Death Penalty

[#1 bro]

I don't think the 5-10 innocent people executed is a huge deal either, hence

That said, I don't think it's the biggest issue in the world.

but tell me, why in the world should we enforce the death penalty instead of just letting the criminals rot in jail? I do think we should offer them euthanasia if they want it (not sure if we already do or don't)

 

[Pwnemon]

Alruane, it has nothing to do with whether I think they deserve it or not, or whether or not they want it.

It has to do with the fact that THERE IS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH ALLOWS IT. I've also seen some very good speeches, one from Congressman Davy Crockett and the other from James Madison, against such things. Though I doubt they could convince you.

Also good luck never responding to me again.

Zeta, Little Monster addressed that too, as did I. Many an innocent jail guard has died in a prison riot and it's not right.

 

[Butterfree]

To oplatiger (and partly Butterfree):
I agree; you all seem to think that these 8 human lives were of such significance that the entire capital punishment system should be abolished.
What about the 70 million that died in WWII? Or the 600,000 that died in the Civil War? I fail to see the great sigificance of 8 mistakes.

What? How can you possibly say that? Even one single innocent person being murdered matters; that's the reason murder is a crime to begin with! You can't just say other things kill more innocent people and therefore it doesn't matter. Every innocent life matters.

I would at least vaguely understand where you're coming from if there were an actual trade-off here, if these innocent lives were sacrificed in exchange for something enormously beneficial to society (though I still wouldn't agree). But they're not, because true, secure life imprisonment would give the exact same benefit, at a lower cost. What cause, exactly, are you proposing these people are dying for?

To Butterfree:
If you confine someone to a cell alone with no human contact, then what life do they have? It's much worse to have to exist doing nothing and interacting with nothing than to be killed, when you won't even be aware of losing all connection with existance.

You're dodging the question. Don't try to suddenly make yourself into a martyr for the humane treatment of murderers. You don't advocate the death penalty because you think it's more humane than life imprisonment, and you know it; you're just pulling it out as a cheap distraction when I've proven your actual argument moot. :/

For the record, if there were no way to keep prisoners adequately confined without subjecting them to a living hell, I would advocate just letting them choose to die if they wished, but jumping right from "proper life imprisonment" to "solitary confinement" is a terrible slippery slope argument. Keeping people securely confined where they can't harm anyone does not mean you have to cut them off from all human contact and stimulation; you just need to take adequate measures to prevent them from physically assaulting anyone, such as by letting them communicate with people only through a barrier and taking extra measures to protect the guards. It does not have to be an intolerable life by any means.

 

[1. Luftballon]

Alruane, it has nothing to do with whether I think they deserve it or not, or whether or not they want it.

It has to do with the fact that THERE IS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH ALLOWS IT. I've also seen some very good speeches, one from Congressman Davy Crockett and the other from James Madison, against such things. Though I doubt they could convince you.

you know, there's nowhere in the constitution that explicitly allows you to eat, either.

 

[Pwnemon]

Yes, but laws establishing dinner are not necessary. Read amendment ten.

EDIT: 9 GAAHHH I ALWAYS CONFUSE THOSE TWO

 

[1. Luftballon]

dude, you just undermined your point.

 

[Pwnemon]

No I didn't.

 

[1. Luftballon]

IS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH ALLOWS IT.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[Pwnemon]

Yes, but also number 10 for real this time.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I have no problem with Massachusetts making social programs. Heck, California can become freaking communist and it won't be illegal. But as explained by this amendment, seeing as objects of benevolence are not in the constitution, the fed can't make any laws for them.

 

[Dannichu]

Many an innocent jail guard has died in a prison riot and it's not right.

But the jail guards were killed by an individual - people who undergo the death penalty are killed by their own government. There's an absolutely massive difference.

No, I think the death penaly should remain in tact, because all of them were/are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty, and less than half of a percent of them even have a possibility to be innocent, much less are AUCTUALLY innocent.

Yes, proven to be guilty within a racist system. The argument here isn't that all the black/poor people on death row are somehow innocent, it's that there are loads of white/rich people who have committed the exact same crime, been proven guilty and not been put on death row.
Here's an exciting news flash: poor people can't afford good lawyers. And I'm guessing people like pwnemon, who don't think poor people deserve medicine or houses, don't think they should have decent lawyers (and thusly get a fair and equal trial in the eyes of the law), either.

 

[Michi]

But the jail guards were killed by an individual - people who undergo the death penalty are killed by their own government. There's an absolutely massive difference.



Yes, proven to be guilty within a racist system. The argument here isn't that all the black/poor people on death row are somehow innocent, it's that there are loads of white/rich people who have committed the exact same crime, been proven guilty and not been put on death row.
Here's an exciting news flash: poor people can't afford good lawyers. And I'm guessing people like pwnemon, who don't think poor people deserve medicine or houses, don't think they should have decent lawyers (and thusly get a fair and equal trial in the eyes of the law), either.

Then amend the legal system to be racially fair while still keeping the death penalty.
And I personally think they deserve as good lawyers, homes, medical care, etc.

And Butterfree: Whatever I did to "dodge the question" was subconcious as I see no problem with my response even now. Granted I may just be a bit ignorant or something, but still I see my response as valid.

 

[Pwnemon]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Wait a sec, I DO believe they should have good lawyers!!!

Anyway, for the last dang time. It isn't a problem that blacks and poor people get exactly what they deserve! It's a problem that whites don't, but are you saying that nobody should get what they deserve just to make it equal? Sounds a bit stupid to me.

 

[1. Luftballon]

Yes, but also number 10 for real this time.



I have no problem with Massachusetts making social programs. Heck, California can become freaking communist and it won't be illegal. But as explained by this amendment, seeing as objects of benevolence are not in the constitution, the fed can't make any laws for them.

your repeated use of ad nauseam and ignoratio elenchi leads me to believe you incapable of keeping your own arguments straight.

confirm/deny.

 

[opaltiger]

Then amend the legal system to be racially fair while still keeping the death penalty.

Oh! How incredibly stupid that we hadn't thought of that before. I'll just go flip the "justice system" switch from RACIST to FAIR.

 

[Michi]

Oh! How incredibly stupid that we hadn't thought of that before. I'll just go flip the "justice system" switch from RACIST to FAIR.

I never said it would be easy, and I know that it's obvious, I'm saying that there's no point in stopping the death penalt just because some people are racist.

 

[Pwnemon]

your repeated use of ad nauseam and ignoratio elenchi leads me to believe you incapable of keeping your own arguments straight.

confirm/deny.

I keep my arguments perfectly straight. The constitution does not say that the federal government can make laws of benevolence, therefore it is a power reserved for the state by amendment ten. It also doesn't say that you can eat, but it is a right retained for the people through amendment nine.

YOUR (lack of Constitutional Knowledge/Purposeful Straw Men) make me think you're incapable of offering a true rebuttal.

 

[PK]

(...) and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Wait a sec, I DO believe they should have good lawyers!!!

Have even ever seen the world outside your comfy little computer room? just because the law says it should be so DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. The simple fact is that rich people can buy better lawyers and get off on charges that poor people can't. And i seriously hope you someday end up with a medical condition you can't afford to treat- maybe then you'll figure out why social programs are needed.

 

[Butterfree]

And Butterfree: Whatever I did to "dodge the question" was subconcious as I see no problem with my response even now. Granted I may just be a bit ignorant or something, but still I see my response as valid.

How in the world can you see your response as valid?

First, I asked you a question: what are these innocent people dying for? You haven't answered it, and I would say that is very fundamental point here. Are these innocent people being killed for cause that you believe justifies their deaths? If yes, what cause exactly? If no, then how in the world can you not care that they're killed?

Secondly, your response amounted to "life imprisonment as you propose it is a living hell that is even worse than dying". I then explained that in fact, keeping prisoners sentenced to life secure does not equal making their lives a living hell. In what way exactly is your response still valid? At least make some sort of a reply to it, because right now I just can't make any sense of you.

 

[Pwnemon]

... you're an idiot. Seriously. Have even ever seen the world outside your comfy little computer room? just because the law says it should be so DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. The simple fact is that rich people can buy better lawyers and get off on charges that poor people can't. And i seriously hope you someday end up with a medical condition you can't afford to treat- maybe then you'll figure out why social programs are needed.

And I'm guessing people like pwnemon, who don't think poor people deserve medicine or houses, don't think they should have decent lawyers (and thusly get a fair and equal trial in the eyes of the law), either.

Emphasis obviously mine but still. I was responding to this assumption (Which makes an ass out of you and me) and saying I do believe they should have them. I did not in ANY way say they already have them and are gaining equal protection of the law. I just said they should. And if you didn't notice the government CAN and MUST provide you a public lawyer if you request one.

 

[PK]

Emphasis obviously mine but still. I was responding to this assumption (Which makes an ass out of you and me) and saying I do believe they should have them. I did not in ANY way say they already have them and are gaining equal protection of the law. I just said they should. And if you didn't notice the government CAN and MUST provide you a public lawyer if you request one.

My point is that not getting a DECENT lawyer doesn't mean not getting one at all. not all lawyers are decent. Just because the state provides you with one does not mean it's a GOOD one.