Five reasons to oppose death penalty - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

spacecraft View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 04 2006
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 184

Posted: July 14 2006 at 19:37

The death penalty should be stopped as it causes death......no other points should matter

goose

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 20 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 4097

Posted: July 15 2006 at 08:48

Like the point that it could prevent other deaths?

edible_buddha View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: September 16 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 195

Posted: July 15 2006 at 09:57

Well... Thats debatable.... Thats why we are debating...

In some cultures, and/or in some ideologies, it may achieve the aim it set out to do because of the peoples belief system. In others, it dosen't... and for the same reason.

I've made my case in earlier entries to this post, but I have been known to be wrong.

One of the good things about post like this is that it gives me an idea as to why other people think the way they do.

I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long.

Sean Trane View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414

Posted: July 15 2006 at 15:55

put it this way (as this debate is still happening)

killing in self defence is allowed right?

imagine that the human society is in self defence when dealing with really dangerous recidivists..................;;

let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

crimson thing View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848

Posted: July 15 2006 at 17:22

Sean Trane wrote:

put it this way (as this debate is still happening)

killing in self defence is allowed right?

imagine that the human society is in self defence when dealing with really dangerous recidivists..................;;

...unfortunately, it rarely happens that some steaming psychopath advances upon you, stating quite clearly & eloquently "I will kill you unless you kill me first.....".....

"Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS

Visitor13

Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702

Posted: July 15 2006 at 18:20

Proponents of the death penalty should actually try to be the ones to pull the lever/flick the switch on someone one day. After all, nowadays it's all quick/clean/painless/with a cherry on top, isn't it?

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: July 15 2006 at 18:28

Visitor13 wrote:

That's not my job, I been trained as a lawyer, my personal ideas have no relation with the work I have to do.

The Congressmen make the laws and accept or deny death Penalty and neither them have to place the lethal injection.

The guy in charge of exceutions makes his job, he's been trained for that.

Iván

Evans

Forum Senior Member

Joined: July 15 2006
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 3004

Posted: July 15 2006 at 18:30

Killing in self-defence is allowed because no-one can deny or take away from a human being his will to live, and tendency to do anything in his power to stay alive no mtter what, the human SOCIETY does not have that survival instinct (not in the literal, evolutionary sense), therefore it does not need to act the same way,
and it definately shouldn't give in to the primal instincts of it's people. (Or it could, but then there are a lot of things that would need to go with it, heh..).
(sorry, i just felt like i couldn't completely stay out of this discussion, as i feel pretty strongly for this subject)

OpethGuitarist View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: June 25 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1655

Posted: July 15 2006 at 23:41

The fact that the possibility for error exists causes me to oppose the death penalty always.

However, I do believe in cruel and unusual punishment for those convicted of murder, take that as you will.

back from the dead, i will begin posting reviews again and musing through the forums

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: July 16 2006 at 00:14

OpethGuitarist wrote:

The fact that the possibility for error exists causes me to oppose the death penalty always.

This is valid, I insist in a total proved case with:

DNA
Physical evidence
Witness
Confession

Point 4 can be avoided because if you got the first three is enough IMO.

Take a case like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson, there's no reason to doubt, the evidences are clear as water in the second one you had even confession (Not sure about Ted Bundy's confession), the evidence is so overwhelmoing, that there's no chance for mistake.

What I don't accept is circumstantial evidence in any death penalty case unless it's additional to N° 1, 2 and 3.

However, I do believe in cruel and unusual punishment for those convicted of murder, take that as you will.

Not cruel and unusual just as Rick Wakeman said in The Priissoner:

The shadow of the noose grew long
A sun dial of the time
The prisoner had left to live
A self inflicted crime
To pay with death for pain he gave
To those he soon will meet
The rope hung loosely round his neck
The Devil at his feet

"You shall hang," said the judge,
For your presence here on earth,
is no use for those who wish to live in peace.
Your evil is forever.
"You shall hang", said the judge.
"You shall hang,
You shall hang,
You shall hang."

The hangman checked the rope
Aware the prisoner was afraid
The preacher softly praying
To Our Lord his soul to save
The blindfold placed around his eyes
An unlit funeral pyre
The hangman pulled the lever
He heard an astral choir

One man's life has cost another
You shall not lie in sacred ground
The time has come to meet your Maker
Down on earth, they heard no sound

Your evil is for ever,
"You shall hang," said the judge.
All earthly life in you has ceased.

He tried to call out to the Maker
On no earthly soil he fell
The Maker motioned all around
He felt his soul dragged down to Hell
He saw the man that he had murdered
People he had pained on earth
Of reincarnate souls returning
No hope for his rebirth

"You shall hang", said the Maker,
For your presence on our planes,
Is no use for those who wish to rest in peace.

Your evil is for ever,
"You shall hang", said the Maker
"You shall hang.
You shall hang.
You shall hang."

Just kill them in the most painless way possible.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 16 2006 at 00:15

spacecraft View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 04 2006
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 184

Posted: July 16 2006 at 19:16

Anyway, the death penalty doesn't exist in civilised countries. lucky for England then, as we know their record on penalties.

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: July 17 2006 at 02:08

Sean Trane wrote:

put it this way (as this debate is still happening)

killing in self defence is allowed right?

imagine that the human society is in self defence when dealing with really dangerous recidivists..................;;

Clever, but killing in self defense is only allowed when it's the only way to prevent the murder, and the murder is imminent. We don't necessarily know a killer will kill again, and imprisoning them makes sure it doesn't happen again. So it wouldn't be allowed in the name of self-defense.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Sean Trane View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414

Posted: July 17 2006 at 04:12

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Sean Trane wrote:

put it this way (as this debate is still happening)

killing in self defence is allowed right?

imagine that the human society is in self defence when dealing with really dangerous recidivists..................

recidivists.................. >>> this easily checks out, they do it again, repeatedly, again and again. >>> NOT THAT HARD A CONCEPT TO UNDERSTAND , I BELIEVE, EVEN FOR YOU!!!!!!!

This can be spotted in psychiatric circles by the complete lack of redemption or even faulting others for their acts of horror. They do not see anything wrong with their behaviour.

Hannibal Lecter (Silence Of The Lamb) should've been on the chair instead of helping Jodie finding the new serial murderer. This kind of movie is actually trying give (very stupid) reasons for not executing such pervertys (sexual or otherwise does not change anything in their dangerous conduct).

Can I suggest that the judges not sentencing repeated & confirmed murderers to maximum penalty xhould actually pay for the murderer's next victims??? How dare some arsehole judge account for new victims on his belief that some kind of god would not agree with his decision >> if he has qualms about this, he should not be judge.

Edited by Sean Trane - July 17 2006 at 04:13

let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: July 17 2006 at 11:22

Sean Trane wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Sean Trane wrote:

put it this way (as this debate is still happening)

killing in self defence is allowed right?

imagine that the human society is in self defence when dealing with really dangerous recidivists..................

recidivists.................. >>> this easily checks out, they do it again, repeatedly, again and again. >>> NOT THAT HARD A CONCEPT TO UNDERSTAND , I BELIEVE, EVEN FOR YOU!!!!!!!

This can be spotted in psychiatric circles by the complete lack of redemption or even faulting others for their acts of horror. They do not see anything wrong with their behaviour.

Secondly, stick to the facts and keep your fashionable, anti-Christian sentiment out of the arguement. It's annoying and just makes you look close minded.

Judge's pay for the murder, that's preposterous. Then the gun companies should pay when someone is killed with a gun. Public transportation should pay because he took the bus to the victim's house. His parents should pay because they raised him in a way to foster a murderous persona. How about personal responsibility is taken in this country for once.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Sean Trane View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414

Posted: July 17 2006 at 12:10

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Before I respond, two things. Don't insult my intelligence. I haven't insulted yours despite a burning desire to do so. I obviously know what recidivist means as I've been using the word quite frequently. >>> Well please try to understand quicker that I am not talking of first case murderers , but those that have killed twice (on different occasions) and are really more than likely to start some more. Sorry if you feel insulted , did not mean to!>> actually I felt irritated that you escaped most of that point, which meant that I had to do something to get you on that slippery ground (for you anyway, since you avoided it)

Secondly, stick to the facts and keep your fashionable, anti-Christian sentiment out of the arguement. It's annoying and just makes you look close minded. >>> Certainly no-anti christian sentiments, but christians keep bringing up the strange idea of a supernatural being dictating morals or ethics and so generally it ends up that nobody does anything because of this fictional god. Fashionable anti-christian!!!, gee I wish that was true

, it would be about time we did become fashionable, we would be able to get more supporters.

Getting back to the facts: human justice is nothing to do with divine justice. Two completely different things! Human justice is real and should be applied ciorrectly without having that possible divine (and completely hypothetical) justice getting in the way.

Even with crimes that have high recidivst rates, that only puts a percentage on the chance of them commiting the murder again. Not necessarily enough especially since locking them up forever will serve the same purpose. Again you speak of one time murderers and therefore avoid the real subject at stake here! I am speaking of repeating murderers, meaning that we are not dealing with first time murderers: of course with first time killers, there is a high non-recidivist rate. Thank god for that (if you will pardon that)

I don't see your point of bringing up a fictional movie, but since you did, doesn't this hurt your arguement. Hannibal Lecture got free, but only because of utter police incompetance. That could never happen in real life to such a high security prisoner. Jodie would never have caught the murderer without his help; he provided valuable information. If we were to capture an Al-Queda official should we just put a bullet through his head, or keep him locked up and milk him for information. Put a bullet in his head aftyer he spoke if you are able to make him speak, which after four years of Guantanamo is not likely or else everyone would be caught by now >> anyway, War crimes are different than civil crimes >> I can agree that bringing in that movie was a bit shabby from me

, but the message is that a convicted and confirmed cannibal can behave and regain redemption >> this is fictional but it helps building the feeling that if a criminal like him can make it, than it possible for most recidivist >> which is very dangerous

Judge's pay for the murder, that's preposterous. If I commit a mistake on the job (I am a safety consultant on top of it, so I know what I am talking about) that cost somebody's life I will have to pay for damages and if I was negligent about it I may even end up in jail. Why can't a judge be paying for his mistakes if he does a wrong judgment and releases someone that is going to kill a few more times???? Putting responsability on the judge about his decision and what happens as a result of his judgment shpould solve a lot of problems, I think.

Then the gun companies should pay when someone is killed with a gun. >> Actually they should be since they build deadly weapons, and those "tools" are designed to kill. Common sense strikes again, thank you very much

His parents should pay because they raised him in a way to foster a murderous persona. Most likely his parents did almost everything to get him (the murderer) another way than he turned out to be

How about personal responsibility is taken in this country for once. MY POINT EXACTLY!!! WHEN DO THE JUDGES STARTS THINKING OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTS????? They are over-protected (for obvious reasons too)! My grandfather was a small court judge on the local front, and I can tell you that he usually crossed the two parties in town after the trials and was never

again did not mean to insult your intelligence, but I had to bring you to the subject you were deliberatly avoiding

read you tomorrow, must go now

Edited by Sean Trane - July 17 2006 at 12:24

let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: July 17 2006 at 14:56

Sean Trane wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I didn't avoid it. I don't know what gives you that idea.

, it would be about time we did become fashionable, we would be able to get more supporters.

Christian hating has become widely popular in the mainstream. Comedians, Actors, and musicians can all make an easy audiance by simply targeting religion.

I'm not speaking of first time. The same applies to repeated murderers.

I don't see the movie putting that message across. The entire time Jodie Foster converses with Anthony Hopkins, you are reminded of just how sick and demented Hannibal is.

And knive companies should be sued for deaths using knives too I suppose? Why not car companies, those dangerous things cause more deaths than guns.

His parents should pay because they raised him in a way to foster a murderous persona. Most likely his parents did almost everything to get him (the murderer) another way than he turned out to be

again did not mean to insult your intelligence, but I had to bring you to the subject you were deliberatly avoiding

read you tomorrow, must go now

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Teaflax

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225

Posted: July 17 2006 at 15:14

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Christian hating has become widely popular in the mainstream. Comedians, Actors, and musicians can all make an easy audiance by simply targeting religion.

Cites?

And you know just as well as anyone, that an atheist couldn't be elected dog catcher in the US, so it's hardly the prevailing spiritual paradigm.

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: July 17 2006 at 19:23

The extreme purging of anyhting remotely religious from any institution touched by the U.S government.

Check out about any comedian's act and there will be an anti-christian joke in there. George Carlin will even come out and tell you blatantly in his act because for some reason he thinks he is a philosopher instead of a sub-par comedian.

Yes, I realize that an atheist will not be elected to public office, but that require the majority of America, the working class chum to elect you. They tend to be religious, but the mainstream consists not of the working class and tends to be anti-religious.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Sean Trane View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20414

Posted: July 18 2006 at 04:04

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Sean Trane wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Christian hating has become widely popular in the mainstream. Comedians, Actors, and musicians can all make an easy audiance by simply targeting religion. >> a little fun poking is definitely no hate spreading, and let's face religions and their dogma are easily satyrized, but not more so than

I'm not speaking of first time. The same applies to repeated murderers. What, like a third time recidivist will suddendly see the light and stop killing???? And I suppose that you would like to be the one who finally made him see the light?!?!

I don't see the movie putting that message across. The entire time Jodie Foster converses with Anthony Hopkins, you are reminded of just how sick and demented Hannibal is. OK weak point from me even if he (Lecter) does get away free at the end of the movie

Some of that comes from the fact that unions have flung off the handle and gained more control than businesses. There's also a difference between a subjective act like sentencing, and a foreman not replacing a rusted security railing. The same goes for the employer who does not worry about the safety of his workers. His decision of buying a new technology that is not well known abnd can produced health damages to his employees is punishable by law, although he did not mean to harm them.

Everybody must face the consequences of their professional acts, why could judges not be doing the same. Not sentencing correctly a repeated murderer to death and replacing it with a life emprisonment is only causing him to be wanting to escape (no jail is break-free), but he will do so again just in order to keep his freedom as long as possible.

HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THE FURTHER LOSS OF INNOCENT LIVES PAST THE SECOND INTENTIONAL MURDER , OTHER THAN BY A JUSTICE NOT WILLING TO DO THEIR JOB, BECAUSE OF THEIR FEAR OF A POSSIBLE DIVINE JUSTICE?

FURTHERMORE HOW DO YOU THINK THAT THIS HIGHLY HYPOTHETICAL JUSTICE WILL JUDGE YOUR ACTS OF LENIENCY THAT CAUSED FURTHER DEATHS???????

And knive companies should be sued for deaths using knives too I suppose? Why not car companies, those dangerous things cause more deaths than guns. Knives and cars can be dangerous if not used properly or against common sense. you can stuff an apple in the wrong hole and even an appple becomes dangerous, but you will not do that. Guns are made to kill (knives to cut , but not kill >>> it is a question of the finality of the object) and using them safely is illusory. Weapons manufacturers should actually pay for the crimes their products commit. It is a lot harder to kill someone when you have to actually do it physically by plunging a knive into another man's body rather than putting lead into him from a distance

let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

Teaflax

Forum Senior Member

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225

Posted: July 18 2006 at 04:32

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The extreme purging of anyhting remotely religious from any institution touched by the U.S government.

You are talking about "One nation under God", right? The one with "In God we trust" on the money? The one where you have to swear on the Bible to become the President? Extreme purging, my gluteus maximus.

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Check out about any comedian's act and there will be an anti-christian joke in there. George Carlin will even come out and tell you blatantly in his act because for some reason he thinks he is a philosopher instead of a sub-par comedian.

Sub-par? George Carlin is probably one of the five most influential and important comics of all time, with Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby and Bill Hicks - at least if you ask professionals, whose opinions ought to count for something.

Now, that four of those five are pretty damned anti-religious says more about the prevailing mores of the US, because good comics target the powerful and the ossified.

Besides, if Carlin is all you can come up with of the supposedly powerful trend of anti-religionism in the US - a guy who does an HBO special every other year - it's really not that pervasive, I would say.

Who's a good comic in your book, BTW? Larry, The Cable Guy? Dane Cook?

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The majority = the mainstream, so you're just typing nonsense now.

Edited by Teaflax - July 18 2006 at 04:35