Grits and Shins Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 I have heard of Jessica Lunsford but to be honest, I don't watch local/national news. I also don't get a newspaper. I keep up with what's going on in general through various news websites, NPR, and even Fox. Too much news focuses on and glorifies all that is bad, that I can no longer watch. It may also be that with the type of work I do, I can't come home and be innundated with more killing/raping, etc. In this we are alike. I don't watch broadcast news. I will flip over to the local news to catch the weather and sports. Broadcast news is more about entertainment/ratings and less about objective reporting. I don't want to be entertained by my news provider and I don't particularily care for their choice of content and the way they sensationalize it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabuffbills Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Because the definition of murder is "illegally killing". Just like self defense isn't murder because it isn't "illegally killing" neither is sentencing someone to death or being the person who pulls the plug. So you're saying self-defense and sentencing someone to death are examples of "legal killings?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strike Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 and i guarantee, whoever we give the power to to make that decision, they're going to get a bunch of them wrong. that is the nature of our justice system, or of any justice system ever devised by man. to err is human. I kind of disagree. Was there any doubt about Dahmer's guilt, or Bundy's? If we restrict the cases to ones as sure as those, while it's technically possible to make a mistake, it's very very unlikely. The first question people need to ask themselves is if there are any circumstances where the death penalty is appropriate. If the answer to that is no then no amount of discussion is ever going to accomplish anything. If the answer is yes under certain very specific circumstances, such as 100% belief in the person being guilty of an extremely heinous crime, then a productive discussion of what those circumstances might be is possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strike Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 So you're saying self-defense and sentencing someone to death are examples of "legal killings?" I'm not "saying" it. It's fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabuffbills Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 I'm not "saying" it. It's fact. okay so if you were sentenced to death, you wouldn't consider the judge and jury that convicted you murderers? You would just think of them as some nice, hard-working people that were doing their job? I highly doubt that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paxacha Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 if the convicted doesn't want an appeal, then i believe they're usually executed relatively quickly, no? i think death is often a just penalty. still, how can you not be uncomfortable with the alarmingly high rate of people sentenced to death later being proven innocent? i agree with the death penalty, i'm just not sure our courts have proven themselves competent enough to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 The first question people need to ask themselves is if there are any circumstances where the death penalty is appropriate. If the answer to that is no then no amount of discussion is ever going to accomplish anything. Correct. I believe that the death penalty is simply wrong. I don't believe that as a society that we teach killing is wrong by killing. Again, I ask, if you found out your son was a bully who was beating up little kids, would you teach him he was wrong by beating him up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Correct. I believe that the death penalty is simply wrong. I don't believe that as a society that we teach killing is wrong by killing. Again, I ask, if you found out your son was a bully who was beating up little kids, would you teach him he was wrong by beating him up? Yup. I believe that corpereal and capital punishment both have their place. There needs to be consequence for your actions and sometimes that consequence is painful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 The only reason this is true is the length of time people sit on death row and the extensive appeals process they're given automatically. If we were to reform the system we could have a much quicker and less expensive process while at the same time ensuring that the chances of executing an innocent person are almost nil. This is returded. There sure are a bunch of knuckleheads here who want the government to kill them. No thanks. Most government workers are idiots--why give them the power of death over citzens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabuffbills Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 This is returded. There sure are a bunch of knuckleheads here who want the government to kill them. No thanks. Most government workers are idiots--why give them the power of death over citzens? I agree. Congress could have voted to give more money to help the homeless or the poor or whatever group that needed the help, but instead, they voted to give themselves a pay raise. And we're giving these people control of our country and control of other people's lives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strike Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 okay so if you were sentenced to death, you wouldn't consider the judge and jury that convicted you murderers? You would just think of them as some nice, hard-working people that were doing their job? I highly doubt that I guess that would depend on whether I was guilty or not wouldn't it? If I had killed a bunch of people I'd probably be thinking "damn I got caught". But either way what I think as as a convicted murderer doesn't count when defining the word "murder" (you can actually look the definition up if you'd like). The word is clearly defined and neither self defense or sentencing someone to die for their actions qualifies under the definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strike Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Correct. I believe that the death penalty is simply wrong. I don't believe that as a society that we teach killing is wrong by killing. Again, I ask, if you found out your son was a bully who was beating up little kids, would you teach him he was wrong by beating him up? I can respect that view. I know a lot of people share it. It why the first ? in a discussion of the death penalty is always if it's EVER appropriate. We're going to disagree on that and there's no getting past that. I hope you can respect my views on the topic as I respect yours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabuffbills Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 I guess that would depend on whether I was guilty or not wouldn't it? If I had killed a bunch of people I'd probably be thinking "damn I got caught". But either way what I think as as a convicted murderer doesn't count when defining the word "murder" (you can actually look the definition up if you'd like). The word is clearly defined and neither self defense or sentencing someone to die for their actions qualifies under the definition. So you're gonna take a page out of Bill Clinton's book and base your claim on the definition of the word murder? All i'm saying is that the people who sentence another person to death are killing that person indirectly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strike Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 So you're gonna take a page out of Bill Clinton's book and base your claim on the definition of the word murder? All i'm saying is that the people who sentence another person to death are killing that person indirectly That wasn't the question. The question was whether or not those people were committing murder, and the answer to that is no. If you want to ask me whether or not someone who kills someone in self defense killed someone I'd agree 100% that they killed someone. So I guess I'm missing your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabuffbills Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 That wasn't the question. The question was whether or not those people were committing murder, and the answer to that is no. If you want to ask me whether or not someone who kills someone in self defense killed someone I'd agree 100% that they killed someone. So I guess I'm missing your point. my point is that both people killed another person, so why don't both get the same punishment? Maybe the people in the court didn't commit murder, but they still killed another human being, just like the murderer did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Correct. I believe that the death penalty is simply wrong. I don't believe that as a society that we teach killing is wrong by killing. Again, I ask, if you found out your son was a bully who was beating up little kids, would you teach him he was wrong by beating him up? youre basically saying that every crime should be punished in the same manner it was done. i think thats a little flawed imo. murder and rape are the worst things a human can do another human. and those crimes must be dealt with in the harshest way possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strike Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 my point is that both people killed another person, so why don't both get the same punishment? Maybe the people in the court didn't commit murder, but they still killed another human being, just like the murderer did. You can't seriously be equating all forms of someone killing each other. If that was the case you'd be advocating that someone who breaks in to a store and ruthlessly kills 3 people over $5 in the register is given the same sentence as someone who defends three people breaking in to his home by killing them before they killed his family. Is that your stance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabuffbills Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 You can't seriously be equating all forms of someone killing each other. If that was the case you'd be advocating that someone who breaks in to a store and ruthlessly kills 3 people over $5 in the register is given the same sentence as someone who defends three people breaking in to his home by killing them before they killed his family. Is that your stance? No, personally I don't believe in the death penalty. I'm just wondering why the courts that sentence people to death aren't considered killers themsleves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strike Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 No, personally I don't believe in the death penalty. I'm just wondering why the courts that sentence people to death aren't considered killers themsleves. So when you said "my point is that both people killed another person, so why don't both get the same punishment?" you already knew the answer. Good to know. Now I won't bother myself answering your posts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabuffbills Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 So when you said "my point is that both people killed another person, so why don't both get the same punishment?" you already knew the answer. Good to know. Now I won't bother myself answering your posts I didn't mean that both should be killed. I just don't think people should have the right to end another person's life. If someone does kill another person, don't we contradict ourselves by killing that person as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 youre basically saying that every crime should be punished in the same manner it was done. i think thats a little flawed imo. murder and rape are the worst things a human can do another human. and those crimes must be dealt with in the harshest way possible. no, in fact that is not what I am saying. re-read my post and if it is not clear, let me know and I'll put it a different way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 I can respect that view. I know a lot of people share it. It why the first ? in a discussion of the death penalty is always if it's EVER appropriate. We're going to disagree on that and there's no getting past that. I hope you can respect my views on the topic as I respect yours at one time in my life, I supported the death penalty. eventually, however, for me, it became "if killing is wrong, then killing is wrong." I understand why some are for the death penalty. I simply disagree with that view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 no, in fact that is not what I am saying. re-read my post and if it is not clear, let me know and I'll put it a different way. i think that the punishment should fit the crime. i think that murder is the most extreme thing a human can do, thus it warrants the most extreme of punishments. which turns out to be the death penalty since we cannot torture anyone in our legal system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 (edited) i think that the punishment should fit the crime. i think that murder is the most extreme thing a human can do, thus it warrants the most extreme of punishments. which turns out to be the death penalty since we cannot torture anyone in our legal system. If you ever spent any time in a prison, you would come to believe that the most extreme punishment is life in prison without parole. As I have said before, if given the choice between the two, I would run, not walk, to the death chamber. Edited December 18, 2006 by untateve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 If you ever spent any time in a prison, you would come to believe that the most extreme punishment is life in prison without parole. As I have said before, if given the choice between the two, I would run, not walk, to the death chamber. See I'm not about revenge. I believe if you commit murder you have voluntarily given up your right to continue to live. Furthermore, you don't deserve to live. I see no purpose in putting a person in jail for the remainder of their lives. Certainly a murderer should never be released from prison, so if the goal is to remove them from society then stick a needle in their arm and make a clean removal. Action: Murder Consequence: Capital Punishment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.