Death Penalty

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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.[/quote]

There it is- i knew you guys had some good points in there somewhere :slight_smile: now if only I could learn to do that.

OK - seriously, excellent point - there are several concepts being discussed here. You are saying that your life has an INTRINSIC value - that no price tag can be set on it. And you are right - no ABSOLUTE value can be set on your life. After all you value your life much more than the criminal does - and your are right you do value it more - but because he takes your life in exchange for that $48, his valuation trumped yours. Your life was exchanged for a mere $48. Your life’s intrinsic value has been compromised . . . regardless of your valuation, your life was TAKEN for $48.

This does not remove your own valuation of your life, but in an SOCIETAL sense your value of your life has been temporarily suspended by the criminal’s actions - now the society you were a member of has to declare whether they agree with the criminal, their own valuation, or yours. Whatever they decides determines the value of life in that society.

If they do not punish the criminal - they agree with him (life is worth $48). If they do punish the criminal but without death penalty - they set a new value (life is worth $48 and 40 years of imprisonment). If they punish him by taking his life - they agree with your valuation - the only thing as valuable as any life is another life. This is not setting an absolute value - it is agreeing with your original intrinsic value - there is nothing more valuable than life itself.

That is why as a society we have determined that nothing is as valuable as life. The State is not setting an absolute value - it is merely acknowledging that there is nothing more valuable and punishing the killer accordingly by taking from him the most valuable thing he possesses - life.

hope that answered your question.

82

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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.[/quote]

There it is- i knew you guys had some good points in there somewhere :slight_smile: now if only I could learn to do that.

OK - seriously, excellent point - there are several concepts being discussed here. You are saying that your life has an INTRINSIC value - that no price tag can be set on it. And you are right - no ABSOLUTE value can be set on your life. After all you value your life much more than the criminal does - and your are right you do value it more - but because he takes your life in exchange for that $48, his valuation trumped yours. Your life was exchanged for a mere $48. Your life’s intrinsic value has been compromised . . . regardless of your valuation, your life was TAKEN for $48.

This does not remove your own valuation of your life, but in an SOCIETAL sense your value of your life has been temporarily suspended by the criminal’s actions - now the society you were a member of has to declare whether they agree with the criminal, their own valuation, or yours. Whatever they decides determines the value of life in that society.

If they do not punish the criminal - they agree with him (life is worth $48). If they do punish the criminal but without death penalty - they set a new value (life is worth $48 and 40 years of imprisonment). If they punish him by taking his life - they agree with your valuation - the only thing as valuable as any life is another life. This is not setting an absolute value - it is agreeing with your original intrinsic value - there is nothing more valuable than life itself.

That is why as a society we have determined that nothing is as valuable as life. The State is not setting an absolute value - it is merely acknowledging that there is nothing more valuable and punishing the killer accordingly by taking from him the most valuable thing he possesses - life.

hope that answered your question.[/quote]

If nothing is as valuable as life, doesn’t that mean that life is more valuable than justice? I think taking someones life as a means of exacting justice implies that the value of justice outweighs the value of that persons life.

83

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

If nothing is as valuable as life, doesn’t that mean that life is more valuable than justice? I think taking someones life as a means of exacting justice implies that the value of justice outweighs the value of that persons life.[/quote]

you are mixing metaphor’s . . . justice is the ACT of valuation and the ACT of enforcing that valuation - it has no intrinsic value outside of the context in which it is being applied.

84

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I think that’s why so many places, Texas included, have phased out he death penalty. Texas actually stated a few years ago that it cost the state far less money to put a person in prison for life than execute them.[/quote]

Waidaminnit, Texas has stopped executing people? Wow, the world really has gone topsy-turvy.

85

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
While I have no problem with seeing murderers put to death I don’t support the death penalty. The reason why is because te way the legal system works makes it way too easy for an innocent person to end up on death row.[/quote]

got any stats to back that assumption up? I’m not saying you’re wrong - just want the data if you got it.[/quote]

What about that black guy that got taken off Death Row a few months ago because of DNA testing proved no way he could be the guy? One is too many.[/quote]

This. X One Million

86

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
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.[/quote]

There it is- i knew you guys had some good points in there somewhere :slight_smile: now if only I could learn to do that.

OK - seriously, excellent point - there are several concepts being discussed here. You are saying that your life has an INTRINSIC value - that no price tag can be set on it. And you are right - no ABSOLUTE value can be set on your life. After all you value your life much more than the criminal does - and your are right you do value it more - but because he takes your life in exchange for that $48, his valuation trumped yours. Your life was exchanged for a mere $48. Your life’s intrinsic value has been compromised . . . regardless of your valuation, your life was TAKEN for $48.

This does not remove your own valuation of your life, but in an SOCIETAL sense your value of your life has been temporarily suspended by the criminal’s actions - now the society you were a member of has to declare whether they agree with the criminal, their own valuation, or yours. Whatever they decides determines the value of life in that society.

If they do not punish the criminal - they agree with him (life is worth $48). If they do punish the criminal but without death penalty - they set a new value (life is worth $48 and 40 years of imprisonment). If they punish him by taking his life - they agree with your valuation - the only thing as valuable as any life is another life. This is not setting an absolute value - it is agreeing with your original intrinsic value - there is nothing more valuable than life itself.

That is why as a society we have determined that nothing is as valuable as life. The State is not setting an absolute value - it is merely acknowledging that there is nothing more valuable and punishing the killer accordingly by taking from him the most valuable thing he possesses - life.

hope that answered your question.[/quote]

Well, that is nice, but I didn’t have a question. I, however, do not wish for anyone to be put to death for killing me, unless of course they killed the person in self-defense and that would be fine.

However, avenging my death by killing another human, no thanks and especially not by the State.

87

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Well, that is nice, but I didn’t have a question. I, however, do not wish for anyone to be put to death for killing me, unless of course they killed the person in self-defense and that would be fine.

However, avenging my death by killing another human, no thanks and especially not by the State.[/quote]

That’s fine, but it is society’s choice - we have surrendered individual choice in this matter by allowing the law to stand in our place. No vendettas, no blood feuds, no righteous retribution - just the standards of the law applied to the scales of justice.

Again, you err by equating this with avenging your death - it is not vengeance - this is restoring societies valuation of life. I thought I was clear on that point . . .

88

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Well, that is nice, but I didn’t have a question. I, however, do not wish for anyone to be put to death for killing me, unless of course they killed the person in self-defense and that would be fine.

However, avenging my death by killing another human, no thanks and especially not by the State.[/quote]

That’s fine, but it is society’s choice - we have surrendered individual choice in this matter by allowing the law to stand in our place. No vendettas, no blood feuds, no righteous retribution - just the standards of the law applied to the scales of justice.

Again, you err by equating this with avenging your death - it is not vengeance - this is restoring societies valuation of life. I thought I was clear on that point . . .[/quote]

How did I exactly surrender my individual choice, was that something I signed at birth or was that later in life? I allowed the law to stand in my place, I do not remember that either. So, what you are saying, since I, and I am sure a lot of others, do not remember giving up these things, is that the State forced my hand in this situation by the barrel of their gun.

So, juries have never sentenced anyone to death because they were avenging the death of the victim?

And, like I have stated before the value of life is subjective. I value many more things than carnal life. And it goes against my beliefs to kill anyone except out of self-defense.

89

having trouble with the idea of citizenship now?

personal motivations for a jury decision does not replace the systemic decision process of the legal system. Juries do not determine sentencing . . .

and we are back to square one . . . if you were the one making the decision about sentencing of killers, your opinion would have weight, but since you are not and do not make that decision . . . moot point . . . killing someone in self-defense or in premeditated murder is your only personal choice in this subject . . . everything else falls under the rule of law and as a component of our society’s rule of law, the death penalty serves as a confirmation of the high valuation of human life that we as a society have established - see all of my points above . . .

90

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
having trouble with the idea of citizenship now?

personal motivations for a jury decision does not replace the systemic decision process of the legal system. Juries do not determine sentencing . . .

and we are back to square one . . . if you were the one making the decision about sentencing of killers, your opinion would have weight, but since you are not and do not make that decision . . . moot point . . . killing someone in self-defense or in premeditated murder is your only personal choice in this subject . . . everything else falls under the rule of law and as a component of our society’s rule of law, the death penalty serves as a confirmation of the high valuation of human life that we as a society have established - see all of my points above . . .[/quote]

Rule of Law does not mean everything is good. I am sure you know that though.

In which way do you think I am having trouble with the idea of citizenship?

I am afraid we never moved from square one, because your assumption of me even wanting to be the judge or jury on a murder case is wrong. And, you still have not explained how the death penalty (by destroying someone’s life) confirms the high valuation of human life. (Sidenote: If life was so valuable, why would we even consider taking it in an instance when no other life was in danger?)

This is my case, the death penalty not only goes against my political but my theological beliefs.

91

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
having trouble with the idea of citizenship now?

personal motivations for a jury decision does not replace the systemic decision process of the legal system. Juries do not determine sentencing . . .

and we are back to square one . . . if you were the one making the decision about sentencing of killers, your opinion would have weight, but since you are not and do not make that decision . . . moot point . . . killing someone in self-defense or in premeditated murder is your only personal choice in this subject . . . everything else falls under the rule of law and as a component of our society’s rule of law, the death penalty serves as a confirmation of the high valuation of human life that we as a society have established - see all of my points above . . .[/quote]

Rule of Law does not mean everything is good. I am sure you know that though.

In which way do you think I am having trouble with the idea of citizenship?

I am afraid we never moved from square one, because your assumption of me even wanting to be the judge or jury on a murder case is wrong. And, you still have not explained how the death penalty (by destroying someone’s life) confirms the high valuation of human life. (Sidenote: If life was so valuable, why would we even consider taking it in an instance when no other life was in danger?)

This is my case, the death penalty not only goes against my political but my theological beliefs.[/quote]

great reasoning brother chris.

92

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< you still have not explained how the death penalty (by destroying someone’s life) confirms the high valuation of human life. (Sidenote: If life was so valuable, why would we even consider taking it in an instance when no other life was in danger?) >>>[/quote]Yes he did and quite ably so.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< This is my case, the death penalty not only goes against my political but my theological beliefs. >>>[/quote]What would these be. I’m seriously curious. Incidentally (and ironically) you may want to check into Aquinas’s view on the this issue. Aquinas waxed a bit too philosophical a bit too often and went screwy on more than a few occasions, but he was a bona fide intellectual giant.(end of short sidetrack)

93

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< you still have not explained how the death penalty (by destroying someone’s life) confirms the high valuation of human life. (Sidenote: If life was so valuable, why would we even consider taking it in an instance when no other life was in danger?) >>>[/quote]Yes he did and quite ably so.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< This is my case, the death penalty not only goes against my political but my theological beliefs. >>>[/quote]What would these be. I’m seriously curious. Incidentally (and ironically) you may want to check into Aquinas’s view on the this issue. Aquinas waxed a bit too philosophical a bit too often and went screwy on more than a few occasions, but he was a bona fide intellectual giant.(end of short sidetrack)
[/quote]

I will, I have only started to study Aquinas’s works, however he is my Patron Saint. I am at work, so I will look up to see if I can find anything on the subject.

I am a Catholic and an Anarcho-Capitalist.

94

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< you still have not explained how the death penalty (by destroying someone’s life) confirms the high valuation of human life. (Sidenote: If life was so valuable, why would we even consider taking it in an instance when no other life was in danger?) >>>[/quote]Yes he did and quite ably so.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< This is my case, the death penalty not only goes against my political but my theological beliefs. >>>[/quote]What would these be. I’m seriously curious. Incidentally (and ironically) you may want to check into Aquinas’s view on the this issue. Aquinas waxed a bit too philosophical a bit too often and went screwy on more than a few occasions, but he was a bona fide intellectual giant.(end of short sidetrack)
[/quote]

I will, I have only started to study Aquinas’s works, however he is my Patron Saint. I am at work, so I will look up to see if I can find anything on the subject.

I am a Catholic and an Anarcho-Capitalist. [/quote]
I am decidedly not a Catholic and don’t exactly know how I’d describe my views on economics. Regardless, if you tackle the summa theologica (which I once owned) from start to finish you will have my respect. I’ll give ya a hint. Aquinas, or Augustine, or the canons of the council of Trent or all of Catholic faith and tradition until the last half of the 20th century for that matter, disagree with you. If you say something like “Well, the church is rethinking that position now” you will have illustrated in living color why I am in fact not a catholic. I mean no hostility or offense. Just an honest statement.

95

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
having trouble with the idea of citizenship now?

personal motivations for a jury decision does not replace the systemic decision process of the legal system. Juries do not determine sentencing . . .

and we are back to square one . . . if you were the one making the decision about sentencing of killers, your opinion would have weight, but since you are not and do not make that decision . . . moot point . . . killing someone in self-defense or in premeditated murder is your only personal choice in this subject . . . everything else falls under the rule of law and as a component of our society’s rule of law, the death penalty serves as a confirmation of the high valuation of human life that we as a society have established - see all of my points above . . .[/quote]

Rule of Law does not mean everything is good. I am sure you know that though.

In which way do you think I am having trouble with the idea of citizenship?

I am afraid we never moved from square one, because your assumption of me even wanting to be the judge or jury on a murder case is wrong. And, you still have not explained how the death penalty (by destroying someone’s life) confirms the high valuation of human life. (Sidenote: If life was so valuable, why would we even consider taking it in an instance when no other life was in danger?)

This is my case, the death penalty not only goes against my political but my theological beliefs.[/quote]

The death penalty does preserve life. That is the intent. To stop those who would take a life for no reason.

Or rape your wife , or daughter or son, mutilate them. And ensure that person cannot do that again. Jail does not do that, it only costs us large amounts of money for no reason.

and what theological problem does it present, we are to forgive those that trespass against us, but that does not forgo them of punishment, in fact we are to punish them. And if they choose to accept christ before their meeting before the judgement set fo christ is arranged then glory to GOD.

I can’t stand when people get all preachy and use the bible to justify what they say, without fully understanding it.

Part of love is discipline, part of discipline punishment, and some instances the only feasible punishment is to end the persons life and ensure they do not get the opportuniyt to injure anyone else.

96

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< you still have not explained how the death penalty (by destroying someone’s life) confirms the high valuation of human life. (Sidenote: If life was so valuable, why would we even consider taking it in an instance when no other life was in danger?) >>>[/quote]Yes he did and quite ably so.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< This is my case, the death penalty not only goes against my political but my theological beliefs. >>>[/quote]What would these be. I’m seriously curious. Incidentally (and ironically) you may want to check into Aquinas’s view on the this issue. Aquinas waxed a bit too philosophical a bit too often and went screwy on more than a few occasions, but he was a bona fide intellectual giant.(end of short sidetrack)
[/quote]

I will, I have only started to study Aquinas’s works, however he is my Patron Saint. I am at work, so I will look up to see if I can find anything on the subject.

I am a Catholic and an Anarcho-Capitalist. [/quote]
I am decidedly not a Catholic and don’t exactly know how I’d describe my views on economics. Regardless, if you tackle the summa theologica (which I once owned) from start to finish you will have my respect. I’ll give ya a hint. Aquinas, or Augustine, or the canons of the council of Trent or all of Catholic faith and tradition until the last half of the 20th century for that matter, disagree with you. If you say something like “Well, the church is rethinking that position now” you will have illustrated in living color why I am in fact not a catholic. I mean no hostility or offense. Just an honest statement.[/quote]

I have not really read on the DP much, I got my conclusion on the subject from a Reverend that still followed the way of Pre-VII. However, my ideas are being confirmed/changed and strengthen as I read/listen to old writings and sermons from traditional Reverends.

I do not really follow the new thinking, even though I was a fan of JPII. My fiance broke up with me because of my unwillingness to follow the Vatican II’s orders, actually.

97

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< I have not really read on the DP much, I got my conclusion on the subject from a Reverend that still followed the way of Pre-VII. However, my ideas are being confirmed/changed and strengthen as I read/listen to old writings and sermons from traditional Reverends.

I do not really follow the new thinking, even though I was a fan of JPII. My fiance broke up with me because of my unwillingness to follow the Vatican II’s orders, actually.[/quote]
I obviously don’t know who this person was and I don’t remember if the second Vatican council addressed capital punishment, but I promise you the whole of Roman Catholic history includes the taking of human life in response to capital crimes up until rogue individuals began to question it in the 20th century. Of course it’s implementation has not remained constant as it once was the the case that the mere caprice of a pope or approved official was sufficient for one to find themselves on the business end of a stake and a torch.

However, in recent centuries Rome has adopted the at least formally biblical view that the state bears the sword for the punishment of evildoers and insofar as that is carried out with honest jurisprudence and just motives it is sanctioned by God. Irishsteel here has taken it beyond form and delved into the spirit of the principle which I’m confident he is able to further defend. I’ll leave that to him since he is doing such a fine job, but if for some reason he is not available I will be happy to continue in his stead. BTW, he and I have never discussed this before this thread.

98

“The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering the prisons.”

  • Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The House of the Dead

You guys are a trip. Seriously. Reading this thread was kinda like watching a monkey try to fuck a football: both disturbing and entertaining at the same time.

How many of you have been to prison?

How many of you have been in a position where YOU had to consider taking someone’s life?

How many of you grew up in an environment where crime was the status quo?

Ever heard the word REHABILITATION? Do you hold human life in such LOW esteem?

It’s easy to sit back in your comfortable life and judge. The fact is that our “justice” system is seriously flawed, under funded to support the laws enacted (war on drugs anyone), and blatantly inconsistent. The United States incarcerates more people per capita than ANY other “first world” country, yet still has the highest murder/violent crime rates…
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html - is the NY times an acceptable source? I can dig deeper if need be…)

The world is not black and white. Innocent people are locked up every day because of the pressure to close cases. “Beyond a reasonable doubt”? Who’s doubt? An overworked “public pretender” vs. a high paid prosecuting attorney with a staff? PLEASE… And people should lose their lives because of a fundamentally flawed system like this? The very thought is disgusting.

I guess most of you think that I should be still in prison? Or executed? FUCK YOU. I did my time. And despite popular opinion, prison is NOT a country club with cable television. It is not having a moment’s peace for years knowing that at any moment you can be killed, sodomized, robbed, beaten or disfigured for no reason at all by both inmates or guards. In times of despair, many would WELCOME the solace of death… It ain’t a fucking picnic.

I don’t expect to sway any opinions here - My previous ventures into PWI have been met with close-mindedness, an irrational attachment to one’s own ideas and an inability to play nicely (hence my previous paragraph)… But since I have actually BEEN to prison, I felt that I was actually QUALIFIED to offer an opinion based on experience rather than imagination or theory.

99

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

And despite popular opinion, prison is NOT a country club with cable television.
[/quote]

x2.

I have not been incarcerated, but I have been in minimum and maximum security prisons to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is no picnic, and the more security there is the scarrier it becomes. I will back up Angry Chicken on this.

It is just hard for me to beleive in Rehabilitation. It works for those that take responsibility for their actions and actually admit they were guilty for the crime they committed. Criminals that do not accept responsibility for their actions are always trying to find a loop hole to game the system. I do not know why that is, but it does happen.

Angry Chicken, I would say you are one of the exceptions and not the rule, but I am hoping that I am wrong. I hope you are the rule and not the exception. I hope that people really can change their lives after leaving prison. I am just tired of the victims being the ones penalized for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and the criminal getting off with just a slap on the wrist. I guess that is why we have a parol system, so if a person is rehabilitated then they can get out.

100

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Angry Chicken, I would say you are one of the exceptions and not the rule, but I am hoping that I am wrong. I hope you are the rule and not the exception. I hope that people really can change their lives after leaving prison. I am just tired of the victims being the ones penalized for being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and the criminal getting off with just a slap on the wrist. I guess that is why we have a parol system, so if a person is rehabilitated then they can get out.
[/quote]

The difference is literacy. Literacy and education. I grew up in a fucked up neighborhood. My Mom’s first two husbands beat the shit out of me every day. The Third husband kicked me out on the street when I was sixteen. I was an angry young man with nothing to lose (or so I believed at the time). I just accepted that this was my life and rode the roller coaster to the inevitable end… Just like many other young men that many of you are so quick to judge and execute.

But I could read. I eventually worked in the prison library, educated myself and got my GED. I actually tutored grown men on the very BASICS of reading. Honestly, most of them are functionally illiterate. It’s not that they aren’t smart. I have met some very intelligent people behind bars. The fact that they are alive is a testament to their ability to adapt and learn… Most of you wouldn’t survive an hour in the environment they called home. An environment they didn’t ask to be born into. Coupled with an education system that is utterly useless… I don’t think anyone here would fare much better.

Let’s talk about recidivism for a minute. I mean if we let them out and they violate parole, then that just proves that they don’t deserve another chance, right? When I was on parole, my PO told me, in no uncertain terms, “if you so much as breathe wrong, I will lock your white ass back up”. I remember those words very clearly. Then they give you a pamphlet written by some idiot that jumps around all over the place but doesn’t really tell you what you SHOULD do… Are we surprised that many illiterate parolees violate? I did my best not to “breathe wrong”…

Then you have cops leaning on you every other day to snitch, if you have kids, social services steps in and garnishes 90% of the pay of your minimum wage job (on top of the $40 a week you pay to the department of corrections for being on parlole), You can’t quit the job to start a business, cuz your employer needs to sign your parole papers every week… So how the fuck is a person on parole supposed to succeed? The system is designed to make you fail. Interestingly enough, the DOC gets MORE funding per incarcerated inmate than parolee… So now they are reduced to a commodity that is more valuable INSIDE than OUT - and this is the department that regulates them? Kinda stinks, doesn’t it?

What you are forgetting is that they are human beings. They can learn. They can change if given an environment to do so. They shouldn’t be thrown out and forgotten as if they were trash. Every human has potential. We all hold worth. Everyone has the capacity to forgive and the ability to show that they deserve to be forgiven. If you turn you back on these basic tenants of humanity, you move dangerously close to fascism.

For those that commit the most heinous of crimes, instead of killing them and giving them the easy way out, give them a cell with a bed and a window and nothing else. Extinguish their ego, deny them the status and the limelight… If you remove these “secondary payoffs” I assure you they will PRAY for the death penalty. Don’t give it to them. That’s too easy.