Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

And I find it dreadfully ironic that all the self-proclaimed logical, academic, humanitarian people are using the backwards argument that capital punishment supporters are the ones thinking with their emotions, in fact, it's quite the opposite.

This may be apparently true but in reality when you put it in a wider set of rules (the rules that apply to so called 'states of rights') it becomes false.

Let's take an example from Wikipedia:

In 1776, the United States Declaration of Independence declared that "life" is one of the unalienable rights, implying that all persons have the right to live and/or exist. The Declaration of Independence continues that a government has the obligation to secure the unalienable rights of its people. When a government no longer respects this fundamental reason for its existence, it is the "right" and "duty" of the people to overthrow it.

Ironically the state can alienate lives, while people can do so only for self-defense, unless you consider the death penalty a form of self-defense applied by the state... which is not.
And this right to alienate lives is preemptive: you accept that the state can take away anyone's life.
I consider this a form of abuse that some people willingly accept.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

In fact, the supporters (depending on their argument) are the ones using cold hard facts, overlooking the "emotional upheaval" of ridding the Earth and our "advanced society" of a scumbag who's agenda is solely to put our safety and the lives of others in danger.

Actually emotionless, cold logic would suggest that you find the root cause of your problem and analyze the facts behind the death penalty itself.

If your prisons are being flooded with criminals then what is causing it?

If violent crime is increasing, what is causing the increase?

Is the death penalty (A) a punishment to the criminal or (B) a solution for society?

(A) If it is a punishment then at what threshold of "violence" do you apply the death penalty? Is someone who went postal and killed 50 people with a machinegun as "worthy" of it as someone who killed 50 kids with his bare hands? Or should the latter be dismembered first just so we have a full spectrum of actual punishment?

(B) If it is done for society then maybe the society should have a say in it. Perhaps they don't want this solution. When was the last time there was an official public voting asking people if they wanted the death penalty in their law system? What we have is politicians and people who are, more commonly that not, above the law making such decisions. So in essence we have the State itself dictating once more what whoever had the misfortune of being born in it can be subjected to - that is direct control of life and death of any citizen in a society.

Quote from Albieg :

In 1776, the United States Declaration of Independence declared that "life" is one of the unalienable rights, implying that all persons have the right to live and/or exist. The Declaration of Independence continues that a government has the obligation to secure the unalienable rights of its people. When a government no longer respects this fundamental reason for its existence, it is the "right" and "duty" of the people to overthrow it.

Ironically the state can alienate lives, while people can do so only for self-defense, unless you consider the death penalty a form of self-defense applied by the state... which is not.
And this right to alienate lives is preemptive: you accept that the state can take away anyone's life.
I consider this a form of abuse that some people willingly accept.

Now this is what i call a good point!
Pwnd!

Quote from Albieg :

while people can do so only for self-defense, unless you consider the death penalty a form of self-defense applied by the state... which is not.

Actually, in a sense it IS in fact a form of self defence, since you're defending society from a dangerous person.

Think:
If a country attacks you do you sit back and say "I'm sure they'll come around and realize kill us and taking our land is immoral...", or do you fight back? And yes it is the same principle.

Let's say you walk into a room with one of those automatic guns from Half Life 2, the ones that are on a stand and shoot at anything that moves. What do you do - seek to take out the gun? Or seek to covertly capture it, lock it up for 30 years, pay for it's education (usually really just teaching it how to be a better gun) and hope that in 30 years it's decided that it's no longer going to be an automatic gun?

I think that you can argue black is white, if you have enough provisos to play with. I don't think, reasonably, you can defeat the context of the constitution without undermining its existence in equal measure. If the yanks want to undermine their own constitution with "ahh but" and "say for example", there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.. but if we're friends of theirs, we might urge them not to.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Actually, in a sense it IS in fact a form of self defence, since you're defending society from a dangerous person.

Think:

I thought. You're still wrong.

Self-defence expresses itself immediately. If you think death penalty is a form of self-defense that avoids future crimes you open up a legal can of worms while you're declaring the total inability of a state to protect citizens without touching an unalienable right.

Prisons suffice. If they don't, make better prisons, don't twist the logic. For instance no one yet escaped from the new high security prison in Aachen, Germany. It's virtually impossible.

Quote from SamH :

defeat the context of the constitution

The debate isn't about the constitution, it's about capital punishment!

Quote from SamH :

I think that you can argue black is white, if you have enough provisos to play with. I don't think, reasonably, you can defeat the context of the constitution without undermining its existence in equal measure. If the yanks want to undermine their own constitution with "ahh but" and "say for example", there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.. but if we're friends of theirs, we might urge them not to.

Are you sure black is black and white is white? They sure can look that way, but in modern world many things can look something they are not

Death sentence is punishment to criminal and solution to society, those statements of life are sure true, but certainly in some cases individual does things with their life that can't be tolerated and if there is no hope for such individual to stop doing so I would think it is better to end life of his, living in captivity is certainly not good life for him and not good for society.
If he would made work for society during captivity, then situation is different, there is more value from him working than dying then (from society's point of view). Criminals point of view is not too important, imo. as it is others that are in control of his life, I think that is idea of sentences in first place.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

The debate isn't about the constitution, it's about capital punishment!

But the debate is about a man, not found guilty of a capital crime, being sentenced to death. It IS about the constitution.. it's everything about the constitution of the US.

Quote from JTbo :

Are you sure black is black and white is white? They sure can look that way, but in modern world many things can look something they are not

I'm sorry, I can't talk to you any more. I've determined through protracted logic that you're actually a small green furry rabbit, and I vowed not to talk to any more small green furry rabbits, last year.

Quote from SamH :

I'm sorry, I can't talk to you any more. I've determined through protracted logic that you're actually a small green furry rabbit, and I vowed not to talk to any more small green furry rabbits, last year.

No no, you got it all wrong, I'm that big red rabbit, you mixed me to my brother

Quote from SamH :

But the debate is about a man, not found guilty of a capital crime, being sentenced to death. It IS about the constitution.. it's everything about the constitution of the US.

Fair enough, but that's not what I've been (and most others) have been talking about. The debate had funnelled into one about the idea of capital punishment in a specific context, not the circumstances that the thread starter posted about.

As a supporter of it, I think it's only a solution in very narrow circumstances, and can't comprehend it being done outside of them. Which, as I understand, isn't going to happen now anyway.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Actually, in a sense it IS in fact a form of self defence, since you're defending society from a dangerous person.

no since society already self defended itself by capturing him which obviously is a prerequisite for the death penalty

Quote :

Think:
If a country attacks you do you sit back and say "I'm sure they'll come around and realize kill us and taking our land is immoral...", or do you fight back? And yes it is the same principle.

considering its simpsons month ... wouldnt putting a giant glass dome on their countrie achieve even more in that it will stop them from attacking any country ?


one of the major problems with any form of quid pro quo punishment is who you get to do it ... in fact with the death penalty you need at least one state sanctioned murder on the loose to execute the sentence which in turn would logically require the government to be punished for murder

Quote from xaotik :

Reports say it tastes sorta like pork - which I find reasonable all things considered.

god i missed your sense of humour

Quote from Shotglass :

no since society already self defended itself by capturing him which obviously is a prerequisite for the death penalty

He could escape, and will invariably be let go anyway, so that argument is defused.

Besides, he could get picked off with a sniper rifle, or giant donut, from great distance so it's not really a prerequisite.

Quote :

one of the major problems with any form of quid pro quo punishment is who you get to do it ... in fact with the death penalty you need at least one state sanctioned murder on the loose to execute the sentence which in turn would logically require the government to be punished for murder

No, it's not logical - not in the slightest, which is surprizing coming from you!

In fact, even if I wanted to accept that silly train of thought, then please note that confining people against their will is also illegal - thus prison should be illegal, and those that confine people should be confined, but that's "wrong" too, so we should all be locked up! :rolleyes:

i think that the death sentence is now off for him, im alright?
i think now has to pass the rest of his life in jail

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

and will invariably be let go anyway, so that argument is defused.

the entire point of a life sentence is that he wont

Quote :

No, it's not logical - not in the slightest, which is surprizing coming from you!

youre right
what i should have said was that they all could be charged with failure to render assistance and the executioner with murder

Quote :

In fact, even if I wanted to accept that silly train of thought, then please note that confining people against their will is also illegal - thus prison should be illegal, and those that confine people should be confined, but that's "wrong" too, so we should all be locked up! :rolleyes:

got a point there and tbh i dont really have a proper answer for that atm

but i will say that were currently doing it anyway with cctvs and the idea of putting rfid chips under everybodys skin
and a jtbo pointed out a while ago whos the one behind bars ?

Quote from Shotglass :

the entire point of a life sentence is that he wont

Perhaps in theory... And generally it just isn't the case. All the said tard needs to do is "be good" and he'll get out in a fraction of the time. In my mind, life in prison means you don't get out... ever.

Quote :

got a point there and tbh i dont really have a proper answer for that atm

:throwrose

Quote :

and a jtbo pointed out a while ago whos the one behind bars ?

ROFL

And to rephrase your original question to jtbo, quite fitting in light of your argument:
"The real question is, who's the criminal"

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

In fact, even if I wanted to accept that silly train of thought, then please note that confining people against their will is also illegal - thus prison should be illegal, and those that confine people should be confined, but that's "wrong" too, so we should all be locked up! :rolleyes:

Nah, come on, that analogy's a Spruce Goose. It doesn't fly and you know it Imprisonment can't be illegal if the state carries it out in response to proven illegal activities and in accordance with its own laws. That's the whole point of a legal system. When we choose to live as part of society we do so in acceptance of the rights and responsibilities that society confers on its citizens and state. If there's provision for locking people up when convicted, we accept that because we would rather anyone who can't abide by the law is removed from our midst. If we don't accept that we try and change it or we move elsewhere. Similarly, if there's a provision for killing convicted criminals, we either accept it, try and change it or move on.

I feel fortunate that Australia ditched capital punishment 40 years ago, as I wouldn't feel comfortable living as part of a society that accepted murder as an appropriate punishment.

Quote from Hankstar :

Imprisonment can't be illegal if the state carries it out in response to proven illegal activities and in accordance with its own laws. That's the whole point of a legal system.

Excellent, you're backing yourself into a hole slowly but surely!

pirate::mischievo

I think the death penalty should be an option to those with life sentences. At least I'd rather be put down than spend my life in one of these prisons. I think it's often the merciful thing to do--unless it's against their will (rather, more against their will than staying in prison for life). When you'd rather die, the life sentence is inhumane and cruel.

The other issue is: people sit around in prison for years waiting for their death penalties to be served.

Quote from Hankstar :

I feel fortunate that Australia ditched capital punishment 40 years ago, as I wouldn't feel comfortable living as part of a society that accepted murder as an appropriate punishment.

i thought that was the entire idea behind the way the brits created the australian society ?

If we want to punish people that are not living by regulations, we must create exception to regulations to be able to keep person in captivity for example.

It is considered to be okay, even it would be wrong if some individual does that to other. For example if person 1 kidnaps person 2, does not harm him anyway, just keeps in captivity, it is considered to be a crime, but when police kidnaps person 1 and society keeps him in captivity it is exception to rule.

Death sentence itself is similar thing, it is exception to rules again, if death sentence would be illegal then all other sentences would be illegal, system would not work too well at all then.

Now society determines means that are allowed to be used by these exceptions to rules, so if for example death sentence is part of those or not, only if death sentence is not part of exceptions it would be illegal to give death sentence.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Excellent, you're backing yourself into a hole slowly but surely!

pirate::mischievo

Oi - stop challenging me you bloody Canuck pirate, it's too damn early in the damn morning There's no hole behind me and I think my argument's just dandy. Besides, the thrust of my argument (legality aside as it's secondary) is that killing people as punishment is neither morally justifiable nor an effective deterrent. I draw the line at killing people and always will.

But damn, I like that I can find intelligent people to disagree with about stuff without degenerating into flaming - and on a race sim forum of all places Respect mate :up:

I think we've reached the point of stalemate now and I doubt we're going to convince each other here, plus it's Sunday morning, so let's talk about something else. Something light n easy, like religion. Or Palestine.

Quote from Shotglass :

i thought that was the entire idea behind the way the brits created the australian society ?

The Poms were too lazy to look after their own thieving welfare-cheat chav scum so they sent them all to the other side of the world as punishment. It backfired. The convict nation became so bloody good at cricket that the English have never really recovered and they've been kicking themselves ever since

Quote from Hankstar :

The convict nation became so bloody good at cricket that the English have never really recovered and they've been kicking themselves ever since

ill just sit here quietly waiting while it dawns on you what its got to say about your country (and your women ) that the most interesting thing to do in australia is apparently cricket

Quote from Hankstar :

I think we've reached the point of stalemate now and I doubt we're going to convince each other here, plus it's Sunday morning, so let's talk about something else. Something light n easy, like religion. Or Palestine.

Can I talk about something different? Please? PLEASE????
I wanna talk about the new (well new to me) bike I got!!!