Political Crossfire Forums

[No2wookie]

He would have no legal authority.

[Ek0nomik]

No2wookie wrote: He would have no legal authority.

Legal authority doesn't necessarily make something right. You can't argue that, it isn't practical.

Homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Laws change. People change. Just because something is written into law doesn't make something right. Just because capital punishment is legal is a majority of states doesn't make it correct.

[perdidochas]

Ek0nomik wrote: perdidochas wrote: IMHO, capital punishment is justifiable homicide by society.

Imagine someone going out into the public who thought that killing this particular individual would greater benefit society as a whole. Does that make it justifiable? What gives society the right to kill?

Laws that we ask our representatives to pass for us. As it was explained to me once, capital punishment can be thought of as self defense for society. If the government, through the system of a jury trial and due process, decides that a person is a danger to society, we can deprive them of life and/or liberty (both of which are fundamental rights).

Personally, I'm neutral tending towards being against the death penalty, but not because I think the government doesn't have that right. It's because, I think that life in prison with no opportunity for parole is a harsher punishment (and cheaper punishment) than death. Personally, I would rather face death than the rest of my life in a maximum security prison. Even the Catholic Church recognizes that governments have the right to the death penalty, although they argue that in most cases, it is unnecessary.


Quote: 2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

[No2wookie]

Quote: Legal authority doesn't necessarily make something right. You can't argue that, it isn't practical.

Homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Laws change. People change. Just because something is written into law doesn't make something right. Just because capital punishment is legal is a majority of states doesn't make it correct.

It's strange to me that you ask about someone running out and killing someone because he believes the world would be better without the one he killed, I answer that the man has no legal authority to do this, and you bring up homosexuality.

[Ek0nomik]

perdidochas wrote: Laws that we ask our representatives to pass for us. As it was explained to me once, capital punishment can be thought of as self defense for society. If the government, through the system of a jury trial and due process, decides that a person is a danger to society, we can deprive them of life and/or liberty (both of which are fundamental rights).

I understand the legal process of capital punishment. The process itself isn't what bothers me. It's the fact that nobody, not you, not me, has the right to determine who lives or who dies.

"God is the only one who gets to kill people."

Bearing in mind that I can be categorized into strong agnosticism.

perdidochas wrote: Personally, I'm neutral tending towards being against the death penalty, but not because I think the government doesn't have that right. It's because, I think that life in prison with no opportunity for parole is a harsher punishment (and cheaper punishment) than death.

How is it cheaper? The argument many people make for the death penalty is that it's cheaper. You don't have a burden put onto the citizens of paying taxes to keep more people in prison.

perdidochas wrote: Even the Catholic Church recognizes that governments have the right to the death penalty, although they argue that in most cases, it is unnecessary.

Which is mind boggling to me, but I digress...

[Ek0nomik]

No2wookie wrote: It's strange to me that you ask about someone running out and killing someone because he believes the world would be better without the one he killed, I answer that the man has no legal authority to do this, and you bring up homosexuality.

Gee, good work, you almost got me into a jam No2wookie. :roll:

The fact that you're arguing that everything that's protected under law is what's right and what's wrong is what bothers me. If that were the case, laws would never change. We wouldn't have a purpose for congress (for better or worse).

[perdidochas]

Ek0nomik wrote: perdidochas wrote: Laws that we ask our representatives to pass for us. As it was explained to me once, capital punishment can be thought of as self defense for society. If the government, through the system of a jury trial and due process, decides that a person is a danger to society, we can deprive them of life and/or liberty (both of which are fundamental rights).

I understand the legal process of capital punishment. The process itself isn't what bothers me. It's the fact that nobody, not you, not me, has the right to determine who lives or who dies.

Of course we do, it happens all the time. If someone breaks into my home, FL law says that I'm allowed to kill them. If a man is in process of kidnapping my child, I'm also allowed to kill him.

Ek0nomik wrote: "God is the only one who gets to kill people."

Bearing in mind that I can be categorized into strong agnosticism.

perdidochas wrote: Personally, I'm neutral tending towards being against the death penalty, but not because I think the government doesn't have that right. It's because, I think that life in prison with no opportunity for parole is a harsher punishment (and cheaper punishment) than death.

How is it cheaper? The argument many people make for the death penalty is that it's cheaper. You don't have a burden put onto the citizens of paying taxes to keep more people in prison.

Prisons, guards and prison food are a lot cheaper for the government to pay for than courthouses, judges, prosecuters, public defenders, and jury food. An average death penalty case costs taxpayers about the same extra over a non-death penalty case as does the average prisoner 40 yrs in maximum security prison. Few prisoners last 40 yrs in prison.

Ek0nomik wrote: perdidochas wrote: Even the Catholic Church recognizes that governments have the right to the death penalty, although they argue that in most cases, it is unnecessary.

Which is mind boggling to me, but I digress...

What is mind boggling? It's a very nuanced position, which basically states that in direst necessity, a government can execute, but that in practical terms, there are few cases that would necessitate it. To me, the only example of someone that should be executed woudl be a legally sane Hannibal Lector type--i.e. a serial killer who is almost uncontrollable.

As I said, I'm not for the death penalty, but I do recognize that the government has a right to do so. If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison.

[No2wookie]

Quote: The fact that you're arguing that everything that's protected under law is what's right and what's wrong is what bothers me.

Now where did I say that?

[Enoch]

perdidochas wrote: If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison. I don't see how that follows.

[perdidochas]

UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison. I don't see how that follows.

Well, life and liberty are both considered fundamental rights. If you can't take away the fundamental right to life by the use of due process (i.e. a jury trial, etc.), how can you take away the fundamental right to liberty in that way?

IMHO, the argument about infringement of right to life isn't the way to stop capital punishment. Laws are. If you don't like capital punishment, then lobby to have it eliminated by an act of legislature. That is the way our system should work.

[Enoch]

perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison. I don't see how that follows.

Well, life and liberty are both considered fundamental rights. If you can't take away the fundamental right to life by the use of due process (i.e. a jury trial, etc.), how can you take away the fundamental right to liberty in that way?

IMHO, the argument about infringement of right to life isn't the way to stop capital punishment. Laws are. If you don't like capital punishment, then lobby to have it eliminated by an act of legislature. That is the way our system should work. Well, I am for capital punishment

[perdidochas]

UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison. I don't see how that follows.

Well, life and liberty are both considered fundamental rights. If you can't take away the fundamental right to life by the use of due process (i.e. a jury trial, etc.), how can you take away the fundamental right to liberty in that way?

IMHO, the argument about infringement of right to life isn't the way to stop capital punishment. Laws are. If you don't like capital punishment, then lobby to have it eliminated by an act of legislature. That is the way our system should work. Well, I am for capital punishment

Then you should be happy with the system.

[Enoch]

perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison. I don't see how that follows.

Well, life and liberty are both considered fundamental rights. If you can't take away the fundamental right to life by the use of due process (i.e. a jury trial, etc.), how can you take away the fundamental right to liberty in that way?

IMHO, the argument about infringement of right to life isn't the way to stop capital punishment. Laws are. If you don't like capital punishment, then lobby to have it eliminated by an act of legislature. That is the way our system should work. Well, I am for capital punishment

Then you should be happy with the system. Actually, I'm not. I wouldn't mind mandatory death sentences, instead of judges discretion or plea-bargaining on the part of a DA. "You commit _____, then you will be put to death."

Now, what _____ is, I don't know. It's a hard thing to decide exactly at what point a person deserves the death penalty.

[perdidochas]

UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison. I don't see how that follows.

Well, life and liberty are both considered fundamental rights. If you can't take away the fundamental right to life by the use of due process (i.e. a jury trial, etc.), how can you take away the fundamental right to liberty in that way?

IMHO, the argument about infringement of right to life isn't the way to stop capital punishment. Laws are. If you don't like capital punishment, then lobby to have it eliminated by an act of legislature. That is the way our system should work. Well, I am for capital punishment

Then you should be happy with the system. Actually, I'm not. I wouldn't mind mandatory death sentences, instead of judges discretion or plea-bargaining on the part of a DA. "You commit _____, then you will be put to death."

Now, what _____ is, I don't know. It's a hard thing to decide exactly at what point a person deserves the death penalty.

Well, mostly the actual death penalty is voted upon by a jury. I don't beleive it's up to a judge's discretion, and a DA's plea bargain agreement can only prevent the death penalty, not impose it.

Personally, I think the cruelest punishment imaginable is to live in a prison confined for the rest of my life. It makes death look easy.

[Katsumoto]

perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison. I don't see how that follows.

Well, life and liberty are both considered fundamental rights. If you can't take away the fundamental right to life by the use of due process (i.e. a jury trial, etc.), how can you take away the fundamental right to liberty in that way?

IMHO, the argument about infringement of right to life isn't the way to stop capital punishment. Laws are. If you don't like capital punishment, then lobby to have it eliminated by an act of legislature. That is the way our system should work. Well, I am for capital punishment

Then you should be happy with the system.

You cant take away the fundamental rights of life and liberty through due process or any other means. Instead you must convince the criminal that it is in his best interest to voluntarily commit himself to his punishment. This can be done by making the alternative less atractive than the punishment.

[perdidochas]

Katsumoto wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison. I don't see how that follows.

Well, life and liberty are both considered fundamental rights. If you can't take away the fundamental right to life by the use of due process (i.e. a jury trial, etc.), how can you take away the fundamental right to liberty in that way?

IMHO, the argument about infringement of right to life isn't the way to stop capital punishment. Laws are. If you don't like capital punishment, then lobby to have it eliminated by an act of legislature. That is the way our system should work. Well, I am for capital punishment

Then you should be happy with the system.

You cant take away the fundamental rights of life and liberty through due process or any other means. Instead you must convince the criminal that it is in his best interest to voluntarily commit himself to his punishment. This can be done by making the alternative less atractive than the punishment.

What's the difference? The DRO method still deprives men of a fundamental right--the right to property. It's the same concept.

[Katsumoto]

perdidochas wrote: Katsumoto wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison. I don't see how that follows.

Well, life and liberty are both considered fundamental rights. If you can't take away the fundamental right to life by the use of due process (i.e. a jury trial, etc.), how can you take away the fundamental right to liberty in that way?

IMHO, the argument about infringement of right to life isn't the way to stop capital punishment. Laws are. If you don't like capital punishment, then lobby to have it eliminated by an act of legislature. That is the way our system should work. Well, I am for capital punishment

Then you should be happy with the system.

You cant take away the fundamental rights of life and liberty through due process or any other means. Instead you must convince the criminal that it is in his best interest to voluntarily commit himself to his punishment. This can be done by making the alternative less atractive than the punishment.

What's the difference? The DRO method still deprives men of a fundamental right--the right to property. It's the same concept.

It does nothing of the sort. Read again or show me were said violation occurs.

[perdidochas]

Katsumoto wrote: perdidochas wrote: Katsumoto wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison. I don't see how that follows.

Well, life and liberty are both considered fundamental rights. If you can't take away the fundamental right to life by the use of due process (i.e. a jury trial, etc.), how can you take away the fundamental right to liberty in that way?

IMHO, the argument about infringement of right to life isn't the way to stop capital punishment. Laws are. If you don't like capital punishment, then lobby to have it eliminated by an act of legislature. That is the way our system should work. Well, I am for capital punishment

Then you should be happy with the system.

You cant take away the fundamental rights of life and liberty through due process or any other means. Instead you must convince the criminal that it is in his best interest to voluntarily commit himself to his punishment. This can be done by making the alternative less atractive than the punishment.

What's the difference? The DRO method still deprives men of a fundamental right--the right to property. It's the same concept.

It does nothing of the sort. Read again or show me were said violation occurs.

"Such necessities as bank accounts, credit, transportation, lodging, food and so on, can all be withheld from those who have been proven to have committed violent crimes. "

IMHO, that's as fundamental a violation against liberty as is prison.

[Enoch]

perdidochas wrote: Well, mostly the actual death penalty is voted upon by a jury. I don't beleive it's up to a judge's discretion, and a DA's plea bargain agreement can only prevent the death penalty, not impose it. A judge has the right to overturn the decision of the jury, but you are right that the jury decides, only if the DA chooses to pursue it. And, as for plea bargaining, I meant more in the "well, we won't seek the death penalty if your client does this..."

To me, plea bargaining is a travesty.

[Katsumoto]

perdidochas wrote: Katsumoto wrote: perdidochas wrote: Katsumoto wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: perdidochas wrote: If you reject the death penalty, eventually you have to reject the right to imprison. I don't see how that follows.

Well, life and liberty are both considered fundamental rights. If you can't take away the fundamental right to life by the use of due process (i.e. a jury trial, etc.), how can you take away the fundamental right to liberty in that way?

IMHO, the argument about infringement of right to life isn't the way to stop capital punishment. Laws are. If you don't like capital punishment, then lobby to have it eliminated by an act of legislature. That is the way our system should work. Well, I am for capital punishment

Then you should be happy with the system.

You cant take away the fundamental rights of life and liberty through due process or any other means. Instead you must convince the criminal that it is in his best interest to voluntarily commit himself to his punishment. This can be done by making the alternative less atractive than the punishment.

What's the difference? The DRO method still deprives men of a fundamental right--the right to property. It's the same concept.

It does nothing of the sort. Read again or show me were said violation occurs.

"Such necessities as bank accounts, credit, transportation, lodging, food and so on, can all be withheld from those who have been proven to have committed violent crimes. "

IMHO, that's as fundamental a violation against liberty as is prison.

No one has a fundamental right to any of those things. If a bank, or credit card company, or hotels, or grocers or anyone else CHOOSES not to do business with you, they are not violating your rights.