The Death Penalty - Why Not?
- Thread starter 11parcal
- Start date
Yeah, one lousy stinking innocent citizen. Unless Max, you think that arrest implies guilt?
What if that innocent was you, Max? Or is this the 'it could never happen to me' attitude prevailing, and if you think that, why?
No, but a conviction in a court of law does!
Personally, I think that's one of the problems with many, many issues in the world ....trying to apply or hold views from a personal standpoint. That sucks, plus it's totally biased ...and thus should NOT ever happen.
You climb into a car, you're taking a chance of getting killed. In fact, those chances are far, far greater than you even being arrested or convicted in a court of law. See? Taking a view of things from a personal viewpoint is simple idiotic, wrong, not good, stupid, biased, dumb as hell, crazy, foolish, ....., well, you get the point.
Baron Max
But that isn't what the sentence of yours I quoted was saying Max. It was about the possibility of the death of an innocent. Don't twist.
OK, so you think it will never happen to you, so it's OK if it happens to someone else. That makes you selfish, and unfit to live in a civilised society Max.
Well, if you'd been reading the thread carefully, you'd have seen that I answered that several times ...if the courts make a mistake and send an innocent man to death, it's no worse than him being killed in a car accident ...he's dead. He ain't no more dead in a execution. A few accidents are the consequence for the common good of society.
No, basing societal ethics from a personal stand point is ignorant and foolish. One must, absolutely must, view ethics and morality from the grand view, not the limited view of ones own personal bias.
Baron Max
Sometimes Max I find it hard to credit you as being an adult when you come out with such juvenile rot. If an innoent being killed is no worse than getting killed in a car crash, why prosecute people for killing innocents in the first place? Your logic defeats itself, but you are too short sighted to see it yourself.
The 'grand view' is that if it could happen to anyone, it should not happen. Your view is however personal, because you don't think it will happen to you! Again Max, you are wrapping yourself up in your own contradictions. Maybe you're senile?
I think most people would choose life over death - and who says it's painless?
*************
M*W: Since this thread is about the death penalty, I wanted to see if anyone out there has been following the Florida case against Casey Anthony and the disappearance of her three year-old daughter Caylee? I understand that because they haven't found Caylee's remains, they will only charge her mother with Murder One for a life sentence without parole. In fact, she could be charged with a lesser charge. Although the search team continues to look for Caylee's little body, her mother pleads not guilty. I've been following this case since the little girl first went missing. Is there anybody out there who has been following it, too? I'd like to hear your comments.
M*W: Since this thread is about the death penalty, I wanted to see if anyone out there has been following the Florida case against Casey Anthony and the disappearance of her three year-old daughter Caylee? I understand that because they haven't found Caylee's remains, they will only charge her mother with Murder One for a life sentence without parole. In fact, she could be charged with a lesser charge. Although the search team continues to look for Caylee's little body, her mother pleads not guilty. I've been following this case since the little girl first went missing. Is there anybody out there who has been following it, too? I'd like to hear your comments.
it is fairly painless because the first drug is designed to knock the person out. Like when going into surgery you dont feel them cutting you open, the difference is that you dont wake up.
No, you're twisting things around to suite your agenda. People do that all the time, and it's easy to spot.
What it is is this; if, notice the "IF", the numbers of innocent people being killed is what bothers you, then you should be totally horrified at the tens of thousands of innocent people killed in car accidents ...not even mentioning by drunk drivers.
There's only a few people killed by death penalty in the USA now. But there's tens of thousands killed in car accidents ...yet you seem perfectly willing to accept that ...and in fact, you probably a driver yourself. See?
See? It's not the innocent deaths that's your main concern ...you're just using that "innocent death" thingie in an attempt to further your own bias against the death penalty.
Think about it some, then get back to me with an intelligent response to my comments. And if possible, please try to leave the personal comments out of it.
Baron Max
The link I posted isn't biased. Did you even look at it?
This is a straw man attempt Max, and I'm not going to respond to it.
Please however explain how, if it's OK for the state to kill innocent people, and one dead person is just like a dead person from a car wreck, why we bother prosecuting people for murder in the first place?
Your logic in your post was broken, and I really must press you to explain it, and stop you from going off on a tangent.
No, it just simply proves that the numbers of innocent people is not your real concern. If it was, then there are far more innocent people killed by others means than the death penalty. See? You're just "using" dead people to further your agenda and add to your bias against the death penalty.
Intent. It's a major part of a murder trial. If one accidentally kills a person with a gun, it's an accident. If a driver accidentally kills a person in a car wreck, it's an accident. If a person kills an innocent victim in a robbery, then it's intentional, it's NOT an accident.
But in either a car accident or a murder, the innocent person is still dead. Yet you seem to only care about people killed by the state in the death penalty.
And yet you're far more concerned about the dead people from the death penalty than all those others combined. See? Numbers of dead people isn't you main concern ...it's just "using" dead people to further your own agenda.
Baron Max
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yes, it is indeed intent that is important here.
The intent makes all the difference.
Why else would they have different sentences depending on the intent of the killer ?
Someone that kills someone else BY ACCIDENT does not get the death penalty.
Apples to Oranges Max. Can you stick on topic. We're talking about the state killing innocent people through a miscarriage of Justice, not listening to you stuffing a straw man. Like I said, if you think loss of life in car accidents equates to taking a life, why punish those that takes lives in the first place?
No Max, I'm taking each issue on it's own merit. I'm not taking disparate handfuls of anything you can grab to stuff your straw man.
Try and stay on topic, and stop twisting, it makes you look weak.
The drug that 'knocks you out' is not an anaesthetic; it just causes paralysis. It was first introduced to make the process more palletable for spectators. Therefore no-one knows for certain whether the injection causes pain or not. Although, scientists have logically concluded that it probably does.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection#Awareness
Nope, it's dead, innocent people versus dead, innocent people. Ain't no apples or oranges involved at all.
Well, try to see it this way ...the state allows cars to be driven at high speeds on state-maintained and state-controlled roads and highways and streets where those same accidents occur that kill many innocent people. The state, by setting those high speed limits that can easily kill, they're more than culpable in the loss of innocent human life.
And, of course, you don't want to see this in terms of numbers of innocent lives, because it ruins your argument against the death penalty. So far, your entire argument has been that the DP takes innocent lives. Well, golly, so does car accidents, yet you want the state to anything about that. Why?
If the state eliminates the death penalty, then innocent lives would be saved.
If the state changes speed laws, then innocent lives would be saved.
Yet, you're an advocate for one, but not the other. In fact, you won't even talk about the other ...'cause it fucks up your whole argument.
Baron Max
Baron, if you had bothered to quote the rest of my post you would have found the answer to your question.
It was a short post - are you just deliberately dishonest?
It was a short post - are you just deliberately dishonest?
No, I read it, but it was just another biased account from people who want to eliminate the death penalty. Do you know what "biased" means? If so, then why link some biased account as if it's any kind of proof of something?
I'll ask you again ...do surgery patients feel the pain of the surgery while it's being done?
Baron Max