Post Reply
Page 17 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 22 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Ohio Wants a Second Try at Executing Inmate - Your Thoughts?
5 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2009 - 12:18PM #161
mountain_man
Posts: 40,209

Dec 23, 2009 -- 9:53AM, karbie wrote:

...It does seem ironic that we are so hungup on making sure the criminals have a less painful death than they gave their victims. And of course, longer life spans as well.



So, treating our fellow humans in a humane manner is a "hangup"?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2009 - 1:25PM #162
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

One of the dumbest instances I recall on lethal injection execution was the defense lawyer insisting that the injection needle be certified sterile.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2009 - 1:50PM #163
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

As of January, torture has been banned.  What happened to this inmate was torture.  Therefore, the execution should be canceled.


Not that I believe we should ever be executing anyone.  Bad form, rather like hitting a child to teach him not to hit.

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2009 - 3:26PM #164
SatanicStalker
Posts: 719

Dec 23, 2009 -- 10:38AM, Marcion wrote:

Where does society obtain the right to take a human life collectively when it is murder for an individual to do so. Don't rights of a society stem from individual  rights.




Dec 23, 2009 -- 12:10PM, mountain_man wrote:

Well, maybe our society does not frown on killing. In fact, society itself kills everytime there is an excecution. Why do we have this double standard? We say yes to society killing and no to an individual. Both are wrong. Execution is wrong.


That's right, this so called "society" kills to show it frowns on killing. That's a perfect example of 'hypocrisy."




It is considered a very major crime for an individual to take another individual against their will and lock them up for years. When it happens, it's often bigger news than most murders. 


Yet no one claims that it is "hypocritical" for a society to lock up criminals for years in prison. 


And no, societal rights do not stem from individual rights, individual rights stem from society. Individual rights only exist because of society. Society doesn't have "rights," society has responsibilities. Rights must be protected by some force, otherwise they are just wishes. If society had a right, what would be enforcing that right? 


Society enforces the right of people to not be killed. Society enforces the right of people to not be locked up for years against their will. Society can remove these rights when necessary. 


~Stalker

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 23, 2009 - 4:52PM #165
mountain_man
Posts: 40,209

Dec 23, 2009 -- 3:26PM, SatanicStalker wrote:

Yet no one claims that it is "hypocritical" for a society to lock up criminals for years in prison.



Not a very good try. Taking a life is far more extreme than removing someone that has shown they cannot participate in a normal society from that society. Killing to show that killing is wrong is where the hypocrisy lies.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2009 - 2:48PM #166
Beautiful_Dreamer
Posts: 5,167

Dec 21, 2009 -- 1:58PM, Christianlib wrote:


Sorry, appy, I can't join you in that blood lust.


I'm all for locking someone up forever.  Killing is simply uncivilized vengenance.  It is in no way "justice."




I'm just playing devil's advocate here...


I'm not for capital punishment either. I'm in the boat with CLib when she quoted Sister Perjean when she said that it's not a question of whether or not someone deserves to die as much as whether we deserve to be able to kill them. However, a class of mine in college once toured the state prison in NC...the stories the guards told and seeing the weapons they had confiscated from prisoners, well let's just say I didn't want to eat afterward.  The prison population tended to react even more strongly to people who were in for killing or raping children...either the person would be put in protective custody or solitary confinement, either way they'd spend the vast majority of the time alone. 


That IMO is another point for why keeping someone locked up can be more of a punishment than executing them.  Sometimes I wonder if that might actually be the more *merciful* thing to do, given how inmates can treat each other.


I agree with the others who've mentioned death being a choice offered to a prisoner who would otherwise be in prison for life, especially if they were in solitary confinement. That could be an example of possibly being merciful.

More where that came from...

Writing I get paid to do

Beliefnet Community Host - Christian Faith and Life, Christian to Christian Debate
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2009 - 5:10PM #167
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

BD,


Just for clarity, ChristianLib=he.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2009 - 10:30PM #168
karbie
Posts: 3,329

Society derives that right from the will of the governed. Many states have gone back and forth over whether to have the death penalty in my lifetime. A person who has killed--especially a serial killer like Ted Bundy who has already deprived several individuals of their lives--has chosen to do so. He never expressed or apparently felt remorse. The closest he came to any "sympathy" for the families of his victims was when he started offering to clear up more "missing persons" cases in return for a stay of execution. As I recall, it didn't work.


There may indeed be a genetic marker or a cog loose or whatever in serial killers, rapists, or serial pedophiles that will be found someday. At present, they certainly don't seem to feel that the lives of their victims have any intrinsic value that deserves any respect.


 


And slightly off-topic--there was a short sci-fi story about a man being rewarded for saving a small god's life. Every century it was turned into a small animal for 24 hours for changing a pawn to a queen in a chess game with another immortal. While the little god Eep was grateful, his gratitude wasn't worth more than a few dollars. So a winning lottery ticket, etc, would be only worth this small amount. In the end, the man who had saved the little creature was surprised to have the woman he was in love with suddenly show up at his door that evening and spend the night with him. In the morning, he found a little note explaining that the combined chemicals that made up the human body added up to exactly the price limit the little creature could reward anyone. Talking about the "intrinsic value" reminded me of it--I don't remember the exact amount other than it being under $4...but then it was published in 1966.


 

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 26, 2009 - 10:35PM #169
mountain_man
Posts: 40,209

Dec 26, 2009 -- 10:30PM, karbie wrote:

Society derives that right from the will of the governed. Many states have gone back and forth over whether to have the death penalty in my lifetime. A person who has killed--especially a serial killer like Ted Bundy who has already deprived several individuals of their lives--has chosen to do so. He never expressed or apparently felt remorse. The closest he came to any "sympathy" for the families of his victims was when he started offering to clear up more "missing persons" cases in return for a stay of execution. As I recall, it didn't work.



Are you saying that we should become like Bundy and kill without remorse?


There may indeed be a genetic marker or a cog loose or whatever in serial killers, rapists, or serial pedophiles that will be found someday. At present, they certainly don't seem to feel that the lives of their victims have any intrinsic value that deserves any respect.



So we should become like them?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 27, 2009 - 1:06AM #170
rangerken
Posts: 16,408

Bad analogy MM...with Bundy. You're comparing a lawful government with a psychopath. We should always regret  taking anyone's life no matter how necessary it may be. Sometimes it is, in my opinion, necessary. Whether or not it is ever necessary for a level of government to take life through a judicial process is debatable. Ibelieve it may be justified. but it is never a good thing and even if the circumstances are such that it is clearly justified (for those who are willing to ever justify it...like me) it should always be done with regret that it is necessary at all. You understand, I trust MM, that when I talk about taking life I am not being the least bit hypothetical. It is never a good thing, no matter how 'legal' etc.


Ken

Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 17 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 ... 22 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook