what I and you deem equal. My life is actually not the most important thing to me, it’s secondary so how would the state know that and make the compensation equal? So, if my life is actually of secondary value to something else what are they going to make it equal. Say your wife is secondary to your life, so since my life is equal to your value of your wife they should take her life? Doesn’t make sense, you can’t put a value of life, if you want punishment and deterrent, and compensation, monetary is about as close as you are going to get otherwise you are just killing more people.

The death penalty affirms the value of life! anything less, lowers it.[/quote]

Not really, I’ve been robbed before and my property was never returned to me, not one penny of it, but they asked me to testify in court and the case was aptly named State vs. Sanders, which I know that if they did find my property it would have been returned but they never made him pay in the criminal court case. They would have gone through with the case even if I was not there.

However, I took the guy to civil court and the man had to pay for my property there which the case was named Brother Chris vs. Sanders.

They say the judicial system is a deterrent, well it might be but theoretically that is not the purpose of the legal system when it comes to crimes. It is for the defense of the society, they can say what they want, but that is the reason it is how it is. “Self-Defense” because if want compensation, 40 years of a man being unproductive is not worth my life, neither is killing him. I would rather him pay 10 million dollars to my family than to be put to death.

Do you actually want to counter with a real argument, or will this be the extent of your reasoning on this?[/quote]

Okay no metaphors then

You are saying the state has the death penalty to restore the value of life.

I counter argue with this:

The value of life or anything (a candy bar) is subjective to that of the individual. Since, no subjective value can be determined by anyone who is not that individual, the state (not being the individual) can not determine the value of a life without failing.

However, the self-defense by society argument does not make sense, even though that is the real reason, and why they started using this value of life stuff instead.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

But it sounds like you’re saying any murder is inherently a value judgement on the other persons life. Is that your position? Are there cases of muder where it’s not?[/quote]

No, “taking a life” (note the terminology we use) is always a value judgment. I choose to take that person’s life because I value ___________ (fill in the blank).

It’s why accidents are treated different than pre-meditated murder. It’s why self-defense (I value my life more than your motivation for taking it) or defending others (civilian or military sense) is understood to be different that pre-meditated murder. But the conscious taking of a life is always a value declaration.[/quote]
I resisted the temptation to further interrupt your flow here last night and I’m glad I did. Another bullseye. Once this thread starts to drift a bit I have another related aspect that should be interesting to see people’s views on.