EBSB52 0
mnealtx 0
Quote
So are you saying Bob was convicted and punished as an adult, with being a minor in possession? Please, answer that.
With that example, the wording becomes clear(er). However, it is still misleading on it's face to the person with no prior knowledge of the situation coming across the site.
The change I mentioned in the last post would make the meaning clear to a casual browser coming across the site, without making it look like we are sending 15 year olds to the electric chair.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Falko 0
QuoteAgain, difference in cultures - we don't let our kids use pacifiers until they're 5, either.
Yes, a culture that finds it ethical to kill their children rather than taking full responsibility for their lack of maturity. Maybe you should change the law, so that the parents will get executed for the crimes of their underage children. That'd be a hell of a fry fest, not?
And the kids will be forced to watch. Like "you didn't do what Mum told ya so now she get's fried."
Whoops am being to cynical maybe. 
QuoteShould we just spat them on the hand and say "Now now, mustn't kill the neighbors...it's not nice!"
You're painting black & white. Of course punishment is due, but there are gradations!
QuoteBullshit - preschool children know that certain actions carry unpleasant consequences. You expect me to believe that a 16 or 17 year old does *NOT* (unless mentally deficient) realize that murder is WRONG, against the law, punishable by death?
They might realize that, but still lack the intelligence and/or maturity to act accordingly. It's been said all over, but I have to repeat it: Deterrence doesn't work!
QuoteNice use of hyperbole, especially when I stated that the U.S. Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional to sentence to death a criminal under the age of 16.
They should make that 18. Or better yet, abolish capital punishment completely, so the US finally joins the rest of the western democracies in their fundamental belief that the state does not have the right to take a life.
Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse.
(Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970)
EBSB52 0
QuoteQuote
So are you saying Bob was convicted and punished as an adult, with being a minor in possession? Please, answer that.
With that example, the wording becomes clear(er). However, it is still misleading on it's face to the person with no prior knowledge of the situation coming across the site.
The change I mentioned in the last post would make the meaning clear to a casual browser coming across the site, without making it look like we are sending 15 year olds to the electric chair.
Great, now that we're beyond any ambiguity, how do you feel about the US being with 7 other nations, nations that are thought to be of poor character, that execute kids? It's real hard to defend.
See, I went into college in 96 with a lot of the ideals that you state here, but then I found myself realizing I had been lied to about most aspects of new conservatism. Former conservatism consisted of fiscal conservatives. Now the righteous moral conservatives are legislating, and it's getting scarry.
I mean Russia, a coutry we have thought of as evil has abolished the death penalty for quite a while. What does that say about us?
You didn´t answer my question, i would apreciate an answer from you or from anyone who supports capital punishment.
Is is okay with you the real possibility of taking away the life of an innocent person (aka murder) in order to guarantee the harshest punishment possible for a criminal?
Please, do take into consideration that the innocent person put to death, could be you or your family, and that abolishing capital punishment doesn´t mean that the crime will go unpunished.
Is is okay with you the real possibility of taking away the life of an innocent person (aka murder) in order to guarantee the harshest punishment possible for a criminal?
Please, do take into consideration that the innocent person put to death, could be you or your family, and that abolishing capital punishment doesn´t mean that the crime will go unpunished.
EBSB52 0
QuoteYou didn´t answer my question, i would apreciate an answer from you or from anyone who supports capital punishment.
Is is okay with you the real possibility of taking away the life of an innocent person (aka murder) in order to guarantee the harshest punishment possible for a criminal?
Please, do take into consideration that the innocent person put to death, could be you or your family, and that abolishing capital punishment doesn´t mean that the crime will go unpunished.
Right, the paradox here is that cap pun is theoretically designed to create and atmosphere of deterrence against murder, when there are certainly innocent people killed (murdered) by the state. Paradox is: the state is murdering people in the name of reducing murders.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. As I wrote, the neo-con agenda is indefensable and the best you'll get os some rhetoric about Clinton. If a person sits down and intelectually weighs the neo-con protocol, it makes no sense.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteYou didn´t answer my question, i would apreciate an answer from you or from anyone who supports capital punishment.
Is is okay with you the real possibility of taking away the life of an innocent person (aka murder) in order to guarantee the harshest punishment possible for a criminal?
Please, do take into consideration that the innocent person put to death, could be you or your family, and that abolishing capital punishment doesn´t mean that the crime will go unpunished.
Right, the paradox here is that cap pun is theoretically designed to create and atmosphere of deterrence against murder, when there are certainly innocent people killed (murdered) by the state. Paradox is: the state is murdering people in the name of reducing murders.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. As I wrote, the neo-con agenda is indefensable and the best you'll get os some rhetoric about Clinton. If a person sits down and intelectually weighs the neo-con protocol, it makes no sense.
If criminals interviewed in prison say that the risk of being shot by an armed homeowner prevented them from breaking into houses in a certain area, then I am reasonably sure that there are people that are prevented from committing certain crimes due to the threat of capital punishment.
Hell, Charles Manson comes up for parole on a regular basis!! Thank God that California hasn't gone far enough 'round the bend yet to actually parole him... y'all care to have HIM as your next door neighbor?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou didn´t answer my question, i would apreciate an answer from you or from anyone who supports capital punishment.
Is is okay with you the real possibility of taking away the life of an innocent person (aka murder) in order to guarantee the harshest punishment possible for a criminal?
Please, do take into consideration that the innocent person put to death, could be you or your family, and that abolishing capital punishment doesn´t mean that the crime will go unpunished.
Right, the paradox here is that cap pun is theoretically designed to create and atmosphere of deterrence against murder, when there are certainly innocent people killed (murdered) by the state. Paradox is: the state is murdering people in the name of reducing murders.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. As I wrote, the neo-con agenda is indefensable and the best you'll get os some rhetoric about Clinton. If a person sits down and intelectually weighs the neo-con protocol, it makes no sense.
If criminals interviewed in prison say that the risk of being shot by an armed homeowner prevented them from breaking into houses in a certain area, then I am reasonably sure that there are people that are prevented from committing certain crimes due to the threat of capital punishment.
Hell, Charles Manson comes up for parole on a regular basis!! Thank God that California hasn't gone far enough 'round the bend yet to actually parole him... y'all care to have HIM as your next door neighbor?
Well, it's just wonderful that you are prepared to execute people who are possibly innocent, on the basis of being "reasonably sure" of the deterrent effect.
Does the risk of sudden death deter you from skydiving?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
EBSB52 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteYou didn´t answer my question, i would apreciate an answer from you or from anyone who supports capital punishment.
Is is okay with you the real possibility of taking away the life of an innocent person (aka murder) in order to guarantee the harshest punishment possible for a criminal?
Please, do take into consideration that the innocent person put to death, could be you or your family, and that abolishing capital punishment doesn´t mean that the crime will go unpunished.
Right, the paradox here is that cap pun is theoretically designed to create and atmosphere of deterrence against murder, when there are certainly innocent people killed (murdered) by the state. Paradox is: the state is murdering people in the name of reducing murders.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. As I wrote, the neo-con agenda is indefensable and the best you'll get os some rhetoric about Clinton. If a person sits down and intelectually weighs the neo-con protocol, it makes no sense.
"If criminals interviewed in prison say that the risk of being shot by an armed homeowner prevented them from breaking into houses in a certain area, then I am reasonably sure that there are people that are prevented from committing certain crimes due to the threat of capital punishment."
And the criminals go to other areas that offer less resistance, so what you're referring to is the path of least resistance rather than deterrence. So if I have a club on my car, according to you, and it deters a thief from stealing my car, but he goes to the next block and steals a car there, I have instituted deterrence? No, not according to the scholarly definition of deterrence, as crime did occur, it just didn't occur to me.
And as for cap pun, that is a punishment carried out by the state, so that is a bit different too. In order for deterrence to be realized, there must be the element of choice. When the state executes a person, they are not enacting deterrence upon that executed person, but they are trying, so they say, to deter other people from committing crimes eligible for execution. They call this, "General deterrence" rather than specific deterrence.
"Hell, Charles Manson comes up for parole on a regular basis!! Thank God that California hasn't gone far enough 'round the bend yet to actually parole him... y'all care to have HIM as your next door neighbor?"
I believe he was commuted to life in 72 with Furman v Georgia when the US placed a moratorium on death, right? So that was a federal thing rather than a state thing. How does this answer the question: Should we execute minors?
I credit you for hanging in there, but honestly will you answer the question?
Should we execute minors?
mnealtx 0
If they are not mentally deficient or insane, and they can understand the difference between right and wrong (isn't that insured in a trail involving a minor?), then they deserve the punishment given by a jury of their peers.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,150
QuoteIf they are not mentally deficient or insane, and they can understand the difference between right and wrong (isn't that insured in a trail involving a minor?), then they deserve the punishment given by a jury of their peers.
Their peers? You mean a bunch of schoolkids?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
EBSB52 0
QuoteQuoteIf they are not mentally deficient or insane, and they can understand the difference between right and wrong (isn't that insured in a trail involving a minor?), then they deserve the punishment given by a jury of their peers.
Their peers? You mean a bunch of schoolkids?
Bahahhha..... exactly. You won't get through to him, but keep trying!
EBSB52 0
QuoteIf they are not mentally deficient or insane, and they can understand the difference between right and wrong (isn't that insured in a trail involving a minor?), then they deserve the punishment given by a jury of their peers.
You're convoluting a lot of legal concepts/protections here.
There are 3 main test for insanity. I can't remember them, but we studied them. I could research them, but it isn't relevant as to the intricacies of, "right-wrong" in this discusion.
Anyway, the test of competency to stand trial is one issue. A defendant must be able to understand the charges against him/her.
Test of sanity at the time of the commission of the crime is another issue. This is the issue to which you were referring I believe.
And the issue of whether or not we execute kids is the issue here I believe.
You brought up something about a jury comprised of a person's peers. Well, legally what you are naming is the finder of fact. A jury is the finder of fact, while the judge is the finder of law. A defendant can elect to be tried under a bench trial, where the judge plays the finder of law and of fact, so the, "jury of your peers" thing is essentially rhetoic. I find it a way to disslove the injustices of the structure of the criminal justice system.
The larger question, one which you seem to refuse to address head-on, is:
Should we execute kids?
When we weigh whether a person is of full capacity to understand the consequences of their actions, I think chronological maturity must be considered. We will jail a person for having sex with a person under 18, as we feel they may not be of full maturity, yet we feel we can ignore that concept when that same 16 year old kills a person.
This argument is parallel to Fascist issues like mandatoy seat belts. Mandating seat belts to protect a person from themselves smells contradictory when you can then drive to the store to buy alcohol, cigs, and lottery tickets. Hell, we skydive, shouldn't the gov take the same approach and save us from ourselves by prohibiting this deadly activity?
Again, do you feel it's fine, just, American, whatever to align ourselves with those fine, fine countries previosuly mentioned and kill our kids via state-sponsored executions?
"then they deserve the punishment given by a jury of their peers."
The jury is empowered exclusively and only to the extent of the law and the judge, so do you think the law (as provided by the US US Sup Ct) should allow the killing of kids?
mnealtx 0
I'm not a lawyer (obviously) so I don't know what the tests are to prove competence to stand trial.
I also recall reading that in some states, the jury can either decide or recommend punishment - I could be wrong on that, however.
You've asked the question several times, and I've answered it.
Yes, I believe if they do the crime, they should be held accountable for their actions - if the powers that be decide that the punishment is the loss of their life, so be it. Being held accountable for your actions (personal responsibility) is a bitch.
I find it odd that liberals have such a problem with capital punishment, but seem to have no problem with abortion. Obviously, I don't want this thread to go there, but it seems a strange dichotomy to me. "Do as I say, not as I do", perhaps?
I also recall reading that in some states, the jury can either decide or recommend punishment - I could be wrong on that, however.
You've asked the question several times, and I've answered it.
Yes, I believe if they do the crime, they should be held accountable for their actions - if the powers that be decide that the punishment is the loss of their life, so be it. Being held accountable for your actions (personal responsibility) is a bitch.
I find it odd that liberals have such a problem with capital punishment, but seem to have no problem with abortion. Obviously, I don't want this thread to go there, but it seems a strange dichotomy to me. "Do as I say, not as I do", perhaps?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
EBSB52 0
Quote
"I'm not a lawyer (obviously) so I don't know what the tests are to prove competence to stand trial. "
Nor am I a lawyer - tried to be. I'm not holding you accountable for the knowledge of a lawyer. Hell, I can't even do that and I've studied the crap for years!
"I also recall reading that in some states, the jury can either decide or recommend punishment - I could be wrong on that, however."
Actually it is a recent decision (US Sup Ct) that juries must recommend death or a judge cannot pass that sentence. So it's all states that require jury recommendation. Of course Ray Krone had 2 different juries find him guilty on evidence that was limited to teeth marks, so what does that tell you about juries?
"You've asked the question several times, and I've answered it."
No you didn't, and you still didn’t in this post. Why avoid writing: "Yes, they should kill kids for committing 1st degree murder." You give some watered-down version of it as you did in this post. I don’t blame you, it's hard to write.
"Yes, I believe if they do the crime, they should be held accountable for their actions - if the powers that be decide that the punishment is the loss of their life, so be it. Being held accountable for your actions (personal responsibility) is a bitch."
They? Why not write it in a way that says that kids should be killed by the state when they commit 1st degree murder?
"I find it odd that liberals have such a problem with capital punishment, but seem to have no problem with abortion. Obviously, I don't want this thread to go there, but it seems a strange dichotomy to me. "Do as I say, not as I do", perhaps?"
Actually I find it to be a paradox rather than a dichotomy. Not trying to start a grammar war here, but it seems like a paradox that goes both ways. I’ve thought this for years.
Liberals:
pro-abortion rights
anti-cap pun
Conservatives:
anti-abortion rights
pro-cap pun
See, it works both ways. What I can argue in behalf of the liberals is that a person of at least 16 IS a person, not a fetus. The argument of when life begins is still subjective and unsettled.
As for killing kids, are you saying that you think it’s ok that the policies of the US parallel these countries:
Communist China
Iran
Congo
Nigeria
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Care to go address some of the writings on whether deterrence is achieved thru cap pun as I posted above?
EBSB52 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou didn´t answer my question, i would apreciate an answer from you or from anyone who supports capital punishment.
Is is okay with you the real possibility of taking away the life of an innocent person (aka murder) in order to guarantee the harshest punishment possible for a criminal?
Please, do take into consideration that the innocent person put to death, could be you or your family, and that abolishing capital punishment doesn´t mean that the crime will go unpunished.
Right, the paradox here is that cap pun is theoretically designed to create and atmosphere of deterrence against murder, when there are certainly innocent people killed (murdered) by the state. Paradox is: the state is murdering people in the name of reducing murders.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. As I wrote, the neo-con agenda is indefensable and the best you'll get os some rhetoric about Clinton. If a person sits down and intelectually weighs the neo-con protocol, it makes no sense.
If criminals interviewed in prison say that the risk of being shot by an armed homeowner prevented them from breaking into houses in a certain area, then I am reasonably sure that there are people that are prevented from committing certain crimes due to the threat of capital punishment.
Hell, Charles Manson comes up for parole on a regular basis!! Thank God that California hasn't gone far enough 'round the bend yet to actually parole him... y'all care to have HIM as your next door neighbor?
Does the risk of sudden death deter you from skydiving?
"Well, it's just wonderful that you are prepared to execute people who are possibly innocent, on the basis of being "reasonably sure" of the deterrent effect."
Now ya did it - you've gone and made me get philosophical
In Justice class at ASU, Professor Cavendar lectured on deterrence and asked us that we believe in capital punishment having a deterrent affect, whether we actually believe it does or not. With that, he asked that if a person that was thought to be innocent by all was executed, or punished to any degree for that matter, would it still have the same deterrent affect?
The answer is yes. In fact, it might even have a greater deterrent effect since not only the guilty were being punished, but the innocent too. Kind of food for thought, huh? Now back to realizing that punishments of all types generally don't lead to deterrence.
mnealtx 0
I believe that the threat of punishment DOES act as a general deterrent - other than in NYC, of course.
Does the threat of capital punishment act as a deterrent to ALL criminals? Obviously not. Does it act as a general deterrent? I believe that it does and you obviously believe that it doesn't.
A lot of people are bent out of shape over capital punishment laws - rightfully so, in their opinions - other people's opinions are different, obviously.
All I can say to that, is this: If you don't like the current laws on capital punishment, work to change them.
Does the threat of capital punishment act as a deterrent to ALL criminals? Obviously not. Does it act as a general deterrent? I believe that it does and you obviously believe that it doesn't.
A lot of people are bent out of shape over capital punishment laws - rightfully so, in their opinions - other people's opinions are different, obviously.
All I can say to that, is this: If you don't like the current laws on capital punishment, work to change them.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
EBSB52 0
QuoteI believe that the threat of punishment DOES act as a general deterrent - other than in NYC, of course.
"Does the threat of capital punishment act as a deterrent to ALL criminals? Obviously not. Does it act as a general deterrent? I believe that it does and you obviously believe that it doesn't."
I think you're not understanding the context of the term, "general deterrent."
General deterrence - if Bob is punished and people look on, they will be less likely to commit the same crime for fear of being punished like Bob.
Specific (special) deterrence - if Bob is punished, Bob will be less likely to commit that crime or other crimes for fear of the same punishment again.
So with that, a person would need to empirically establish what the crime rate does in relationship to the punishment rate. Right now the murder rate is still increasing (had been for at least 3 years), so I don't think general deterrence is working in regard to murder and the death penalty. Do you really think that a potential first-degree murderer thinks that the margin between life w/o parole and death penalty is so egregious that they decide not to kill? If so, you are on an island. You can be, but to expect others to be convicted of that as sound logic, well, you are again on an island.
In the above quote you refer to what you believe and I believe. I would never try to revoke anyone's right to opinion, but to assert, "I feel ..." is kind of fluffy. Great, you have an opinion, but that doesn't address the statistical or supportive notions that lend reason to these opinions. Why not address substantive issues and supporting information like the intellectual approach to deterrence as I wrote above?
"A lot of people are bent out of shape over capital punishment laws - rightfully so, in their opinions - other people's opinions are different, obviously."
Bent out of shape is a strange way to address innocent people being killed by America. Opinions, opinions, bla, bla, bla ....... Ok, get to the substance, please.
"All I can say to that, is this: If you don't like the current laws on capital punishment, work to change them."
Again, you fail to address the rightfulness of cap pun, just more opinion vs opinion. Why not intellectually argue for cap pun by using facts, data, supporting evidence, etc...? Is it that you can't because there aren't a lot of nice things to be said about an act that has been revoked by some of the most unsavory countries on earth? .... could be.
EBSB52 0
Does your acquiescence indicate that you avoided this post, or did you just not get to it yet?
"No you didn't, and you still didn't in this post. Why avoid writing: "Yes, they should kill kids for committing 1st degree murder." You give some watered-down version of it as you did in this post. I don't blame you; it's hard to write.
They? Why not write it in a way that says that kids should be killed by the state when they commit 1st degree murder?
Actually I find it to be a paradox rather than a dichotomy. Not trying to start a grammar war here, but it seems like a paradox that goes both ways. I've thought this for years.
Liberals:
pro-abortion rights
anti-cap pun
Conservatives:
anti-abortion rights
pro-cap pun
See, it works both ways. What I can argue in behalf of the liberals is that a person of at least 16 IS a person, not a fetus. The argument of when life begins is still subjective and unsettled.
As for killing kids, are you saying that you think it's ok that the policies of the US parallel these countries:
Communist China
Iran
Congo
Nigeria
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Care to go address some of the writings on whether deterrence is achieved thru cap pun as I posted above?
So, are you going to explicitly state that kids should be killed if they are convicted of 1st degree murder, or are you going to keep dodging the question?
"No you didn't, and you still didn't in this post. Why avoid writing: "Yes, they should kill kids for committing 1st degree murder." You give some watered-down version of it as you did in this post. I don't blame you; it's hard to write.
They? Why not write it in a way that says that kids should be killed by the state when they commit 1st degree murder?
Actually I find it to be a paradox rather than a dichotomy. Not trying to start a grammar war here, but it seems like a paradox that goes both ways. I've thought this for years.
Liberals:
pro-abortion rights
anti-cap pun
Conservatives:
anti-abortion rights
pro-cap pun
See, it works both ways. What I can argue in behalf of the liberals is that a person of at least 16 IS a person, not a fetus. The argument of when life begins is still subjective and unsettled.
As for killing kids, are you saying that you think it's ok that the policies of the US parallel these countries:
Communist China
Iran
Congo
Nigeria
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Care to go address some of the writings on whether deterrence is achieved thru cap pun as I posted above?
So, are you going to explicitly state that kids should be killed if they are convicted of 1st degree murder, or are you going to keep dodging the question?
it's not that liberals have no problem with abortion...most of us do. we just believe the alternatives are worse (back alley abortions, etc...). That is not the case with capital punishment. If the criminal is dead or locked up for life, either way they're not a problem for general society anymore.
EBSB52 0
Quoteit's not that liberals have no problem with abortion...most of us do. we just believe the alternatives are worse (back alley abortions, etc...). That is not the case with capital punishment. If the criminal is dead or locked up for life, either way they're not a problem for general society anymore.
Right, it's incapacitation either way, but errors can be reversed one way. The conservative argument is that these guys can get out again. well, if they do then they've proven themselves innocent from behind bars, so we want innocent people getting out. Or is it that the conservatives feel good when SOMEONE, ANYONE dies because a person was murdered? I think there is a large portion of 'Salemesque' thinking in most hardened conservative's minds.
TheAnvil 0
You asked for an answer and an answer I provide - not a dodge.
It is OK with me because I realize that no system of justice is perfect and there will always be a finite chance that an innocent will be convicted. Perfection is an impossibility. Weighing that against the fact that some crimes do, in my opinion, warrant death as punishment I think that chance worth taking because our justice system is extremely fair with regards to capital crimes. Perfect - no. Damned good? Absolutely.
Is the death penalty used too often - probably. Should it be abolished - no.
Answer asked for - answer given.
It is OK with me because I realize that no system of justice is perfect and there will always be a finite chance that an innocent will be convicted. Perfection is an impossibility. Weighing that against the fact that some crimes do, in my opinion, warrant death as punishment I think that chance worth taking because our justice system is extremely fair with regards to capital crimes. Perfect - no. Damned good? Absolutely.
Is the death penalty used too often - probably. Should it be abolished - no.
Answer asked for - answer given.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
EBSB52 0
QuoteYou asked for an answer and an answer I provide - not a dodge.
It is OK with me because I realize that no system of justice is perfect and there will always be a finite chance that an innocent will be convicted. Perfection is an impossibility. Weighing that against the fact that some crimes do, in my opinion, warrant death as punishment I think that chance worth taking because our justice system is extremely fair with regards to capital crimes. Perfect - no. Damned good? Absolutely.
Is the death penalty used too often - probably. Should it be abolished - no.
Answer asked for - answer given.
So since you admit that the government will kill innocent people, can you somehow justify the killing of innocent people for some greater good?
BTW, utilitarianism (most good for the most people) is paralleled with hedonism (most pleasure / least pain), which are not Christian principles as most pro-deathers are.
As well, utilitarianism is also an, "ends justify the means" proposition as well; is that the form of logic you want to use when deciding it's ok to kill innocent people? Basically you are arguing that as long as Bundy is executed in the end, it's worth it for an occasional Ray Krone to be murdered by the state.
Your whole concept of the whole rather than the individual is so anti-Constitution that I hope I don’t read you rambling about the US Constitution in other threads. The US Const is supposed to protect the individual from governmental tyranny.
"First, it is a relatively simple ethical system to apply. To determine whether an action is moral you merely have to calculate the good and bad consequences that will result from a particular action. If the good outweighs the bad, then the action is moral."
This exemplifies the simplistic American neo-con. IOW's, if you have to take off your shoes to count to 20, you might very well be a neo-con.
"Second, utilitarianism avoids the need to appeal to divine revelation. Many adherents to this ethical system are looking for a way to live a moral life apart from the Bible and a belief in God. The system replaces revelation with reason. Logic rather than an adherence to biblical principles guides the ethical decision-making of a utilitarian."
This is where the American neo-con creates the paradox. Utilitarianism and Hedonism are so anti-Christian, yet the Christian neo-con follows right along with the American fiscal conservative w/o even realizing he's just been sucked in by the devil. If this is you, look above and count to 20.
"There are also a number of problems with utilitarianism. One problem with utilitarianism is that it leads to an "end justifies the means" mentality. If any worthwhile end can justify the means to attain it, a true ethical foundation is lost. But we all know that the end does not justify the means. If that were so, then Hitler could justify the Holocaust because the end was to purify the human race. Stalin could justify his slaughter of millions because he was trying to achieve a communist utopia."
I'm ahead of myself! Again, it's ok to kill Ray Krone because we need to kill Bundy.
http://www.probe.org/docs/utilitarianism.html
Look at the author - he is some guy from a Christian foundation. Truth is, utilitarianism is not a Christian function, not that I'm defending Christianity at all, but using this logic to apply to capital punishment in a hybrid of Old Testament Christianity and Utilitarianism.
Finally, when you buy into your ends justify means philosophy you accept the same logic that Stalin did when he committed his atrocities to his people.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/End+justifies+the+means
See, what I'm saying here is the approach you have given is wrong in so many ways, a few of which are:
1. It is unconstitutional in spirit in that it ignores the rights of the individual
2. It parallels itself with Communistic ideals
3. It praises utilitarianism as a means to govern a country
4. Admitting that, "Perfection is an impossibility" is an admission that you condone the murder of innocent people, when you probably claim cap pun is a deterrent designed to reduce the number of murders; can you see the contradiction?
U.S. OKs Evidence Gained Through Torture
We've made even more gains, I see....
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites