There is no convenient time to follow one's convictions.
If good turns bad at some point, it has ceased to be good.
That point is where the strength of one's beliefs are determined.

By those that do. Conversely those that don't share that opinion/follow that rule, call those that do, something else.

Two opposing positions calling each other names, now what? Majority rules? Mob rules? Reason rules?

Nobody can seem to tell me why their side is right other than claimimg moral high ground or being more rational.

Why is it bad to kill a human being? :dunce:

The murderers vs. the non-murderers? Should I be worried about you?

In what? A spelling bee? A bake off? A war?

So your telling me you have decided what side you're on and feel there is no reason to defend your position because it's obviously the right position and anyone who wasn't a murderer could see that? :lol:

No, I'm not telling you that. I would be wrong if I told you that.

True.
Your actions are your ethics and morals.
What/who you say you are means nothing.

That's true, but it doesn't make you right. :D

The correct translation, V, is You shall do no murder. Wrongful killing. It does not proscribe rightful killing. No wonder you argue with me -- you are valiant in your ignorance.

I, on the other hand, choose to know something whereof I speak.

Urbane Guerrilla and BigV sound like Alex from Clockwork Orange, in a verbal altercation with himself. Keep up the good work, guys. Lovin' it.

Why does it have to have anything to do with what's in the bible? Why can't it just have something to do with what you know is right?

Excellent point Ali. Are we so bereft of ability to decipher what's right and what's wrong.....or even more importantly, what's useful and what's counterproductive, that we must needs take our morality from ancient manuscripts?

I am not a Christian and am staunchly against the death penalty (Yes, even when it has been cases where my family have been the victims. People always assume no one has the strength of their convictions.)
I was not raised Christian, so my morals do not stem from the bible either.

The reason people bring Christianity into it so often, IMO, is the inherent hypocrisy of being a Christian and pro-death penalty... especially a "pro-lifer", pro-death penalty "Christian". Just makes no sense at all, particularly when they tend to be the most vocal and bloodthirsty proponents.

"Thou shalt not murder", or "kill" if you want to go with the mistranslation. Then saying they want to murder someone strapped to a chair or bed... yeah, tell me another one. There is no way that that can be translated into self-defense, there is no compassion or forgiveness involved there... nothing of the teachings of Christ apparent, so people see the organizations for what they are.
Pretty simple. I like it.

I support the death penalty because I believe that if a person commits an act so hienous, so irreconcilable with our values as cold blooded murder or murder of the helpless, then they forfet their right to get any older.

So you're anti-abortion, then?

person...not feotus

Ah, it's the old 'human but not a person' argument :rolleyes:

So, you only believe that you can do this when there is 100%, irrefutable, proof? Like, video, with DNA, right?

And, if only in those cases, the benefit would be...uhhh...well...nothing tangible . . . actually . . . what is the benefit again?

Wolf, I've voiced my opinion about abortion in another thread quite recently here. The one that argued quite extensively about where life begins.

I am pro abortion.

I'd like to ask those who are pro death penalty what they think about the actual person who commits a sanctioned murder. Don't you think doing that for a living would fuck you over royally after some time?

Depends, I don't think the guy pulling the switch on a multiple murderer/rapist is going to lose sleep.

Damn, I had what I thought was a very eloquent response to Ali and 9th's posts, but then MonkeyBoy stopped working and started debating me on the whole thing. DAMN IT it's all shot to hell!

So you think you'd cope with it well do you 9th? You could kill people for a living?

Aliantha, if it's sanctioned, it is by definition not murder. This is not to call it easy, though. Nowadays, nobody is a career professional executioner.

Living criminals have a recidivism rate. Executed ones don't.

I've said before, and in your hearing, that at the point of a death penalty, it's self-defense, extended society-wide, and it's damage control. Some villains are simply not redeemable, not in this life. Rehabilitation is shown, usually at length, to be ineffective with these, or simply impossible.

I don't care if you want to give it a special name UG. It's still killing someone else. That's murder in my books, and no amount of rationalising by you or anyone else will change that fact.

Aliantha, you're blowing it, and egregiously: the difference between a rightful killing (defense of your life or that of another) and wrongful (in brief, not defense but in aid of wrongful aggression) has been understood since the Bronze Age. I understand it; explain why you cannot. I am not rationalizing, nor contorting reason.

Killing's not the nicest thing around, to be sure -- but getting killed is, as I'm sure you'd agree if put to it, worse by a long chalk.

Pressing the button which brings on the death of someone else is not self defense UG.

I refuse to swat mosquitoes unless they are actively biting me, or flying close enough to me that I have to assume it's ABOUT to bite me. If it is outside, I'm not going to go out there, find it, and swat it so it cant magically come through the window and bite me.

I feel the same about the death penalty.

Damn... now we have to murder kleptomaniacs. :(

I've explained before just what it does defend, and I think clearly enough a planarian could get it. Pay attention, Ali -- this is worth paying attention to. That there is something here you patently don't want to know doesn't mean I can't know it -- and esteem it as better than your anti-defense viewpoint.

I do see your point UG, and agreed with it for half of my life... it just does not work, logically or ethically, for me any longer. My actions must follow.

There is a world of difference, practically and ethically (no metaphors here), between the guy rushing you or potentially having a gun in your home, and the one in a cage with a life sentence or strapped to a chair.
What someone may do and what they are doing is the distinction.
(no one make the point that you never really know if someone you are defending yourself against is really trying to kill you, that is a red herring and you know it. Breathing in a cage is NOT actively posing a threat.)

OK, you can pay my share of keeping him in that cage for the next 50 or 60 years. :2cents:

It is more expensive to murder an inmate than to keep them for life. FAR more expensive.
If you would take the cost of the murder over the housing... deal!

Absolutely. This is the easiest "pro-death penalty" issue there is to argue. Death row inmates are separated from the rest of the jail community. They do not participate in any work that inmates do that help defray the costs of the prison running. Not to mention the really expensive appeals and such that go on for YEARS.

Plus, it's not a deterrent, never has been, never will be.

Aside from that whole "ethics thing".

Plus, even if it were true, arguing that its okay to execute them because its cheaper is simply putting a price on life, and is morally reprehensible and wrong, because nobody's life or death should be determined by how financially beneficial it is to you.

UG...you're the one with a reading deficiency. I asked what it would do to the person that has to kill other people for a living??? If you can't address that issue without being obnoxious and answering only the part of the issue you like addressing, then don't answer.

I think capital punishment is the ultimate in punishment style law. What's the worst punishment you can inflict on someone, death right? It's not about saying "we have to minimize the damage you cause to society", it's about saying that we must punish criminals for their crime. I do agree with that sentiment to a degree, punishment is the natural reciprocal of wrongdoing. It's just a matter of who we trust with that power.

It worked when the gallows was next to the court house. It's the anti-death penalty people that make it so damn expensive. :p

We also miss out on the benefits of study. Henry Lee Lucas did not begin to cooperate with his captors, the FBI and his therapists for twelve years. Some serials have waited as long as seventeen.
How many lives have been saved due to what we have learned from these minds... how many have been lost due to the murders of so many others solely for vengeances sake?
One was too many, it has been many hundred that, I am sure.

Just a question here NOT an opinion. Would the death penalty actually function as a deterrent if it was carried out MUCH faster? I agree with you to a point rz, but if the death penalty actually worked at preventing someone from committing a crime (which I don't think it does now) how many lives would be saved. Furthermore, the cost on society and the ability to shift the funds spent keeping these criminals alive were shifted to rehab programs or any of many other viable options would that save even more lives?? I don't know and I don't think our society would ever do it, but it does merit some thought at least - no?

I don't know. I think you're almost putting someone out of their misery by ending their life. I think it would be worse to spend the rest of your life in prison, but perhaps that isn't how criminals think. Death, of course, would be so scary...but if your life were that messed up anyway maybe it would seem like a relief.

Benefits of study? What did they find out besides they were nuts? How did this studying these creeps benefit the population?

When the next wacko kills 10 people, the shrinks understanding why, doesn't help one bit...... especially to the victims.

[QUOTE-Shawnee123]I don't know. I think you're almost putting someone out of their misery by ending their life. I think it would be worse to spend the rest of your life in prison, but perhaps that isn't how criminals think.[/quote] If they were chained to a dungeon wall, perhaps. But living in relative comfort with access to reading materials and sometimes TV, don't think so. :headshake

That depends on just how much the concept of an FBI profiler is a hollywood creation.

True, I hadn't considered that angle. :o

Oh come on. Prisons are not pleasant places to be......the average time it takes a new arrival to be raped in an American prison is fifteen minutes.

Especially if you're a rapist or child molestor yourself..."regular" criminals hate that! And if you're a cop killer the guards hate that.

Hang on to your soap.

In places where it has been used in that way, it did not work and does not now in places that try. This point has been made earlier in this thread or another in which we were discussing this topic.
I don't think it merits thought, because I don't feel it is worth becoming a murderer just to seek vengeance.
More death and destruction does not solve anything, it only does more harm to us and continues the cycle.

Please tell me that was hyperbole. Otherwise, I'd really, really like to see a cite for that. Really, I would.

I can't remember now where I read that factet. It was in a newspaper report ( I think the Guardian) about three years ago.

I did manage to find an interesting article on the subject though. It doesn't give the average time for an inmate to be raped but it does highlight the scale of the problem

A large-scale study of American prisons says only 1 in 5 prisoners have ever had forced sexual contact, and only 7% are actually raped.

Not to say that 21% is okay, because it definitely isn't--but it sure as hell doesn't translate into 15 minutes before the "average" prisoner is raped, since the average prisoner (i.e. the majority of them) isn't ever raped.

I've been doing a bit of searching since Dana posted that stat and unfortunately can't find anything which either supports or refutes it.

I have found quite a number of sites which claim stats similar to those you've posted Clod, although most of them have the disclaimer that the statistics are based on 'reported abuses' and are not necessarily representative of the true number of rapes which take place.

I'm getting quite confused here....

as I understand it, the pro-execution peeps want to go that route 'cos killing other peeps is wrong?

lol

Um...what is the difference between "forced sexual contact" and "actually raped?" :right:

Getting your ass or junk grabbed, having your leg dry-humped, having your nipple pinched...

Not on death row, no contact with other prisoners. Pleasant is relative, I wouldn't find it pleasant, at all, but it sure beats being in the general prison population. :worried:

Hey, the perp gets to see just how he likes being put to death. I call that fair. :cool:

You didn't get the irony UG? lol Or you're just trying to be funny again?

He's trying to be ironic for no worthwhile reason. I'm serving him notice that his irony is therefore a failure. In an ironic tone, no less. :p

Anti-death-penalty people just don't come off as either practical or, ultimately, moral.

And if the death penalty is so ineffective as a deterrent, can you explain then why, with the option available to waive appeals at any stage, less than one condemned in a hundred does anything other than exercise all of his appeals? The big reason death sentences are so costly in the United States is because we are as a rule meticulous in how we apply them: we spend the money being careful. Contrast this with the Chinese method, if you like.

So because China - in your eyes - is more brutal about the way they put people to death means that the US - in your eyes - is better or less wrong?

Do you see any double standard in the view you have expressed here UG?

I see someone trying to condemn someone else for doing the same thing but differently. That's a double standard. Where's the morality there?