So now that one of the Boston Bombers is in custody, should he receive the death penalty?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Bentusi16:

I think, and forgive me if I'm wrong on this, his point is that if prison IS meant to rehabilitate, to in some rough and ready fashion take a criminal and turn them back into a productive member of society, then by removing those who cannot be rehabilitated you allow for more of those who can be.

Uh yeah, okay, if a process to determine with 100% accuracy whether or not an individual can be rehabilitated can be provided...

And, that means, living individuals, cause there's not much rehabilitation possible for a corpse after all.

As I mentioned before, we do not get a free pass on humanity because we are born human. Humanity is something constantly earned and lost throughout our lives. It's why I'm sure people in here would consider the rich 'inhuman' for their actions or the religious 'inhuman' for their beliefs, as much as their are people who consider the poor 'inhuman' for their status.

Human and humane are different things. And as long as you're a Homo Sapiens, you're a human, regardless of other people's wishful thinking. Or maybe the human rights definitions are too vague on whether it means "rights a member of the Homo Sapiens species is entitled to" or not.

We are not born with humanity but given the chance to have it, and when you use that chance to kill, or worse, then you've used your chance up. All we get is a chance. Not a benison. Unless he is proven to be truly and incurably insane, that is, pyroland levels of insanity where is incapable of understanding what is going on around him, then he actively made the choice to do this. He cannot say he was coerced; that's an excuse, not an alibi. He cannot say he felt he had no other choices; again, an excuse, not an alibi. If he was capable of making rational decisions, if he is not crippling insane, and he perpetuated the acts, then he is guilty. It does not matter why he did something, only that the act was committed (except again, crippling insanity).

But wouldn't a truly insane person be more "impossible" to rehabilitate than a not-insane-person? Tying into point 1, that kind of creates a rather annoying conflict of morals. Now I understand you did not make that point, but if we accept it, we kind of need to deal with the entire "Is it okay to execute a person who was truly insane and therefore their crime was not a result of conscious choice, since their insanity would make it very difficult to rehabilitate them?" thing.

If he is guilty, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. That's all there is to it. The thread is asking if he should receive it; should is immaterial. If the law of that state says that there is no capital offense, then he should not be punished in that manner, but instead to the full extent of the states law, which I believe in this case is probably multiple life sentences.

Yes, I believe the state law does not allow for death penalty in Massawhateveryouspellitchusetts.

Vegosiux:

Bentusi16:

I think, and forgive me if I'm wrong on this, his point is that if prison IS meant to rehabilitate, to in some rough and ready fashion take a criminal and turn them back into a productive member of society, then by removing those who cannot be rehabilitated you allow for more of those who can be.

Uh yeah, okay, if a process to determine with 100% accuracy whether or not an individual can be rehabilitated can be provided...

And, that means, living individuals, cause there's not much rehabilitation possible for a corpse after all.

As I mentioned before, we do not get a free pass on humanity because we are born human. Humanity is something constantly earned and lost throughout our lives. It's why I'm sure people in here would consider the rich 'inhuman' for their actions or the religious 'inhuman' for their beliefs, as much as their are people who consider the poor 'inhuman' for their status.

Human and humane are different things. And as long as you're a Homo Sapiens, you're a human, regardless of other people's wishful thinking. Or maybe the human rights definitions are too vague on whether it means "rights a member of the Homo Sapiens species is entitled to" or not.

We are not born with humanity but given the chance to have it, and when you use that chance to kill, or worse, then you've used your chance up. All we get is a chance. Not a benison. Unless he is proven to be truly and incurably insane, that is, pyroland levels of insanity where is incapable of understanding what is going on around him, then he actively made the choice to do this. He cannot say he was coerced; that's an excuse, not an alibi. He cannot say he felt he had no other choices; again, an excuse, not an alibi. If he was capable of making rational decisions, if he is not crippling insane, and he perpetuated the acts, then he is guilty. It does not matter why he did something, only that the act was committed (except again, crippling insanity).

But wouldn't a truly insane person be more "impossible" to rehabilitate than a not-insane-person? Tying into point 1, that kind of creates a rather annoying conflict of morals. Now I understand you did not make that point, but if we accept it, we kind of need to deal with the entire "Is it okay to execute a person who was truly insane and therefore their crime was not a result of conscious choice, since their insanity would make it very difficult to rehabilitate them?" thing.

If he is guilty, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. That's all there is to it. The thread is asking if he should receive it; should is immaterial. If the law of that state says that there is no capital offense, then he should not be punished in that manner, but instead to the full extent of the states law, which I believe in this case is probably multiple life sentences.

Yes, I believe the state law does not allow for death penalty in Massawhateveryouspellitchusetts.

You can't be guilty of a crime you are incapable of understanding you have commited.

Guilt implies prior

Vegosiux:

Bentusi16:

I think, and forgive me if I'm wrong on this, his point is that if prison IS meant to rehabilitate, to in some rough and ready fashion take a criminal and turn them back into a productive member of society, then by removing those who cannot be rehabilitated you allow for more of those who can be.

Uh yeah, okay, if a process to determine with 100% accuracy whether or not an individual can be rehabilitated can be provided...

And, that means, living individuals, cause there's not much rehabilitation possible for a corpse after all.

As I mentioned before, we do not get a free pass on humanity because we are born human. Humanity is something constantly earned and lost throughout our lives. It's why I'm sure people in here would consider the rich 'inhuman' for their actions or the religious 'inhuman' for their beliefs, as much as their are people who consider the poor 'inhuman' for their status.

Human and humane are different things. And as long as you're a Homo Sapiens, you're a human, regardless of other people's wishful thinking. Or maybe the human rights definitions are too vague on whether it means "rights a member of the Homo Sapiens species is entitled to" or not.

We are not born with humanity but given the chance to have it, and when you use that chance to kill, or worse, then you've used your chance up. All we get is a chance. Not a benison. Unless he is proven to be truly and incurably insane, that is, pyroland levels of insanity where is incapable of understanding what is going on around him, then he actively made the choice to do this. He cannot say he was coerced; that's an excuse, not an alibi. He cannot say he felt he had no other choices; again, an excuse, not an alibi. If he was capable of making rational decisions, if he is not crippling insane, and he perpetuated the acts, then he is guilty. It does not matter why he did something, only that the act was committed (except again, crippling insanity).

But wouldn't a truly insane person be more "impossible" to rehabilitate than a not-insane-person? Tying into point 1, that kind of creates a rather annoying conflict of morals. Now I understand you did not make that point, but if we accept it, we kind of need to deal with the entire "Is it okay to execute a person who was truly insane and therefore their crime was not a result of conscious choice, since their insanity would make it very difficult to rehabilitate them?" thing.

If he is guilty, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. That's all there is to it. The thread is asking if he should receive it; should is immaterial. If the law of that state says that there is no capital offense, then he should not be punished in that manner, but instead to the full extent of the states law, which I believe in this case is probably multiple life sentences.

Yes, I believe the state law does not allow for death penalty in Massawhateveryouspellitchusetts.

I don't believe in the 'we must be 100% accurate' thing, but I can absolutely understand it. You are not prepared to accept the moral consequences of a system that kills that is not 100% accurate. That is perfectly fine, and understandable.

And when I say humanity I mean the things that make us humans and not merely bundles of nerves and instincts. Being human is more then just being born human, speaking from a philosophical standpoint. From a biological standpoint, of course you just need to be born human to be a human. But humanity and really being a human is more then a function of biology, to me. Again, it's philosophical in nature so it's really just an opinion.

As for insanity, that has to do with guilt. My pyroland reference ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUhOnX8qt3I ) refers to an individual who is incapable of understanding what they are doing. The pyro is no more 'guilty' of murder then a fire is. Both the pyro and the fire are incapable of understanding what its doing. It just is. You have to be rational to commit a crime and be 'guilty' of it. You can still commit a crime if you're irrational, but your guilt is lessened because you are not capable of understanding what you have done, or even that you did it. That you are aware you did it. You might as well try assigning guilt to a hurricane or a swarm of bees.

You'll note that this particular defense is so narrow only a few people could actually claim it. Probably actually nearly no one. It's determining that level of insanity that really leads to the issue, and again, you are unwilling to believe that it is 100% accurate to state a person can not be rehabilitated, or that rehabilitation is impossible on any individual; and those are understandable points of view.

So, to try and sum up (got to get to work),

1. If an individual is insane to the point where they are no more capable of understanding what they are doing then a force of nature (fire, etc.) then they cannot be tried as competent.

2. The number of individuals this level of insanity applies to is probably in the nature of dozens out of human history.

3. The system is not 100% accurate in finding guilty or rehabilitation, or finding out if a person is capable of being rehabilitated

4. Under my morality these are acceptable odds. This is seen as an unreasonable position by others, and that's understandable and fair, just as I understand why they believe it to be so.

5. The participant of the crime cannot be excused for their guilt for any reason except point 1.

6. The law must be obeyed; their cannot be special exceptions to 'execute the criminal' if the law does not allow executions, no matter what the crime is.

It's not just the question of guilt (100% sure, ever?) but also one of immediacy. A cop killing an attacker in self-defense or defense of others is very different from the system deciding to execute a criminal. The criminal is in custody. The immediate threat is gone. There's no need and less justification for killing them.

I'm opposed to the death penalty. Both in practice (costs, usually a lack of complete certainty of guilt etc.) and principle (I hold to the idea of "we're better than them").

Now, as for the specifics of this case, I honestly wouldn't know. To my understanding, Massachusettes doesn't have the death penalty. Could executing him on federal grounds despite that fact be considered an infringement on state sovereignity? But then, the FBI was involved and it's a federal crime, I suppose. I guess the federal laws could overrule the state's laws in that instance then.

Yes. Yes he should. He completely deserves it.

On the other hand, anyone who actually decides, with the power to decide his fate, to kill him, is a disgusting human being who I do not want breathing the same air as me.

You can see where my opinion on the death penalty is. It disgusts me. It disgusts me more than rape. And I really, REALLY fucking hate rape. The death penalty is human arrogance at it's finest. "He killed people so we killed him when we didn't have to. Revenge killings on those who can't hurt anyone anymore is totally what justice is about. We are right because we say we are."

waj9876:
Yes. Yes he should. He completely deserves it.

On the other hand, anyone who actually decides, with the power to decide his fate, to kill him, is a disgusting human being who I do not want breathing the same air as me.

You can see where my opinion on the death penalty is. It disgusts me. It disgusts me more than rape. And I really, REALLY fucking hate rape. The death penalty is human arrogance at it's finest. "He killed people so we killed him when we didn't have to. Revenge killings on those who can't hurt anyone anymore is totally what justice is about. We are right because we say we are."

Hahaha, this is my view exactly!

Yeah, deserves it. Would be justice to see it happen.

But not by us. We don't have the right to murder him and claim ourselves justified. Then we're the ones with blood on our hands, and who's gonna avenge his murder?

I think the question now is how long should we question him before we execute him? He's said a lot and what is the point at which we say he can't say anything else useful? I save give it a few weeks then fire up the electric chair or hang him (or firing squad the options are wide open).

Xan Krieger:
I think the question now is how long should we question him before we execute him? He's said a lot and what is the point at which we say he can't say anything else useful? I save give it a few weeks then fire up the electric chair or hang him (or firing squad the options are wide open).

Has he even been tried and found guilty yet? I thought you were all about the constitutional rights, Xan.

waj9876:
Yes. Yes he should. He completely deserves it.

On the other hand, anyone who actually decides, with the power to decide his fate, to kill him, is a disgusting human being who I do not want breathing the same air as me.

You can see where my opinion on the death penalty is. It disgusts me. It disgusts me more than rape. And I really, REALLY fucking hate rape. The death penalty is human arrogance at it's finest. "He killed people so we killed him when we didn't have to. Revenge killings on those who can't hurt anyone anymore is totally what justice is about. We are right because we say we are."

That statement is what I find to be human arrogance at it's finest, because it shows an utter lack of understanding of how the 'real' world actually works. Some people deserve to be, should be, and need to be killed in order to ensure the protection of society and it's interests. Example? Westley Allan Dodd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHXS7GToJ-Y&feature=player_detailpage#t=38s

Enjoy that video, especially the quote that it starts with.

Godavari:

Xan Krieger:
I think the question now is how long should we question him before we execute him? He's said a lot and what is the point at which we say he can't say anything else useful? I save give it a few weeks then fire up the electric chair or hang him (or firing squad the options are wide open).

Has he even been tried and found guilty yet? I thought you were all about the constitutional rights, Xan.

I am and forgot that he hadn't had a trial yet. My apologies (and how goes Escapecraft?)

Kopikatsu:

waj9876:
Yes. Yes he should. He completely deserves it.

On the other hand, anyone who actually decides, with the power to decide his fate, to kill him, is a disgusting human being who I do not want breathing the same air as me.

You can see where my opinion on the death penalty is. It disgusts me. It disgusts me more than rape. And I really, REALLY fucking hate rape. The death penalty is human arrogance at it's finest. "He killed people so we killed him when we didn't have to. Revenge killings on those who can't hurt anyone anymore is totally what justice is about. We are right because we say we are."

That statement is what I find to be human arrogance at it's finest, because it shows an utter lack of understanding of how the 'real' world actually works. Some people deserve to be, should be, and need to be killed in order to ensure the protection of society and it's interests. Example? Westley Allan Dodd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHXS7GToJ-Y&feature=player_detailpage#t=38s

Enjoy that video, especially the quote that it starts with.

image

Wow. Just wow.

Saying that the death penalty is morally reprehensible is arrogant, but insisting that you get to decide who lives and who dies isn't? Doublethink at its finest.

Kopikatsu:

waj9876:
Yes. Yes he should. He completely deserves it.

On the other hand, anyone who actually decides, with the power to decide his fate, to kill him, is a disgusting human being who I do not want breathing the same air as me.

You can see where my opinion on the death penalty is. It disgusts me. It disgusts me more than rape. And I really, REALLY fucking hate rape. The death penalty is human arrogance at it's finest. "He killed people so we killed him when we didn't have to. Revenge killings on those who can't hurt anyone anymore is totally what justice is about. We are right because we say we are."

That statement is what I find to be human arrogance at it's finest, because it shows an utter lack of understanding of how the 'real' world actually works. Some people deserve to be, should be, and need to be killed in order to ensure the protection of society and it's interests. Example? Westley Allan Dodd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHXS7GToJ-Y&feature=player_detailpage#t=38s

Enjoy that video, especially the quote that it starts with.

Oh no, an insane serial killer did everything he could to receive the death penalty and get out of confinement in under 4 years instead of being locked up for decades!
Yes clearly, if one psychopath says he should be killed than it's alright to kill anyone.

DJjaffacake:

Wow. Just wow.

Saying that the death penalty is morally reprehensible is arrogant, but insisting that you get to decide who lives and who dies isn't? Doublethink at its finest.

That's right. Opposing the death penalty on moral grounds simply means that you're valuing all (human) life so highly beyond a fault and is right up there with 'Because God said so!' as far as arguments go; as both claim a dubious moral high ground where there is none to be had. No life has unlimited worth, not even a humans. It's not a matter of deciding whether a line should be drawn or not, only where it should be located. If humans were biologically immortal, then it could be argued that killing is wrong on moral grounds. But as they aren't, then it's a nonsensical position to take.

Kopikatsu:

DJjaffacake:

Wow. Just wow.

Saying that the death penalty is morally reprehensible is arrogant, but insisting that you get to decide who lives and who dies isn't? Doublethink at its finest.

That's right. Opposing the death penalty on moral grounds simply means that you're valuing all (human) life so highly beyond a fault and is right up there with 'Because God said so!' as far as arguments go; as both claim a dubious moral high ground where there is none to be had. No life has unlimited worth, not even a humans. It's not a matter of deciding whether a line should be drawn or not, only where it should be located. If humans were biologically immortal, then it could be argued that killing is wrong on moral grounds. But as they aren't, then it's a nonsensical position to take.

If you don't ascribe such a high value to human life then what's the justification for punishing him at all?

DJjaffacake:

Kopikatsu:

DJjaffacake:

Wow. Just wow.

Saying that the death penalty is morally reprehensible is arrogant, but insisting that you get to decide who lives and who dies isn't? Doublethink at its finest.

That's right. Opposing the death penalty on moral grounds simply means that you're valuing all (human) life so highly beyond a fault and is right up there with 'Because God said so!' as far as arguments go; as both claim a dubious moral high ground where there is none to be had. No life has unlimited worth, not even a humans. It's not a matter of deciding whether a line should be drawn or not, only where it should be located. If humans were biologically immortal, then it could be argued that killing is wrong on moral grounds. But as they aren't, then it's a nonsensical position to take.

If you don't ascribe such a high value to human life then what's the justification for punishing him at all?

It's like I have to go over this every other day...

You need the government/society to live, as it's highly unlikely that you'd be able to provide for yourself if just stuck out in the wild with nothing (Or maybe you're actually Bear Grylls. Whatever.) But society doesn't need you to continue functioning. Therefore, it stands to reason that if you cause significantly more damage to society than you contribute, then your life should be forfeit. The most 'reasonable' solution would be to exile them to Siberia or something, but that's incredibly impractical, so the other solution is just to put a bullet in their head and be done with it.

Let me put it in perspective. If we let him rot in jail for the rest of his life, he does nothing but cost taxpayers money and contribute to the already severe overcrowding problem, both of which end up harming society even more in the end. If we put him down Old Yeller-style, then further harm is averted and nothing else changes. Whether or not he dies won't have any significant affect on anything. This is why the average citizen doesn't have a group of highly trained bodyguards that are expected to die in the line of duty if necessary like the President does, because he's considered more valuable to society than a random nobody and his singular loss would be a severe loss for the country as a whole. But the 20~ people listed in this morning's obituary weren't even a tiny pebble of a roadbump.

Edit: Sidenote: I never said life was worthless, I simply stated it does not have infinite worth as it is a finite existence. Once it becomes detrimental to let the person in question live, then their life should be ended for the sake of preservation.

I have always believed there is a difference between civil criminals and terrorists, they should be treated differently. Civil criminals should be given every opportunity for rehabilitation, really dangerous people like multiple rapists and murderers should never be allowed to go free again. Terrorists though are different, any that kill or plan to kill should be executed as humanely as possible. Aside from the fact that they are enemies of the state and have caused citizens pain and suffering there are some practical problems.

You can never really let them go and you cannot keep them detained, their compatriots will stage hostage taking and other attacks demanding their release. I believe this is one of the reasons Osama bin Laden was killed on sight, if they had captured him there would have been a huge wave of attacks demanding his freedom. They can also carry on plotting or inspiring from inside a jail, unless you build a very expensive facility and deny them certain privileges like all communication with just about anyone apart from well trained and vetted guards that do not interact with them. This can be a form of cruelty in itself.

The trial process should be as robust as possible, it should be fast tracked (not so fast as to impair the trial) through each stage of the legal process and through each relevant appeal and high court. After that and they are still found guilty get it over and done with, Keeping people on death row for years or decades never knowing how it will turn out is cruel. Its an unpleasant idea and it honestly makes me uncomfortable and I hate capital or corporal punishment, the alternatives are worse though. Neither do I believe in death penalty in this case as punishment or justice, simply a pragmatic disposal of a very dangerous person. They deserve little compassion either, they had none for their victims.

J Tyran:
I have always believed there is a difference between civil criminals and terrorists, they should be treated differently. Civil criminals should be given every opportunity for rehabilitation, really dangerous people like multiple rapists and murderers should never be allowed to go free again. Terrorists though are different, any that kill or plan to kill should be executed as humanely as possible. Aside from the fact that they are enemies of the state and have caused citizens pain and suffering there are some practical problems.

And how is a terrorist planting a bomb in a crowd different from a serial rapist stalking the town at night? Because he has religious, ideological or political motivation? One could argue that people like Jeffrey Dahmer have caused more terror and pain, spread over a longer period of time, than the Boston bombers.
You've got those like Joseph Paul Franklin, a US neonazi who fire-bombed a synagogue and killed at least 15 people, mixed couples and civil rights activists, in a divinely-commanded attempt to start a race war. Or the Zodiac killer, who frequently sent letters to the press concerning his latest crimes. Do their motivations make them terrorists?

Quaxar:

J Tyran:
I have always believed there is a difference between civil criminals and terrorists, they should be treated differently. Civil criminals should be given every opportunity for rehabilitation, really dangerous people like multiple rapists and murderers should never be allowed to go free again. Terrorists though are different, any that kill or plan to kill should be executed as humanely as possible. Aside from the fact that they are enemies of the state and have caused citizens pain and suffering there are some practical problems.

And how is a terrorist planting a bomb in a crowd different from a serial rapist stalking the town at night? Because he has religious, ideological or political motivation? One could argue that people like Jeffrey Dahmer have caused more terror and pain, spread over a longer period of time, than the Boston bombers.
You've got those like Joseph Paul Franklin, a US neonazi who fire-bombed a synagogue and killed at least 15 people, mixed couples and civil rights activists, in a divinely-commanded attempt to start a race war. Or the Zodiac killer, who frequently sent letters to the press concerning his latest crimes. Do their motivations make them terrorists?

Because you missed the rest of the reasons, few serial killers will have someone on the outside committing more atrocities to try and engineer their release. Besides two of your example are pretty much terrorists, they used violence to propagate religious or political ideology.

J Tyran:

Quaxar:

J Tyran:
I have always believed there is a difference between civil criminals and terrorists, they should be treated differently. Civil criminals should be given every opportunity for rehabilitation, really dangerous people like multiple rapists and murderers should never be allowed to go free again. Terrorists though are different, any that kill or plan to kill should be executed as humanely as possible. Aside from the fact that they are enemies of the state and have caused citizens pain and suffering there are some practical problems.

And how is a terrorist planting a bomb in a crowd different from a serial rapist stalking the town at night? Because he has religious, ideological or political motivation? One could argue that people like Jeffrey Dahmer have caused more terror and pain, spread over a longer period of time, than the Boston bombers.
You've got those like Joseph Paul Franklin, a US neonazi who fire-bombed a synagogue and killed at least 15 people, mixed couples and civil rights activists, in a divinely-commanded attempt to start a race war. Or the Zodiac killer, who frequently sent letters to the press concerning his latest crimes. Do their motivations make them terrorists?

Because you missed the rest of the reasons, few serial killers will have someone on the outside committing more atrocities to try and engineer their release.

So far there's nothing to suggest the Boston bombers are part of any terrorist group either. Executing them because somewhere someone might agree with them and could try to free them seems like an awful overreaction.

J Tyran:
Besides two of your example are pretty much terrorists, they used violence to propagate religious or political ideology.

That was the point... a serial killer too can act out of political or religious motivation, yet nobody called Franklin a terrorist. The borders are slim at best and in fact officially undefined.

J Tyran:
I have always believed there is a difference between civil criminals and terrorists, they should be treated differently. Civil criminals should be given every opportunity for rehabilitation, really dangerous people like multiple rapists and murderers should never be allowed to go free again. Terrorists though are different, any that kill or plan to kill should be executed as humanely as possible. Aside from the fact that they are enemies of the state and have caused citizens pain and suffering there are some practical problems.

There is no particular rule at play here.

A terrorist can reform. We might note, for instance, that several known ex-terrorists sit as elected representatives in the UK having given up violence as a means of advancing their agenda. Or that Nelson Mandela should have been carted away and shot, because he too was once a terrorist. In the above cases, had a such a decision been made, I think the world might be a poorer place for it.

You are right to say that unreformable, serious repeat offenders should be locked up forever; the problem is determining which ones would go on to re-offend and which ones would not. In practice, we are almost inevitably going to end up locking up the reformed or freeing the unreformed - whether we lean to lenience or punitivenss. Or perhaps a lesser mixture of the two for a middling policy.

In many cases, what drives one man to terrorism might the same as what drives another to civil crime. Frequently, they'll be directionless and isolated young men who don't feel they are part of normal society. There's every reason to think that given a different direction, some time and experience, and some bonding with their fellows, they may take a very different perspective. Although once you've killed enough people, it's unlikely any amount of genuine remorse is going to get you out prison, because some crimes will not be forgotten or forgiven.

Kopikatsu:

DJjaffacake:

Kopikatsu:

That's right. Opposing the death penalty on moral grounds simply means that you're valuing all (human) life so highly beyond a fault and is right up there with 'Because God said so!' as far as arguments go; as both claim a dubious moral high ground where there is none to be had. No life has unlimited worth, not even a humans. It's not a matter of deciding whether a line should be drawn or not, only where it should be located. If humans were biologically immortal, then it could be argued that killing is wrong on moral grounds. But as they aren't, then it's a nonsensical position to take.

If you don't ascribe such a high value to human life then what's the justification for punishing him at all?

It's like I have to go over this every other day...

You need the government/society to live, as it's highly unlikely that you'd be able to provide for yourself if just stuck out in the wild with nothing (Or maybe you're actually Bear Grylls. Whatever.) But society doesn't need you to continue functioning. Therefore, it stands to reason that if you cause significantly more damage to society than you contribute, then your life should be forfeit. The most 'reasonable' solution would be to exile them to Siberia or something, but that's incredibly impractical, so the other solution is just to put a bullet in their head and be done with it.

Let me put it in perspective. If we let him rot in jail for the rest of his life, he does nothing but cost taxpayers money and contribute to the already severe overcrowding problem, both of which end up harming society even more in the end. If we put him down Old Yeller-style, then further harm is averted and nothing else changes. Whether or not he dies won't have any significant affect on anything. This is why the average citizen doesn't have a group of highly trained bodyguards that are expected to die in the line of duty if necessary like the President does, because he's considered more valuable to society than a random nobody and his singular loss would be a severe loss for the country as a whole. But the 20~ people listed in this morning's obituary weren't even a tiny pebble of a roadbump.

Edit: Sidenote: I never said life was worthless, I simply stated it does not have infinite worth as it is a finite existence. Once it becomes detrimental to let the person in question live, then their life should be ended for the sake of preservation.

Your entire argument rests on the bolded bit, which you have failed to actually justify. Given that we already know it would cost far more to execute him than it would to imprison him, there is clearly no benefit even from such a detached perspective to killing him. Overcrowding is caused by things like the War on Drugs and failure to rehabilitate criminals, not a failure to kill enough people.

DJjaffacake:

Your entire argument rests on the bolded bit, which you have failed to actually justify. Given that we already know it would cost far more to execute him than it would to imprison him, there is clearly no benefit even from such a detached perspective to killing him. Overcrowding is caused by things like the War on Drugs and failure to rehabilitate criminals, not a failure to kill enough people.

That's because it's self-evident. Many, many, many people rely on society and it's benefits to live, because if they woke up in the middle of the forest with nothing but the tools they could make themselves, then they would very probably die, as a side effect of the crippling overspecialization that our society requires of it's constituents to function. So if you damage or disrupt society more than you contribute, you're harming everyone. Life is a zero sum game in that regard.

It only costs more to execute them because our system is outdated and broken, and I've said we needed to reform and streamline the process many, many times. Regardless, in this particular case, the FBI could just release a statement saying the suspect committed suicide. It's likely that some people would be skeptical, but with no proof, those worries will eventually die away and nobody will care anymore because the loss of that one life affects nothing of consequence.

Kopikatsu:

DJjaffacake:

Your entire argument rests on the bolded bit, which you have failed to actually justify. Given that we already know it would cost far more to execute him than it would to imprison him, there is clearly no benefit even from such a detached perspective to killing him. Overcrowding is caused by things like the War on Drugs and failure to rehabilitate criminals, not a failure to kill enough people.

That's because it's self-evident. Many, many, many people rely on society and it's benefits to live, because if they woke up in the middle of the forest with nothing but the tools they could make themselves, then they would very probably die, as a side effect of the crippling overspecialization that our society requires of it's constituents to function. So if you damage or disrupt society more than you contribute, you're harming everyone. Life is a zero sum game in that regard.

It only costs more to execute them because our system is outdated and broken, and I've said we needed to reform and streamline the process many, many times. Regardless, in this particular case, the FBI could just release a statement saying the suspect committed suicide. It's likely that some people would be skeptical, but with no proof, those worries will eventually die away and nobody will care anymore because the loss of that one life affects nothing of consequence.

So now you're advocating that we bypass due process. Fantastic. You have again failed to justify your premise (I could easily claim that "the death penalty is never justified" is self-evident). And I think the guy might care if he's murdered.

Kopikatsu:
-snip-

So you're willing to toss out a process that this society operates under just because you're too impatient or lazy to go through the process? What was that you said about people who cause significantly more damage to society than you contribute? Now, this is just my opinion, but I think that destroying the 4th Amendment would be causing more damage to society than you could ever contribute Kopi. Are you volunteering for the execution block?

Jux:

Kopikatsu:
-snip-

So you're willing to toss out a process that this society operates under just because you're too impatient or lazy to go through the process? What was that you said about people who cause significantly more damage to society than you contribute? Now, this is just my opinion, but I think that destroying the 4th Amendment would be causing more damage to society than you could ever contribute Kopi. Are you volunteering for the execution block?

DJjaffacake:

So now you're advocating that we bypass due process. Fantastic. You have again failed to justify your premise (I could easily claim that "the death penalty is never justified" is self-evident). And I think the guy might care if he's murdered.

National Defense Authorization Act. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has no right to due process. If you're going to argue the legality of an act, you should probably actually be somewhat familiar with the law beforehand.

Kopikatsu:
National Defense Authorization Act. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has no right to due process. If you're going to argue the legality of an act, you should probably actually be somewhat familiar with the law beforehand.

Despite how atrociously authoritarian that act is, I'm pretty sure it doesn't have anything to do with executing people without a trial. It includes a provision for indefinite detention of citizens with suspected ties to terrorism.

Skeleon:

Kopikatsu:
National Defense Authorization Act. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has no right to due process. If you're going to argue the legality of an act, you should probably actually be somewhat familiar with the law beforehand.

Despite how atrociously authoritarian that act is, I'm pretty sure it doesn't have anything to do with executing people without a trial. It includes a provision for indefinite detention of citizens with suspected ties to terrorism.

One of the clauses (I believe it was 1102~, but I'll look later when I'm not at work) removes the right to due process for terrorism suspects. As due process concerns applying all legal rights to person(s), removing due process means they have no legal rights or protections. The US has also shown that they do not afford terrorism suspects with what are considered to be 'human rights' (As defined by NATO) either.

Also, I have a few friends who are high ranking special agents in the FBI, as well as personally having undergone training at the Secret Service's facility in Atlanta under the direction of Brian Stafford himself. I would like to think that any reasonable person would understand that those agencies (along with the other protection, intelligence, etc services) sometimes must operate outside of the law in order to preserve it.

Kopikatsu:

One of the clauses (I believe it was 1102~, but I'll look later when I'm not at work) removes the right to due process for terrorism suspects. As due process concerns applying all legal rights to person(s), removing due process means they have no legal rights or protections. The US has also shown that they do not afford terrorism suspects with what are considered to be 'human rights' (As defined by NATO) either.

So being a terrorism suspect not only voids "innocent until proven guilty", it even removes your right to prove your innocence? Once you're suspected of terrorism, truth doesn't matter anymore, and you can legally be prevented from proving you had nothing to do with it?

Well, it seems to me that the terrorists have won before the "war on terror" even began.

Vegosiux:

Kopikatsu:

One of the clauses (I believe it was 1102~, but I'll look later when I'm not at work) removes the right to due process for terrorism suspects. As due process concerns applying all legal rights to person(s), removing due process means they have no legal rights or protections. The US has also shown that they do not afford terrorism suspects with what are considered to be 'human rights' (As defined by NATO) either.

So being a terrorism suspect not only voids "innocent until proven guilty", it even removes your right to prove your innocence? Once you're suspected of terrorism, truth doesn't matter anymore?

Well, it seems to me that the terrorists have won before the "war on terror" even began.

It matters. If you're not convicted of anything (And I mean that in terms of the government, not the legal system), there's not much of a point to continue detaining you. But if it makes you feel any better, Obama was the one who extended the PATRIOT Act and created the National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA has been brought before the Supreme Court (Hedges v Obama) and numerous injunctions have been filed against it, but the Obama Administration has defeated all of them. Which is why it's still a thing currently.

Kopikatsu:
National Defense Authorization Act. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has no right to due process. If you're going to argue the legality of an act, you should probably actually be somewhat familiar with the law beforehand.

Point out the provision please that allows for execution of suspects of terrorism without a trial. This isn't the only instance you've been willing to ignore the law to suit your whims. Might as well pull up the law that allows execution of death row inmates that have been found innocent as well, because we both know you're a proponent of that too.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security-reproductive-freedom-womens-rights/2013-national-defense-bill-good-bad-and-ugly

You'd think that the ACLU's critcisms would include 'execution without trial' if such a thing were true.

Jux:

Kopikatsu:
National Defense Authorization Act. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has no right to due process. If you're going to argue the legality of an act, you should probably actually be somewhat familiar with the law beforehand.

Point out the provision please that allows for execution of suspects of terrorism without a trial. This isn't the only instance you've been willing to ignore the law to suit your whims. Might as well pull up the law that allows execution of death row inmates that have been found innocent as well, because we both know you're a proponent of that too.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security-reproductive-freedom-womens-rights/2013-national-defense-bill-good-bad-and-ugly

You'd think that the ACLU's critcisms would include 'execution without trial' if such a thing were true.

1. I never said it allowed for the execution of suspects of terrorism without a trial. I said it removes their right to due process and all that comes with it, because the criticism of my statement was 'It ignores due process'. Why would I have suggested that the FBI do it while saying that they had nothing to do with if it were legal? It's incredibly easy, too. Random hypothetical method, give him a dose of potassium (Natural sedative in low quantities that wouldn't show up in a toxicology report), put a knife in his hand, slit his throat, then let the knife drop on the floor. Untraceable murder disguised as a suicide. Alternatively, poison him with cyanide and claim that it was because of his connection to 'X' group that America hates at the moment to gather public support for going after 'X'.

2. You are, again, mistaken. I said that once someone is convicted of a capital offense, their innocence no long means much because their life has been irreparably destroyed if left in that state for longer than 5~ years. If someone has been found innocent, then there's no point in leaving them on death row because they're innocent. My point was that 'But it might kill innocent people!' isn't a valid criticism of the death penalty, because having all of your assets seized, still listed as a convicted criminal even if exonerated, etc is just a different sort of 'death penalty'; as is the case with life without parole as well.

Kopikatsu:
1. I never said it allowed for the execution of suspects of terrorism without a trial. I said it removes their right to due process and all that comes with it, because the criticism of my statement was 'It ignores due process'. Why would I have suggested that the FBI do it while saying that they had nothing to do with if it were legal? It's incredibly easy, too. Random hypothetical method, give him a dose of potassium (Natural sedative in low quantities that wouldn't show up in a toxicology report), put a knife in his hand, slit his throat, then let the knife drop on the floor. Untraceable murder disguised as a suicide. Alternatively, poison him with cyanide and claim that it was because of his connection to 'X' group that America hates at the moment to gather public support for going after 'X'.

Ah, so you're just advocating murder then. I see that is so much better, pardon me.

Kopikatsu:
2. You are, again, mistaken. I said that once someone is convicted of a capital offense, their innocence no long means much because their life has been irreparably destroyed if left in that state for longer than 5~ years. If someone has been found innocent, then there's no point in leaving them on death row because they're innocent. My point was that 'But it might kill innocent people!' isn't a valid criticism of the death penalty, because having all of your assets seized, still listed as a convicted criminal even if exonerated, etc is just a different sort of 'death penalty'; as is the case with life without parole as well.

Means much to who? I'm sure it means quite a bit to them. And you're wrong, again, because executing the innocent is exactly what you have advocated.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.393262-California-keeps-the-Death-Penalty?page=3

If they're guilty, consider an execution justice. If they're innocent, consider it a mercy killing.

The fact is that killing innocents is a valid criticism, as having your assets seized and and being listed as a convict is in no way the same as being executed. Nor is life in prison, as it allows for the possibility of change. Death is a rather finite and non reversible thing.

Jux:

Kopikatsu:
1. I never said it allowed for the execution of suspects of terrorism without a trial. I said it removes their right to due process and all that comes with it, because the criticism of my statement was 'It ignores due process'. Why would I have suggested that the FBI do it while saying that they had nothing to do with if it were legal? It's incredibly easy, too. Random hypothetical method, give him a dose of potassium (Natural sedative in low quantities that wouldn't show up in a toxicology report), put a knife in his hand, slit his throat, then let the knife drop on the floor. Untraceable murder disguised as a suicide. Alternatively, poison him with cyanide and claim that it was because of his connection to 'X' group that America hates at the moment to gather public support for going after 'X'.

Ah, so you're just advocating murder then. I see that is somuch better, pardon me.

Kopikatsu:
2. You are, again, mistaken. I said that once someone is convicted of a capital offense, their innocence no long means much because their life has been irreparably destroyed if left in that state for longer than 5~ years. If someone has been found innocent, then there's no point in leaving them on death row because they're innocent. My point was that 'But it might kill innocent people!' isn't a valid criticism of the death penalty, because having all of your assets seized, still listed as a convicted criminal even if exonerated, etc is just a different sort of 'death penalty'; as is the case with life without parole as well.

Means much to who? I'm sure it means quite a bit to them. And you're wrong, again, because executing the innocent is exactly what you have advocated.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.393262-California-keeps-the-Death-Penalty?page=3

If they're guilty, consider an execution justice. If they're innocent, consider it a mercy killing.

The fact is that killing innocents is a valid criticism, as having your assets seized and and being listed as a convict is in no way the same as being executed.

That line was quote mined, thus lacks context. When given context, it's fairly apparently that I was talking about the execution being retroactively mitigated despite their innocence and not 'Who cares if they're innocent? Kill everyone!'. If they're innocent, there's no reason to kill them if they're still alive by that point (As is consistent with the statement I just made 10~ minutes ago, 'The government has no reason to keep innocent people detained once taking them in on suspicion of terrorism'.)

You're valuing life instead of the quality of life, which is not how we usually (or should) function as a society. Voluntary euthanasia being legal in many states, especially for chronic sufferers, for instance.

And as I've mentioned previously (in this thread, even), government agencies that are meant to defend the country sometimes have to act outside the laws in order to preserve them. All of the statements made are internally consistent.

Kopikatsu:
That line was quote mined, thus lacks context. When given context, it's fairly apparently that I was talking about the execution being retroactively mitigated despite their innocence and not 'Who cares if they're innocent? Kill everyone!'. If they're innocent, there's no reason to kill them if they're still alive by that point (As is consistent with the statement I just made 10~ minutes ago, 'The government has no reason to keep innocent people detained once taking them in on suspicion of terrorism'.)

You're valuing life instead of the quality of life, which is not how we usually (or should) function as a society. Voluntary euthanasia being legal in many states, especially for chronic sufferers, for instance.

And as I've mentioned previously (in this thread, even), government agencies that are meant to defend the country sometimes have to act outside the laws in order to preserve them. All of the statements made are internally consistent.

Quote mined? Here is the entire thing:

What's the difference whether they're innocent or not? If you go onto Death Row, your life is functionally over anyway. Even if they do exonerate you, then what? Your family has moved on, you have no job, no assets...the only thing you likely have to your name is the small penance granted by the government as a way of apologizing for taking your life away needlessly. Do you expect them to find a job after having been a convinced felony for however many years? At the very least, that's a considerable time wasted as far as a resume goes. And it's not like they have a place to go back to, either. Except for prison, of course.

If they're guilty, consider an execution justice. If they're innocent, consider it a mercy killing.

Tell me again how I'm taking it out of context? I'm glad you've changed positions on this though, that makes me happy. I value quality of life as well, I just don't think that it should be left up to the state to decide if my quality of life is not worth living. I would like to decide that for myself, thank you very much. Right of autonomy and all that jazz.

Tell me, what laws would be being preserved that would justify the FBI (or any other government agency) murdering this man?

Jux:

Quote mined? Here is the entire thing:

What's the difference whether they're innocent or not? If you go onto Death Row, your life is functionally over anyway. Even if they do exonerate you, then what? Your family has moved on, you have no job, no assets...the only thing you likely have to your name is the small penance granted by the government as a way of apologizing for taking your life away needlessly. Do you expect them to find a job after having been a convinced felony for however many years? At the very least, that's a considerable time wasted as far as a resume goes. And it's not like they have a place to go back to, either. Except for prison, of course.

If they're guilty, consider an execution justice. If they're innocent, consider it a mercy killing.

Tell me again how I'm taking it out of context? I'm glad you've changed positions on this though, that makes me happy. I value quality of life as well, I just don't think that it should be left up to the state to decide if my quality of life is not worth living. I would like to decide that for myself, thank you very much. Right of autonomy and all that jazz.

Tell me, what laws would be being preserved that would justify the FBI (or any other government agency) murdering this man?

I didn't change my stance, it's been the same all along. As is evidenced from the point I made in the quoted post (and other statements, which also contribute to 'context'), the fact that innocent people might die as a result of the death penalty doesn't matter because once the jury convicted them, their life has ended by any meaningful definition of the word. If released quickly, then they could salvage what damage was caused and likely have enough resources left to seek a certificate of innocence. But if left in that state for an extended period of time, then it's kind of pointless. Any responsibility of a wrongful execution (or conviction) should rest on the shoulders of the jurors who sentenced the innocent and nobody else (Although it does rest on council occasionally, depending on their level of competence.)

Right of autonomy isn't much of a right at all, considering we actively punish people for what we consider crimes. You only have a right to act as the State dictates and nothing further, otherwise you'll be punished for it. People rarely argue this point despite not liking how it's phrased, because opposing that concept would be advocating anarchy.

I only meant that in a general sense. In the specific case of Tsarnaev, once all meaningful intelligence has been extracted from him, there's not much of a point in keeping him alive. Doing so would only be wasting resources that could better be spent elsewhere. There's no reason to punish the taxpayers because he felt the need to bomb the Boston Marathon and cause 170+ casualties.

Kopikatsu:
I didn't change my stance, it's been the same all along. As is evidenced from the point I made in the quoted post (and other statements, which also contribute to 'context'), the fact that innocent people might die as a result of the death penalty doesn't matter because once the jury convicted them, their life has ended by any meaningful definition of the word. If released quickly, then they could salvage what damage was caused and likely have enough resources left to seek a certificate of innocence. But if left in that state for an extended period of time, then it's kind of pointless. Any responsibility of a wrongful execution (or conviction) should rest on the shoulders of the jurors who sentenced the innocent and nobody else (Although it does rest on council occasionally, depending on their level of competence.)

Prove that it's pointless. Any level of legal responsibility for a wrongful execution rests on the state, as they were the ones that pulled the trigger. As far as context goes, I'm still seeing you advocating the execution of innocents, solely based on the ridiculous argument that 'their lives are basically over anyway', as if thats a call you get to make.

Kopikatsu:
Right of autonomy isn't much of a right at all, considering we actively punish people for what we consider crimes. You only have a right to act as the State dictates and nothing further, otherwise you'll be punished for it. People rarely argue this point despite not liking how it's phrased, because opposing that concept would be advocating anarchy.

We forfeit certain rights when we are convicted of crimes, but are those rights not reinstated, escpecially the right to life and self determination, when we are exonerated?

Kopikatsu:
I only meant that in a general sense. In the specific case of Tsarnaev, once all meaningful intelligence has been extracted from him, there's not much of a point in keeping him alive. Doing so would only be wasting resources that could better be spent elsewhere. There's no reason to punish the taxpayers because he felt the need to bomb the Boston Marathon and cause 170+ casualties.

Ah, so what you're saying is that you can't back up your claim, got ya.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked