Of all your arguments, that has to be the worst. So on the near impossibility of someone like this finding a cure of cancer (your favourite cure at any rate) you would like a criminal kept locked up ?
I also assume you also don't believe in life sentences ? Because they are most definitely not going to find the cure for cancer inside a prison cell.
So your opinion is that - no death sentence, and no life sentence either ? Few years, a good show of remorse (whether actual or not) and they are let back out there with everyone else ?
All Hail the AACS : 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
This was just the flipside of someone else's argument (I think it was Saracen, a couple of pages back) and I believe if you're going to argue that the person a murderer has killed could have cured cancer (I use this as it's an extreme example, something that the death sentence brigade seem keen to use) then you have to accept that it's possible that the criminal could also do this. Both are extremely unlikely, but both are also possible.
I'd like to see where you take this from. It's not something I have posted (as far as I'm aware), so I can only assume that you're reading incorrectly between the lines.I also assume you also don't believe in life sentences ?
It's unlikely for sure, but who are you to say that this is absolutely the case?Because they are most definitely not going to find the cure for cancer inside a prison cell.
Again, you're either misinterpretting me or putting words in my mouth to suit your own ends.So your opinion is that - no death sentence, and no life sentence either ? Few years, a good show of remorse (whether actual or not) and they are let back out there with everyone else ?
You said the criminal could find the cure for cancer. If they have commited murder there are a few choice - death (which you oppose), life sentence or a sentence of few years and then back out.
Death = no cure.
In cell for life = no cure. You dont find a cure for cancer with the power of imagination alone. You do that with scientific research. Thats not happening in a cell.
Back out in a few years = vague possibility of a cure.
So according to your own presented arguments you are favouring the third one.
All Hail the AACS : 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I said it was a possibility. While said person is alive it's a possibility (I've not done time in prison, but I believe they have access to books in there so what's to stop them doing research of their own?)
Again, it's an infinitessimally small chance, but it's possible nontheless. You continue to misinterpret my posts as you see fit, despite the fact that I have pointed this out, and I guess there's only one way to stop you doing that. You should also bear in mind that (as I have mentioned earlier) I was using the cure for cancer as an extreme example, and I'm fairly certain that plenty of major positive contributions to society can be made from a cell. I believe Tookie Williams has been mentioned already in this thread.
I'm personally in favour of life inprisonment in cases where it is merited. I'm against the death penalty full stop.
Happy now?
Research from a book ? Thats not groundbreaking reasearch into new technologies. That research for maybe a university paper. Or to write a thesis. No new knowledge will come out of a book.
Where are these many and numerous positive contributions from a cell ? Show me a few more please.
But I am happy to see that you have got your belief clear. It would help if that was reflected in most of your posts. The one I took apart clearly does not.
All Hail the AACS : 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I'm not going to change your opinion, I'm not even going to try: all I'm doing is putting my opinions across.
Why do the positive contributions have to be research for new technologies? Tookie Williams contributed to a reduction in gang violence, arguably saving lives before he was executed in December 2005. Were he still alive I feel strongly that he would have continued this work, preventing young black men from entering gangs, and as such saving further lives. He could have done this (as he had proved) from prison - your argument says that the world is better off without him, however I would argue against that.
I apologise if I've not been clear enough for you Sinizter, but as far as I can tell there's only yourself struggling to see what I'm saying. And no, I won't be drawn into a flamewar.
No problem - let's just agree to disagree. I was just poking at the holes in your posts - I am not interested in a flamewar either.
I support the death penalty fully.
Splash, sorry if I was annoying you. Didnt mean to.
All Hail the AACS : 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Surely there wouldn't be any point though - I mean, their target audience wouldn't be able to read what it says!
Child: "What does that say on your head, mister?"
Paedo: "It says FREE ICE CREAM, now get in the van"
(courtesy of Matt Kirshen)
In all seriousness though, I'm in the "against it" camp. Don't give me that nonsense about "making sure they really, really did it, i mean, really making sure, not guessing". For what it's worth - Life sentences for murders are already supposed to prove "beyond all reasonable doubt" that the accused committed it. Yet miscarriages of justice still happen. Innocent people get punished. This is fact, not opinion. Call my opinion leftie nonsense, call it whatever you like, but any human gets things wrong, and it's absolute undeniable fact that wrong punishment decisions have been made by massive court cases.
I wasn't exactly trying to justify it, though.
Whenever there's a death penalty debate (and I've done several of them), it always seems to me that the "arguments" boil down to chaff and wheat. There are some arguments used, for example, to argue against that, in my opinion, just don't hold water. The argument about cost is one of them.
Another is the argument about executing innocent people by mistake. Well, that argument in itself has some validity, but isn't (so far at least) actually the core of the objection. So far, whenever I've had this argument, that is a line that's always trotted out ..... but (again, so far) whenever I've pushed it turns out that those arguing against the DP would be against it even if there was certainty. They're against it, and that line of logic is justification, but their stance wouldn't change anyway. It isn't the core of the objection to the DP, but supports the belief.
Let me try to put that another way. If you have the DP there's always at least a theoretical possibility that an innocent person could be executed .... and it's kinda hard top un-execute someone. And if you could, it'd rather defeat the point of the DP in the first place. So I'm not saying that that argument doesn't have some validity. It clearly does.
But so far, whenever I've discussed this, it's always been the case that the people using that argument would be against the DP being used even if there were total, absolute incontrovertible certainty ..... because they just believe the DP is wrong. So that argument isn't the reason they believe the DP is wrong, it's just a supporting argument.
And that, in my experience, is what this issue ALWAYS comes down to. The vast majority of people seems to either believe that it's wrong, period, or not. And everything else is just used to justify that belief.
If I argued for using the DP, for instance, I can come up with rationalisations for situations where there are advantages. I've already suggested a couple. But there are arguments against, too. So you end up either believing what you believe regardless of any arguments the other way, or you come up against trying to judge the relative merits versus the relative risks, and it's (IMHO) totally impossible to do that assessment using anything other than your own value system.
If someone believes that it's wrong to take a life under any circumstances, then that's what they believe. It doesn't match my beliefs, but I'm as prejudiced about my beliefs as everyone else is about theirs. Some people believe what they do for religious reasons. I don't give that stance any credence at all, personally, but I certainly can't prove that what people regard as God's will isn't, any more than I can prove God doesn't exist or any more than anyone else has yet to be able to prove to me that He does.
So it's been my experience to date (and who knows, I may get a refreshing change sometime) that this debate never gets anywhere. Some people believe one thing, some another, and you almost certainly aren't going to get anyone to change their mind. The arguments on both sides essentially just provide support for the positions that people hold, because of what they believe to be right or wrong.
So all I'm trying to do is to get to the real nub of the argument, and that consists of trying to cut through the rationalising, because so far, it's always ended up coming down to "because it's wrong to kill" versus "no, it isn't". And I've yet to come across any argument that has been able to prove or disprove either belief.
Actually, no, it wasn't the flip side. It took part of the situation and flipped it, while ignoring the other part.
My example was that someone that has already broken the societal contract and demonstrated their ability to kill in cold blood (such as a multiple child murderer, for example) could, and in documented examples, has been released only to kill again ..... but the subsequent victim is an innocent person that has done nothing wrong (that we know of, for the pedantic types out there ), and might have developed a cure for cancer or been the next Mozart, but now we'll never know because a proven killer was allowed to do it again.
That's rather a different situation from where a proven killer might find a cure for cancer or become the next Mozart (that being a tad more likely than the cancer-cure scenario) because they've already broken the contract with society.
Yes, it's possible that a convicted murderer could subsequently develop or demonstrate some talent that's beneficial to society. I'm sure it's already happened, even if it wasn't a cure for cancer.
I would also point out that even in societies that do have the DP, it is far from the case that it applies to all convicted murderers. There is often something else that elevates the case from an "ordinary" murder to one that carries the DP. So where I'm talking about the DP and ""convicted killers" (etc) I'm referring to that DP category, whatever it would be IF the DP were ever reintroduced here (which, IMHO and for at least the foreseeable future, it won't be)..
This is nothing to argue about, its simple, every case on its own merits, some times death penalty or life is justified, sometimes it can be better to be lenient, its not black and white. Simple.
Check out my Tech Blogs: Budget Gaming Rigs and The Droid ReviewHomer Simpson: "It takes two to lie Marge. One to lie, and one to listen"
That's certainly true, I've had the debate for a long time because, quite frankly, my father is a convicted, with out a doubt, murderer. I've been very much pro-death penalty because I've felt that he should have been executed, and in fact, it would have been more humane for that to have happened rather than having to rebuild a life after prison.
However, I had my point of view changed after many many long debates with someone who is very much against it. The one that changed my mind was the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, because it's certainly possible to make a mistake.
With regards to the core, as you put it, what about the concept that it's wrong to kill in cold blood? The idea that someone is a murderer because they have killed with pre-medditated forethought and planning and that is what makes it a horrendous act and seperates it from "lesser" crimes like manslaughter, death by dangerous driving etc.
If you accept that is what makes murder worse than other crimes, then surely you don't have a choice but to accept that the goverment doing the same is just as bad? They have deliberately set out to ensure that a person dies, with clear intent and forethought.
If you don't accept that definition of murder, then your arguements such as the sniper and the terrorist come into play.
(\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/)
(='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=)
(")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(")
This is bunny and friends. He is fed up waiting for everyone to help him out, and decided to help himself instead!
That certainly puts an interesting perspective on the debate.
I think you're getting a bit confused between UK and US definitions. In the UK, murder doesn't need to be premeditated or planned. Essentially (and there are a couple of other twists, and it's changed a bit over time) it requires the killing to be unlawful, and there to have been intent .... but that intent may simply be to cause grievous bodily harm, and not even explicitly to kill.
So far from requiring premeditation or planning, it's possible to commit murder without even intending to kill, let alone planning to do so.
I don't accept that the situation is the same at all, because in the case of the state, it isn't unlawful if it's the result of due process and therefore, by definition, can't be murder and, as I said, premeditation isn't the criteria in the UK.
But more than that, when it is a punishment by the state for breaking a (very serious) law, it's a different situation from an individual inflicting that act on another individual. If that were not the case, then locking someone up for life would be the same as kidnapping them and holding them prisoner. When you or I do it of our own accord, it's a serious offence, but it isn't when the state does it after due process. I see no difference at all in principle - whether it be execution, life imprisonment or some other penalty, the state imposing it as a part of due process is not at all the same situation as an individual imposing it. It comes down to that social contract I mentioned earlier, and we all subscribe to it .... if for no other reason than that we aren't given any choice in the matter. If you keep your side of the contract, the state doesn't impose the penalties. Murderers do not give their victims the same consideration, and that is a crucial difference.
Moreover, as yet another difference, if the state imposes it, the "victim" has had a chance to have their say in court, they're been represented by lawyers and they've been judged according to evidence. That isn't the situation with how a murderer treats his or her victim.
No, Lucio, in my opinion, the two situations are not the same at all.
The sniper scenario illustrates another distinction, though. That is an example where an organ of the state, in cold blood and with careful planning and premeditation, kills. Yet it isn't murder. Why? Because it's done with legal authority - and hopefully for very good reason, and only when necessary to save lives. Yet who would argue that the state does not have the right to use lethal force in such scenarios?
Again, it comes down to where society chooses to draw that line. Killing by the state IS sanctioned in the UK, always has been and as far as it's possible to predict, always will be. Armed police have that authority, in the relevant circumstances. The only real question is what circumstances the state chooses to justify killing, not whether it does at all.
It is yet another fallacy used by the anti camp, that the state does not have the right to take life. It clearly does ..... but under what circumstances and with what justification? As I said, where do we draw the line?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)