CAPITAL PUNISHMENT! (Just for Kahl)

[Dimnos]

Pick your side and let if fly.

http://pajamasmedia.com/upload/2007/05/capital.gif

[The Leader]

Kill 'em and let God sort 'em out.

[Tadao]

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/jproducer/nomeansno/kill-everyone.jpg

[Wiffles]

Live and let live! ^.^

[executioneer]

death sentence for every crime (except murder let murderers go)

[Dimnos]

death sentence for every crime (except murder let murderers go)

Sure you dont want to give them jobs handing out death sentences?

[Colonel Flagg]

I have only this to say:

Wesley Cook.

Have a nice day.

[Tadao]

Bring back Gladiators.

[Colonel Flagg]

The custom or the show? Or both?

[Tadao]

Old school Roman styles.

[kahljorn]

What does wesley cook prove?

Who was the name of the aussie guy zhukov i think was talking about that was hanged and then found to be innocent?
does australia have crazy redneck sheriffs/justice and shit?

last i read up on this issue there was an on-going debate whether or not anybody had ever been wrongly convicted AND executed. (in america)

anyway im kind of out of it right now but ill pick a side in a while.

OKAY HERE"S AN ARGUMENT FOR FUNS. FUNS.

Is it worse to be in jail for life or to be executed?

[Colonel Flagg]

What does wesley cook prove?

He's the exception that proves the rule. Proof that no matter what you do, no matter how obvious or clear cut the evidence is, if you know how to manipulate the system, you can make a career out of being on Death Row.

BTW, Wesley Cook is more popularly known as Mumia Abu-Jamal.

[Dimnos]

Who was the name of the aussie guy zhukov i think was talking about that was hanged and then found to be innocent?
does australia have crazy redneck sheriffs/justice and shit?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Ryan

[Dimnos]

He's the exception that proves the rule. Proof that no matter what you do, no matter how obvious or clear cut the evidence is, if you know how to manipulate the system, you can make a career out of being on Death Row.

BTW, Wesley Cook is more popularly known as Mumia Abu-Jamal.

The short and skinny on Cook...

The dude was found shot at the scene of the crime. He was wearing an empty gun holster. The gun he owned was found at the scene with five spent rounds. Those five spent rounds were confirmed to be the ones that killed the on duty officer who was conducting a traffic stop on Cook's brother. The rest of the evidence is debatable. I think what mostly casted the shadow of doubt in his case was that a security guard at the hospital he was treated at for his gun shot wound testified for the prosecution that Cook confessed while doctors testified for the defense that he was incapable of speaking at the time because of his wound.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

OKAY HERE"S AN ARGUMENT FOR FUNS. FUNS.

Is it worse to be in jail for life or to be executed?

I think it would be worse to be in jail for life. Once you're executed you don't have to worry about anything you've done again.

[Zhukov]

I'm against it, but only half heartedly. Killing them saves money, but I sure as hell wouldn't like to be the one that pulls the switch.

I do think there are circumstances when things might get hectic, and morals may have to take a back seat to 'justice', for example during a battle, or, just hypothetically speaking, a socialist revolution or something like that. BUt normal every day life, I would think that life in prison is enough (or just the right amount of punishment) for the worst crimes.

Just make sure they don't escape. Hmm, while I'm here, does anyone have any examples of murdering nutters escaping and killing MORE people? That's probably a good argument for killing them the first time around.

[Dimnos]

Most executions, at least in the USA, are done by lethal injection. One of the chemicals used (the first one injected) is a barbiturate to put the condemned under so the process is as humane as possible.

[Colonel Flagg]

The short and skinny on Cook...

The dude was found shot at the scene of the crime. He was wearing an empty gun holster. The gun he owned was found at the scene with five spent rounds. Those five spent rounds were confirmed to be the ones that killed the on duty officer who was conducting a traffic stop on Cook's brother. The rest of the evidence is debatable. I think what mostly casted the shadow of doubt in his case was that a security guard at the hospital he was treated at for his gun shot wound testified for the prosecution that Cook confessed while doctors testified for the defense that he was incapable of speaking at the time because of his wound.

If you REALLY want to know more about this case, and take care to sift the facts from the innuendo and hearsay, you'll find that the great preponderance of the evidence points to his guilt. This is why he was not only found guilty of murder in the first degree, but also received a sentence of death. The majority of the information stating, for example, that the trial was unfair, the judge was biased, they're railroading an innocent man, blah blah blah come from outlets that are not even a little familiar with the facts surrounding the case, or from people with an axe to grind concerning capital punishment.

I was living in Philadelphia while the trial was taking place. I read the reports (though not the transcripts) in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which is a liberal-leaning rag. I know about the witness statements and circumstantial evidence found at the scene.

The bottom line? I have a hard time with the death penalty - always have - but I do believe that this man deserves to die. He killed an officer of the law in cold blood. I am convinced. And so was a jury whom he helped to select.

Yet here he is, more than 25 years after the fact, still living on "Death Row" and still claiming he should be given a new trial. Ironically, many of the other principals in the trial - witnesses, lawyers and family members of the victim - are now deceased.

Sorry about the tone of my response, but this case really hits home for me in a way that few other death-penalty cases do.

I will try to find a link to the court transcripts, which I think might be on the web.

[Dimnos]

The fact it was proven to be Cook's gun that killed the officer combined with the fact that he was wearing his gun holster along with the fact he himself was at the scene is enough for me. The guy could try to say "Oh someone stole my gun." but then why were you wearing an empty holster? I think it is a little to convenient that his gun was used to kill an officer who was pulling over his brother while he was there wearing an empty holster and the he just happened to be the one guy the officer returned fire too for it not to be him. That doesnt even include the number of eyewitnesses that testified they watched him do it. I dont think the death penalty should just be handed out to everyone who kills someone but I do believe Cook deserved his.

Colonel do you know what his brother was pulled over for in the first place?

[kahljorn]

He's the exception that proves the rule. Proof that no matter what you do, no matter how obvious or clear cut the evidence is, if you know how to manipulate the system, you can make a career out of being on Death Row.

I don't really get how this is relevant but alright. Maybe retarded criminals have a right to a limelight before they are killed. It could be counted as a check on the system. Although, maybe it's morally outrageous to give criminals that type of notoriety. **After reading that he's still alive and on death row, I see how it's relevant.

Just make sure they don't escape. Hmm, while I'm here, does anyone have any examples of murdering nutters escaping and killing MORE people? That's probably a good argument for killing them the first time around.

there's a lot of examples of prisoners killing prison guards, other prisoners etc. inside of jail.

Yet here he is, more than 25 years after the fact, still living on "Death Row" and still claiming he should be given a new trial. Ironically, many of the other principals in the trial - witnesses, lawyers and family members of the victim - are now deceased.

So is he caught up in appeals, or just waiting for his turn to be executed?

So you think they should have killed him sooner -- if they were going to kill him?

Sorry about the tone of my response, but this case really hits home for me in a way that few other death-penalty cases do.

i won't be positive until you answer my questions, but it seems like your frustration has more to do with the way it was handled, or the system, and other periphery issues than the actual killing of people for being convicted of committing fucked up shit.

[kahljorn]

I think it would be worse to be in jail for life. Once you're executed you don't have to worry about anything you've done again.

Does anybody else think this?

[executioneer]

Sure you dont want to give them jobs handing out death sentences?
if they want the job they have to apply like everyone else, unless they're obviously outstanding at it

[executioneer]

Does anybody else think this?
not me i'd want to be in jail for life, at least that gives you a chance of escaping / dying in glorious battle

[Tadao]

I would do life in jail until I ran out of good books to read.

[elx]

I'm against it, but only half heartedly. Killing them saves money, but I sure as hell wouldn't like to be the one that pulls the switch.
suprisingly enough, it actually doesn't save any money. in places like texas it costs like 3x as much to pay for an execution than it would to just house the inmate for the rest of their lives.

Does anybody else think this?
yes

[Dimnos]

suprisingly enough, it actually doesn't save any money. in places like texas it costs like 3x as much to pay for an execution than it would to just house the inmate for the rest of their lives.


yes

It costs approximately $20,000 a year to house one inmate. It costs less than $90 for the chemicals required to preform a lethal injection.

[Dimnos]

not me i'd want to be in jail for life, at least that gives you a chance of escaping / dying in glorious battle

Im with Willie on this one. :\

[kahljorn]

Don't forget that you'd probably be in a pretty hardcore prison if you were even considered for the death penalty, so you'd be surrounded by crazy fucking assholes all the time for the rest of your life and they'd probably poke you in your chest EVERY DAY and make fun of you and make your life suck.
You think your cell mate would let you read your precious, "True history of the samurai" books in prison, tadao? He'd probably make you eat it with your butt :(
Also I dunno how high your chance of escape would be.

It costs approximately $20,000 a year to house one inmate. It costs less than $90 for the chemicals required to preform a lethal injection.Yea but i think you have to count the years of housing while they are on death row, which I'm sure death row is like a fine hotel compared to the standard cost to house an inmate -- and I'm sure all the employees that deal with it get paid extra. Plus all the corruption and the judicial/investigative procedure could maybe add up. usually people are on death row for a while before they are actually executed.

I don't think "cost" should necessarily be a consideration, though. Especially since things can be done to lower the cost. That said, that statistic seems retarded. Also, given the fact that there's only so many executions (especially compared to the amount of people serving life in prison) in a year I doubt that it really adds much to the bill. If there's a hundred people executed in a year, then that's the cost of housing 300 inmates.

anyway im kind of busy right now but I'll make up a fun argument soon.

[elx]

It costs approximately $20,000 a year to house one inmate. It costs less than $90 for the chemicals required to preform a lethal injection.
let's just compare the initial trial; the process by which a capital case arrives at sentencing compared to that of a noncapital case is radically different, with an average cost difference of about $800,000.
http://www.wsba.org/lawyers/groups/finalreport.pdf

there's too many variables to get into, the point is - it doesn't save money and with the average time on death row rising from 15-20 years to 25-30 it's becoming more and more ridiculously expensive.

[The Leader]

elx, shoosh. I'm pretty sure most people who are sentenced to life in prison are in there for longer than 30 years, and those extra years make up for the cash spent on capital sentencing.

[elx]

elx, shoosh. I'm pretty sure most people who are sentenced to life in prison are in there for longer than 30 years, and those extra years make up for the cash spent on capital sentencing.


which I'm sure death row is like a fine hotel compared to the standard cost to house an inmate -- and I'm sure all the employees that deal with it get paid extra.

kahl said it best.

[The Leader]

If the death penalty was reinstated in states where its banned, it would obviously have to be streamlined. That and I'd like to see more people sentenced to death. If you're doing life, then what's the point? The whole point of modern prisons is rehabilitation, which they fail miserably at but I digress, so why would a prisoner who is spending the rest of their life behind bars be made fit for living in society. Just kill them, and then feed their flesh to the poor.

[Colonel Flagg]

Colonel do you know what his brother was pulled over for in the first place?

Driving the wrong way down a one way street. :(

[Colonel Flagg]

So is he caught up in appeals, or just waiting for his turn to be executed?

Appeals. Mostly initiated from people who are death penalty opponents, who know nothing about the case. Stupidly, they're arguing his innocence and/or the unfairness of the trial, when it is obvious to anyone who experienced the events as they happened that he shot Officer Faulkner. As for the fairness, neither he nor his brother testified at trial. That tells you all you need to know.

So you think they should have killed him sooner -- if they were going to kill him?

Yes.

i won't be positive until you answer my questions, but it seems like your frustration has more to do with the way it was handled, or the system, and other periphery issues than the actual killing of people for being convicted of committing fucked up shit.

You got it, bro'. ;) There's way too much leniency built into the system. If you're going to have capital punishment for crimes, (as a deterrent?) then it makes no sense for people like Mumia to hang around manipulating people (and the system) because it gives the law no teeth.

If we're not going to change the system, then we should outlaw capital punishment. Period.

[executioneer]

If the death penalty was reinstated in states where its banned, it would obviously have to be streamlined.

streamlining = more not guilty people getting killed :(

[MajorScales]

I don't want the media to be involved anymore. Take them out to a field and shoot them.

[Dimnos]

If you're going to have capital punishment for crimes, (as a deterrent?) then it makes no sense for people like Mumia to hang around manipulating people (and the system) because it gives the law no teeth.

I think the reason we have capital punishment isnt so much as a deterrent. We do it because the people who are supposed to get it deserve no better. :(

[Colonel Flagg]

But that was initially supposed to be the reason Capital Punishment existed in the first place ... and was listed as one of the reasons it was "brought back from the dead".

That was a long time ago, and I concede that I may be misremembering events.

[The Leader]

streamlining = more not guilty people getting killed :(
Yeah, but I'm the Leader, see. I'm the one doing the killing. It comes with the name.

[Zhukov]

I don't want the media to be involved anymore. Take them out to a field and shoot them.

Ok, that made me laugh.

So which country has the most executions a year? Is it still China? Of course it is, and you are going to need to work a lot faster than THAT, America.

[Dimnos]

Do N. Korea gulag deaths count as executions?

[stevetothepast]

I would do life in jail until I ran out of good books to read.

That and you'd probably miss the the snatch.

[Dimnos]

Nah. T would be one of those charismatic serial killers that the women line up for. He would get to many conjugal visits.

[Sparkles the Fairy]

My Folk used to kill mortals who offended us, and blight their livestock and crops.

Nowadays, I curse computers with terrible problems and cause hard drives to fail UTTERLY when I am enraged. >:

If you want to stay on my good side, and believe me, you do, do not say anything about the breasts on my back or my ox tail.

Seriously. Don't. >:

[stevetothepast]

that's funny sparkles. very funny.

[The Leader]

I hate you sparkles. I hate you so much.

[Dimnos]

2nd worst character ever. :rolleyes

[Tadao]

l5zFsy9VIdM

[stevetothepast]

The old grey whistle test is the shit.

[Dimnos]

Probably my favorite Talking Heads song. :rock

[Tadao]

One of my old friends said that this used to be my song and I used to play it all the time, but I'd never heard it till he told me that. :confused:

[kahljorn]

:lol and here I thought there was going to be intense intellectual discussion when I got back and i was gonna be in for some shit :O

But that was initially supposed to be the reason Capital Punishment existed in the first place ... and was listed as one of the reasons it was "brought back from the dead".

That was a long time ago, and I concede that I may be misremembering events.

Yea. That may be the case but it doesn't really matter why it was restarted. It matters why it should continue.

And on that topic, I think that the death penalty should not exist because it is always wrong to act with the intent to kill somebody. Whether you are killing somebody who has done good, or somebody who has done bad -- it is always wrong. On account of this, the death penalty should not be allowed because it acts with the intent to kill somebody.

:)

[Dimnos]

What about war?

[The Leader]

Or self defense. :(

[Dimnos]

I think by Kahls own idea there self defense is ok. You dont go into that situation with intent to kill. Your just looking to defend yourself and your loved ones. But again what about war? You go into that knowing you will be killing people and its a bit different than self defense.

[The Leader]

When I defend myself, I intend to never have to deal with the attacker again. >:

[Tadao]

In a way, the death penalty is self defense.

[Zhukov]

I'd rather think that every time I had to kill someone I had to justify it first, rather than hope a blanket statement (killing is WRONG) can cover every situation. If you can justify it then it's right, right? Right. If killing someone would be justice, then you should do it. So far I haven't personally found myself killing anyone.

I'm a sucker for prefering my own morals over the law though. So I don't expect everyone to follow this mantra.

Same with war; if you can justify the war then it's ok. The hard part is justifying it first, and so far I think the vast percentage of wars are un-justified. From the attackers point of view, of course.

[Tadao]

I can't say if killing is right or wrong, but it is very serious and in my book pretty dam final. I don't really believe in an afterlife. For me to kill would take a lot or it would be a split second fight or flight scenario.

[The Leader]

Same with war; if you can justify the war then it's ok. The hard part is justifying it first, and so far I think the vast percentage of wars are un-justified. From the attackers point of view, of course.
But attackers are often provoked by actions of other states.

[Dimnos]

Some people deserve to die. Plain and simple. If you are found deserving I would be happy to push the button myself. I have no qualms about that.

[Tadao]

Yeah, I think Hitler said something like that.

[The Leader]

You better watch it, Tadao. Dimnos can find you.

[Tadao]

:eek

[Dimnos]

Bah. Im not killing people because of their race or that I just dont like them. Im talking about the baby killers and child rapists and serial killers. Bitches best step off my mini-wheats.

[kahljorn]

I typed a response to this thread last night and my computer updated in the middle of it and rebooted ;/

Your just looking to defend yourself and your loved ones. But again what about war? You go into that knowing you will be killing people and its a bit different than self defense.Okay well I have a few responses to this, the first thing I will say is that, even in war and self-defense, killing people is wrong.
Also, not everybody in the military signs up to "Kill people." A lot of people join so they can get a college education or be noble. The war is secondary to that, and a lot of them don't want to be in a situation which they are forced to participate in In the past, a lot of wars had draftees, so the people really didn't want to be there.
Which brings me to my next point: one of the key justifications I've heard for war, especially concerning the difference between a soldier and an assassin, is that soldiers aren't really supposed to be going somewhere to kill people. War could be said to be the perpetual placing of trained killers into situations in which they will have to defend themselves in order to achieve an objective, for the sake of themselves and loved ones.
The purpose of war is never to kill people. The intent of war is generally to capture stuff and make it so that the enemy can't attack you. This can be achieved in multiple ways, not just by killing people. Incapacitating a person, demoralizing the enemy etc. are all alternatives to the actual killing of people. And, interestingly, in self-defense, (imprisonment as far as I am saying) and also war, killing somebody after they have been incapacitated or are unable to fight back is a crime (or a war crime).

Basically, isn't war more about defending yourself, your loved ones and your country than about killing folks? And aren't wars seemingly oriented around killin folk generally considered abhorrent? Holocaust?

I might also say that soldiers have relinquished themselves to a different form of justice, but I don't really want to go there right now :(

I intend to never have to deal with the attacker again.By incapacitating them safely within the confines a prison, I hope. Because otherwise you sir are a murderer or, at best, a manslaughterer.

In a way, the death penalty is self defense.So is incapacitating them, or imprisoning them.

If you can justify it then it's right, right?No. The act of killing (with the intent to do so) can never be right. For example, in self-defense, the act of self-defense is right, the idea of being passive and letting somebody else kill you is not right (if its wrong for you to kill them, its wrong for them to kill you); Regardless of this, it is still wrong to kill that person if you acted with the intent to do so. :)

If you try hard enough, you can justify almost anything. Most wars can and have been justified, does that make them all right? What counts as a "justification," exactly, anyway? Without blanket, moral statements its difficult to have any standard by which to "justify" things.

Is going to war for terrorists i mean for oil i mean to spread democracy in iraq and to liberate the gentle folk dwelling therein from a cruel and heartless dictator justified or unjustified? And what is it that makes it justified or unjustified?
It's not like hitler didn't have justification for what he was doing, either.

the vast percentage of wars are un-justified.

According to what? Maybe these wars were just spearheaded by persons who followed their own morals over the law.

[kahljorn]

Some people deserve to die. Plain and simple. If you are found deserving I would be happy to push the button myself. I have no qualms about that.lol maybe we'll get into desserts next.

just desserts

[kahljorn]

wtf?

[The Leader]

By incapacitating them safely within the confines a prison, I hope. Because otherwise you sir are a murderer or, at best, a manslaughterer.
False. You can kill someone and not be charged with a crime if it is ruled self defense.

[kahljorn]

False. You can kill someone and not be charged with a crime if it is ruled self defense.If you are defending yourself and knock somebody out or make them unable to attack you (incapacitate) them, and then after all this is over you walk up to them and cap a bullet right into the middle of their forehead, you can be charged with a crime. Because the point at which you incapacitate them is when you have stopped defending yourself.

"if it is ruled self-defense." In that case, the murder wouldn't be ruled self-defense. At best, you could argue that you were over-taken by emotions. Self-defense isn't supposed to be about KILLING the other guy, but about making it so they can't attack you.

[The Leader]

Where did I insinuate that I would incapacitate and then terminate in my post?

[kahljorn]

"I intend to never have to deal with the attacker again" *angry face.*

I think your intent is obvious with statements like, "You can kill somebody and not be charged with a crime if it was ruled in self-defense" after i said that I hope you mean by incapacitating them.

You could PROBABLY also be charged with a crime if they could prove that you could've incapacitated them but chose to kill them instead.

[Dimnos]

Also, not everybody in the military signs up to "Kill people." A lot of people join so they can get a college education or be noble. The war is secondary to that, and a lot of them don't want to be in a situation which they are forced to participate in In the past, a lot of wars had draftees, so the people really didn't want to be there.

Im sure most people dont join the military to kill people. Im sure most of them do to, like you said, the college education or the money or just dont have much else to do with their lives. However they know that going to war and being in a situation where they have to kill someone is a real possibility. When they decide to join up that was a decision you made that put you one step closer to that situation. Whereas when you are in your home and someone kicks your door in to rob you or whatever you made no decision. You were just placed in that situation.

Which brings me to my next point: one of the key justifications I've heard for war, especially concerning the difference between a soldier and an assassin, is that soldiers aren't really supposed to be going somewhere to kill people. War could be said to be the perpetual placing of trained killers into situations in which they will have to defend themselves in order to achieve an objective, for the sake of themselves and loved ones.

That is a very idealistic way to look at it but I can see what you mean. Armies are for defensive purposes in a perfect world.

The purpose of war is never to kill people.

I believe there are some Hutus in Africa that would disagree with you on this. However for the most part you are correct. For those of us that live in the "civilized" world killing people is never the purpose of war, its just a byproduct. You cant make an omelet without breaking some eggs. If you are a soldier holding a fortified position and a bunch of guy come running at you with automatic weapons what is the best way of stopping them from killing you and/or getting past you to whoever or whatever you are defending?


The intent of war is generally to capture stuff and make it so that the enemy can't attack you. This can be achieved in multiple ways, not just by killing people. Incapacitating a person, demoralizing the enemy etc. are all alternatives to the actual killing of people.

Incapacitating an attacker isnt always a viable option. I am in agreement with you that when it is possible it should be done. Nonlethal weapons and technology have only recently made huge advancements and many groups such as police departments use them. However on the battlefield they are still "around the corner" and lethal force is still the only viable option in many situations.

And, interestingly, in self-defense, (imprisonment as far as I am saying) and also war, killing somebody after they have been incapacitated or are unable to fight back is a crime (or a war crime).

Totally with you on this one. Again I would like to point out that Im only really for killing people after they have repeatedly assaulted and/or killed and either show no remorse or interest in rehabilitation. I would rather put them down before they put someone else down.

[The Leader]

You could PROBABLY also be charged with a crime if they could prove that you could've incapacitated them but chose to kill them instead.
That's a reach.

[Dimnos]

Im not sure about elsewhere in the USA but here in Texas if you kick in my door and just stand there looking at me I have the right to shoot you on the spot. You broke into my house, I felt endangered, I defended myself the only way I thought I could. You dont want to get shot? Dont go breaking into peoples houses.

[Dimnos]

Of course I would probably try to shoot you in the leg or the stomach first. Because Im not a total dick.

[The Leader]

But what if they weren't in your house, Dimnos? Then you could probably be charged with murder!:eek

[Dimnos]

Then I wouldnt be shooting at them. :lol

[MajorScales]

If you are defending yourself and knock somebody out or make them unable to attack you (incapacitate) them, and then after all this is over you walk up to them and cap a bullet right into the middle of their forehead, you can be charged with a crime. Because the point at which you incapacitate them is when you have stopped defending yourself.

If it was filmed on a nanny cam...but just the fact that you could should someone point blank in the head would cause some suspicion.

The guy that was just caught for holding the girl in the backyard for 18 years should be killed. I don't want to hear about it, he did it and he should vanish.

[Dimnos]

Quite right. Rape a kid you should die. Its much better than what they are going to do to you in general population. If anything your doing him a favor.

[kahljorn]

[quote]When they decide to join up that was a decision you made that put you one step closer to that situation. Whereas when you are in your home and someone kicks your door in to rob you or whatever you made no decision.

lol trueish. Although you could maybe say the same thing about people who move into ghettos.
What I might say in response to this is that soldiers have taken up a "responsibility" to defend us, just like police officers; and that is the situation they have placed themselves in.

really, though, some soldiers do join to kill people.

That is a very idealistic way to look at it but I can see what you mean. Armies are for defensive purposes in a perfect world.

I think the purpose of this idea is to protect soldiers from the label of "Murderer."

I believe there are some Hutus in Africa that would disagree with you on this.

yea there are some people who seemingly go to war just to kill people, and usually those are considered the most abhorrent wars/people.

If you are a soldier holding a fortified position and a bunch of guy come running at you with automatic weapons what is the best way of stopping them from killing you and/or getting past you to whoever or whatever you are defending?

Shooting bullets at them.

Incapacitating an attacker isnt always a viable option. I am in agreement with you that when it is possible it should be done.

True. Even in these situations, though, its still wrong to have killed those people, its just more wrong to have let them kill you.
:)

However on the battlefield they are still "around the corner" and lethal force is still the only viable option in many situations.

Yep, and I also think that war is outside of the scope of normal justice. War is so tragic :(

[kahljorn]

Im not sure about elsewhere in the USA but here in Texas if you kick in my door and just stand there looking at me I have the right to shoot you on the spot. You broke into my house, I felt endangered, I defended myself the only way I thought I could. You dont want to get shot? Dont go breaking into peoples houses.I know there's a cliche about texas, but i doubt its that simple. Plus, somebody breaking into your house is only one of many situations. I also doubt you have a right to "Kill them" so much as you have the right to "Shoot them."

You never have the right to kill somebody.

[kahljorn]

In most jurisdictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction), defense of self or of others is an affirmative defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense) to criminal charges for an act of violence. It acts to provide complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of "extreme" danger. The defense would fail, for example, if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. Likewise, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack.from our old friend wikipedia.

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

From texas law... but there's some shit that wikipedia article mentions where you dont have to retreat from your home.


"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


So, basically, if you coulda yelled at the guy and scared him off without him stealing your property than self-defense might not be a valid defense in court.

If some guy's trying to attack you on the streets and you could just safely run away but instead choose to kill him you could be charged with a crime.

[The Leader]

THAT'S NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE MISTER!>:

[kahljorn]

i guess now you also don't have to retreat if you're in your car or workplace if certain crimes like murder or kidnapping are being comitted.

[kahljorn]

the leader maybe you don't realize this but this thread was made just for me and you're annoying so please take your dickbaggery to the bakery and ask them to make you a dickbagguette so you can eat your own dickness, dickface. i hate you

[The Leader]

YOUR LAW HAS NO PLACE IN TEXAS, KAHLJORN. THERE THE ONLY LAW IS GOD'S LAW.

[The Leader]

:(

[kahljorn]

http://logicalcomplexinfinitive.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ten-commandments.jpg
What does the second one down on the second "Tablet" say?

:lol at the inaccurate rendering of the ten commandments

[The Leader]

Pssh, not that god. The one true God.

http://www.nndb.com/people/666/000030576/roy-rogers-sm.jpg

[Tadao]

Chris

[kahljorn]

who is that? :(

[The Leader]

Roy Rogers! :D

[kahljorn]

Oooh it's roy rogers.

You know somebody made me a roy rogers one time and it tasted like shit so have your god explain that to me.

[The Leader]

He works in mysterious ways.

[kahljorn]

Everytime i order a tetragrammaton it tastes surperb

[Colonel Flagg]

[edit-off topic]

[Dimnos]

Oooh it's roy rogers.

You know somebody made me a roy rogers one time and it tasted like shit so have your god explain that to me.

You should have ordered a Tom Collins. But you know what they say about hindsight. :\

[edit-off topic]

Like we give a shit here Colonel. Your opinion is always welcome.

[MajorScales]

Capital Punisment is a societal entity. We as a society decide if some fuck dies because he is caught red handed doing something unspeakable. When I was a kid I would order a Shirley Temple :love

[Tadao]

That doesn't make it right.

[Dimnos]

Who here thinks that you shouldnt kill a child rapist? Say there is clear evidence that they are guilty and you know without a doubt they raped that kid?

[kahljorn]

I drink non-alcoholic tom collins all the time lol :(

[executioneer]

what about babies guys should we kill babies

what about when they're still in the mommy

[kahljorn]

that's the most wrong thing :(

[MajorScales]

what about babies guys should we kill babies

what about when they're still in the mommy


If you are over 50 and the kid looks like a piece of chewed gum on the Ultrasound :\

[elx]

Who here thinks that you shouldnt kill a child rapist? Say there is clear evidence that they are guilty and you know without a doubt they raped that kid?
well in the bible it says that the rapist should pay the girls father fifty shekels of silver and marry the girl for he has violated her. and never divorce her as long as he lives.

[Dimnos]

Well Im not asking what the Bible says. Im asking what you honestly and personally think. Not to mention when it comes to the law no religious beliefs should come into play.

[The Leader]

But they do, ain't that wacky? :O

[Dimnos]

They do but they shouldnt.

[Colonel Flagg]

well in the bible it says that the rapist should pay the girls father fifty shekels of silver and marry the girl for he has violated her. and never divorce her as long as he lives.

I think in the Wahabbi interpretation of Islamic law, the rapist gets something like 50 lashes and the rapee gets 200 - for being provocative. Or some such nonsense.

Religion is in many ways quite idiotic.

EDIT - but none of these interpretations include capital punishment for this offense, do they? :offtopic

[Zhukov]

No. The act of killing (with the intent to do so) can never be right. For example, in self-defense, the act of self-defense is right, the idea of being passive and letting somebody else kill you is not right (if its wrong for you to kill them, its wrong for them to kill you); Regardless of this, it is still wrong to kill that person if you acted with the intent to do so. :) [quote]

Hmm, you just seem to say "It's wrong to kill" without saying much else here. I think it can be right to kill if you can justify it first. So, if you can prove it's right, then it's right. You have already said that that self defense killing (if it's the last resort before your own death) is "less wrong" than letting yourself die. We don't choose the wrong or the less wrong option, it's wrong or right. It might be the lesser of two evils, but it's still the right one to choose.

[quote]
If you try hard enough, you can justify almost anything. Most wars can and have been justified, does that make them all right? What counts as a "justification," exactly, anyway? Without blanket, moral statements its difficult to have any standard by which to "justify" things.

Ok, so a blanket moral statement like "less deaths are good" might be needed to justify a war. Most wars have been "justified" at the time, sure, but I would not consider most of them just though. What counts as justification? Well, if you can convince yourself truthfully, and the population, and outside observers that your course of action is the lesser evil, then that is justified. Do what you think is the right thing to do, that's all I'm saying. The vast majority of people do anyway.


Is going to war for terrorists i mean for oil i mean to spread democracy in iraq and to liberate the gentle folk dwelling therein from a cruel and heartless dictator justified or unjustified? And what is it that makes it justified or unjustified?


Going to war in Iraq was unjustified. Most people think that way. Justifying by telling lies and spin is hardly justice.

What is it that makes it justified/unjustified? Well, that depends on the circumstances. Would going to war save lives? Make people's lives better? Would horrendous acts be stopped? In the case of the Iraq war..

Oh, I'm not talking about a reason like "WMDs" or "terrorists" or that kind of justification - those are reasons.


According to what? Maybe these wars were just spearheaded by persons who followed their own morals over the law.
Sorry, according to my morals. My main point is personal morals; if you can justify it, do it. That's not a free reign to do what you want, it's a reason to make sure what you want to do is right not only by you but by the majority of others.

[kahljorn]

I'm too hungry to really read or respond right now but congratulations to zhukov for discovering part of the criticism of my argument.

insertclappingemoticonhere

[kahljorn]

Hmm, you just seem to say "It's wrong to kill" without saying much else hereI'm not sure what you mean by this. That I'm not saying much about why its wrong to kill people, or that you don't understand my point there and that I am only saying its wrong to kill a person.
My point is that, no matter how much you can justify an action, it is never right to kill a person. The actual act of killing the person cannot be good, regardless of whatever goods are achieved. Even if you traveled back in time and killed hitler, despite all the goods it would accomplish: the actual killing of hitler would be wrong.

If you meant the first part let me know and I'll give you some actual reasons for why it's always wrong to act with the intent to kill

You have already said that that self defense killing (if it's the last resort before your own death) is "less wrong" than letting yourself die.If by less wrong you mean equally as wrong. In this circumstance, either way, somebody was likely to die or get seriously injured, so as far as wrongness goes it is equal. The thing that makes it partially "Good" is that you were protecting yourself from serious injury.

:)

We don't choose the wrong or the less wrong option, it's wrong or right. It might be the lesser of two evils, but it's still the right one to choose.... I think it can be right to kill if you can justify it first. So, if you can prove it's right, then it's right.I guess.

Ok, so a blanket moral statement like "less deaths are good" might be needed to justify a war.Is that a good justification? So a small population is being exterminated by a neighbor with vastly superior numbers but they are jerk racists and just think those other persons are inferior. There will be less deaths if you just let them exterminate that populace.
Is that a just war decision on our part? Certainly, if we went to war to save this small population, there would be more deaths than if we didn't go to war. So that would make that war to save the small population, according to this justification, wrong.

What counts as justification? Well, if you can convince yourself truthfully, and the population, and outside observers that your course of action is the lesser evil, then that is justified. Do what you think is the right thing to do, that's all I'm saying. The vast majority of people do anyway.What?
This is contradictory.
Sorry, according to my morals. My main point is personal morals; if you can justify it, do it. That's not a free reign to do what you want, it's a reason to make sure what you want to do is right not only by you but by the majority of others.But you can justify anything. And justify it in front of others? Lots of people were behind the Iraq war.
Your view of morality is confusing at best. In a sense, honestly, I agree with doing what you think is right, even if it means killing somebody. But people aren't going to agree with you universally about it, and you're not going to have any ability to know the universal opinion on an act.

Shit just look at the capital punishment debate. Tons of people want it, tons of people don't. So what do you do?

I would say fuck what other people think and do what you think is right, but you're telling me it needs to be right in the eyes of others and have universal consent but at the same time i should do what i want personal morality.

and how does all of this fit into capital punishment anyway? We should what pick one dude in america and let him use his personal morality to decide if the guy should live or die? of course according to what everybody else in the world thinks.

[Zhukov]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. That I'm not saying much about why its wrong to kill people, or that you don't understand my point there and that I am only saying its wrong to kill a person.
My point is that, no matter how much you can justify an action, it is never right to kill a person. The actual act of killing the person cannot be good, regardless of whatever goods are achieved. Even if you traveled back in time and killed hitler, despite all the goods it would accomplish: the actual killing of hitler would be wrong.

If you meant the first part let me know and I'll give you some actual reasons for why it's always wrong to act with the intent to kill

I mean the first. WHY is it wrong to kill? I mean, I know why; ending someone's life is a very drastic action and should not be taken lightly at all, etc... but how can it always be the wrong choice, especially when there are so many variables?


If by less wrong you mean equally as wrong. In this circumstance, either way, somebody was likely to die or get seriously injured, so as far as wrongness goes it is equal. The thing that makes it partially "Good" is that you were protecting yourself from serious injury.

:)

I do know where you are coming from, killing is wrong, but my point is that sometimes it is less wrong than the alternative.


Is that a good justification? So a small population is being exterminated by a neighbor with vastly superior numbers but they are jerk racists and just think those other persons are inferior. There will be less deaths if you just let them exterminate that populace.
No, that was just one example, obviously there are many different things to think about before you declare war on someone. Plus, in this case, the neighbour has justified the exterminating of the other guys without a thought going into "less deaths", since exterminating people always involves more deaths than not exterminating people.


What?
This is contradictory.

Not really. You're thinking that I say "convince yourself!" and then "convince others!", but to know if something is right then you always have to find out other people's opinions. Thinking of others is a pretty major step in an adult being just and doing what's right. What's best for other people should be a major part of convincing yourself. Yes, I am well aware I said "should be".


But you can justify anything. And justify it in front of others? Lots of people were behind the Iraq war.
Well, that's why you have to debate about these things. You can't "justify anything", but you can try. Also, this is all just speculation and brain exercisies. I don't expect people to think like I do.



Your view of morality is confusing at best. In a sense, honestly, I agree with doing what you think is right, even if it means killing somebody. But people aren't going to agree with you universally about it, and you're not going to have any ability to know the universal opinion on an act.

Shit just look at the capital punishment debate. Tons of people want it, tons of people don't. So what do you do?

I would say fuck what other people think and do what you think is right, but you're telling me it needs to be right in the eyes of others and have universal consent but at the same time i should do what i want personal morality.

and how does all of this fit into capital punishment anyway? We should what pick one dude in america and let him use his personal morality to decide if the guy should live or die? of course according to what everybody else in the world thinks.

[Zhukov]

Ugh, my computer fucked up and that was posted mid type. I forgot what else I was going to say now. Really, I think everyone should think things through, with as many variables as possible, and with the betterment of as many people as possible in mind before they act. I know this isn't how things are, but oh well.

As far as killing goes, well, it's the same. If it's the lesser of two evils in a certain situation, then that's the better choice to make. No, I suppose it doesn't make it "good". But I do consider less evil to be "right choice".


I don't know how this fits into capital punishment, since I'm mostly against that, really.

[Dimnos]

So are we now off capital punishment and on just causes for war? I dont know what to argue about anymore. :(

[Dimnos]

well in the bible it says that the rapist should pay the girls father fifty shekels of silver and marry the girl for he has violated her. and never divorce her as long as he lives.


The bible also says Jesus was down with killing sinners.

http://bible.cc/matthew/18-6.htm

[Colonel Flagg]

The bible also says Jesus was down with killing sinners.

http://bible.cc/matthew/18-6.htm


The Bible is so inconsistent, and contains so many contradictions it's a wonder more evangelicals' heads aren't exploding. ;)

More proof, I suppose that they don't have brains.

[Dimnos]

Right right. My favorite are the ones that think it was written by god himself.

[Zhukov]

So are we now off capital punishment and on just causes for war? I dont know what to argue about anymore. :(
Well Kahl and I are talking about killing as a whole. He is saying it is always wrong, and I am saying that there are circumstances that can make it (if not good) right.

[Dimnos]

Yeah. Sometimes they just need to be put down. Like a rabid dog. What if some ass hole goes on a rampage at a public location? Starts gunning down anyone and everyone he sees. Someone with a concealed handgun license (or hell, license or no) just happens to be in the right spot at the right time and could easily take him down. Possible hero guy knows that if he shoots psycho in the leg he is just going to keep shooting people more than likely starting with hero guy. He knows the only way to save as many lives as he can is to put this guy down. Are you saying its wrong for him to do so?

[stevetothepast]

Who here thinks that you shouldnt kill a child rapist? Say there is clear evidence that they are guilty and you know without a doubt they raped that kid?

I think they should get the electric chair, either that or something more painful .

[Colonel Flagg]

Death is too final, and way too easy a solution for the worst sociopaths. Lock them in a room and force them to watch reruns of Howard Cosell on Wide World of Sports over .... and over .... and over .....

:Sleeper

[Dimnos]

I think they should get the electric chair, either that or something more painful .

In Oklahoma the Firing Squad is still on the table.

[Dimnos]

"We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself." - John Stuart Mill on the value of life.

[MajorScales]

The bible also says Jesus was down with killing sinners.

http://bible.cc/matthew/18-6.htm

The day I see a Mexican riding a Narwhal I might consider there is a Jesus. Can someone make an Avatar of that for me?

[Tadao]

I don't believe I can put anyone to death without feeling great remorse for it. Shit happens in the wild, but the subject is capital punishment. What that means to me is that a group of my peers decides on the death of an accused person. I don't fucking trust any of you to make that choice.

[Zhukov]

Idealy I would like it if anyone who murdered someone would just have some sort non-lethal or invasive means to prevent them from doing it again; like a robot attached to their brain that puts them to sleep if they are about to murder someone. THIS IS IN THE FUTURE.

[Dimnos]

How about we start scalping them? With modern medicine it can easily be non-fatal. Its a clear sign that anyone can see.

[kahljorn]

how about if we just keep them in prison :O :O

i had a response for this thread but now if I write it out i also have to respond to something dimnos said which might take extra time and I'm lazy so there ya go.

[Tadao]

It would create more jobs.

[Dimnos]

Be fun again Kahl... Come on say it... :(

[Zhukov]

Being in prison is not a very pleasant experience Kahl. I wouldn't wish it upon people if it could be helped.

[Dimnos]

We are talking about people who killed or raped someone else. Its not supposed to be a pleasant experience.

[The Leader]

It is for me.

[kahljorn]

"We show, on the contrary, most emphatically our regard for it by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself." - John Stuart Mill on the value of life.

I don't think rights really work this way -- you can't just take them away. If they did, we could torture torturers, rape rapists, take away the right of free speech from those who would censor others, steal from thieves, cruelly and unusually punish those who cruelly and unusually punish, and refuse various protective and basic freedoms offered to all persons who deal with us so long as they have done the same to others. etc.

I don't necessarily think Justice is just about retribution, but about makings things equal. And if you think along these terms, you'll find that most persons convicted of horrible crimes have had horrible lives and have been treated like shit by society. It's not very equal or fair, in my opinion, to kill someone because of what we have made them.

[Tadao]

It sucks that we lost Jeffrey Dahmer. He was cooperating with psychologist and maybe we could have learned something important.

[kahljorn]

I guess.

I think if any crime deserves capital punishment its white collar crime :O but even then life in prison seems adequate.

[kahljorn]

The bible also says Jesus was down with killing sinners.

Thats really not a very good example of jesus saying to kill sinners. It's more like he's saying its better than you would have killed him because once he faces me (JESUS) he's gonna wish he's dead.

the old testament is filled with capital punishment charges though, like in i think deuteronomy.

[Tadao]

I think thing chanced once Jesus the hippie showed up. Before that god wanted sinners stoned to death and shit like that, and the Jesus was all like "Hey no man, that so uncool. It's not like you are any better than them. Can't we just chill and talk about this for a second?"

[kahljorn]

yea pretty much plus the new testament was basically written while they lived in roman lands or some shit so a lot of it is a response to that and a guide for how to live there.

[Dimnos]

I don't think rights really work this way -- you can't just take them away. If they did, we could torture torturers, rape rapists, take away the right of free speech from those who would censor others, steal from thieves, cruelly and unusually punish those who cruelly and unusually punish, and refuse various protective and basic freedoms offered to all persons who deal with us so long as they have done the same to others. etc.

I think everyone has a right to live and that is a very valuable right. Once you violate someone elses right to live you have committed a VERY heinous crime that deserves a VERY heinous punishment. Basically forfeiting your right. Yes it is kind of an eye for an eye way thinking but in this case I think its very fitting. The rest of that stuff is just a slippery slope argument that is basically crap. If you torture someone (it really depends how you torture them and what the outcome was) you will more than likely get thrown in jail. Is that not torture? Rapists regularly get raped in prison and its probably fitting. Thieves, if they get caught, have to pay back damages. So yeah your basically stealing from them but its not really stealing its more reparations. The rest is kind of in a gray area and it really depends more on the circumstances and details of each case I guess?


I don't necessarily think Justice is just about retribution, but about makings things equal. And if you think along these terms, you'll find that most persons convicted of horrible crimes have had horrible lives and have been treated like shit by society. It's not very equal or fair, in my opinion, to kill someone because of what we have made them.

You are responsible for your own actions. Thats it. No more goes on that sentence. You are responsible for what you do. To cry about how life dealt you an unfair hand is crap. Guess what. Life is unfair. No matter how bad you have it someone somewhere has it worse and isnt killing people over it. Society may have shat on you. Society may not be your friend. That doesnt make it ok to kill someone.

[kahljorn]

No matter how bad you have it someone somewhere has it worse and isnt killing people over it. Society may have shat on you. Society may not be your friend. That doesnt make it ok to kill someone.

unless its society killing people, right? "No matter how bad you have it someone somewhere has it worse and isn't killing people over it. Some criminal may have shat on you. Some criminal may not be your friend. That doesn't make it ok to kill someone."

Is that not torture?

No.

Rapists regularly get raped in prison and its probably fitting.

Uhh not necessarily. So it would be okay on your watch for prison guards to rape rapists? or like to cruelly and unusually punish people who cruelly and unusually punish? Or refuse the right to counsel to those who refuse others the right to counsel?
etc.

Thieves, if they get caught, have to pay back damages.

they take back what they stole. However, when they execute somebody they aren't taking back anything, but destroying something else.

The rest of that stuff is just a slippery slope argument that is basically crap.

It's not a slippery slope ;/

Once you violate someone elses right to live you have committed a VERY heinous crime that deserves a VERY heinous punishment.

So why does the very heinous punishment necessarily mean death? why can't it be life in prison without possibility of parole? Death really isn't even a punishment if you think about it.
And what about when you rape a bunch of little kids but don't kill them? They haven't violated anybody else's right to life, so does that mean they shouldn't be executed?

[Evil Robot]

I SOVIET RUSSIA THEY BRING YOU BACK TO LIFE AS PUNISHMENT!!!

[Dimnos]

....

A bunch of stuff that my heart just isnt up to answering at this time. Sorry, maybe later. Im not feeling to good today. :\


And what about when you rape a bunch of little kids but don't kill them? They haven't violated anybody else's right to life, so does that mean they shouldn't be executed?

Yes. Slowly if possible.

[Colonel Flagg]

Sorry to dredge up this chestnut, but the following article is relevant:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/20/death.penalty/index.html

As I believe many (including myself) have said, this system, which originally was meant as a deterrent, has failed in its intended purpose. With the advent of more lawyers and more laws protecting the civil rights of murders, torturers, rapists, and pedophiles, we're left with (probably) thousands of people on death row who will never be executed. Why have a death penalty if society doesn't use it? It only wastes money and time on people who don't deserve either.

"Thirty-five states still retain the death penalty, but fewer and fewer executions are taking place every year," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/death_penalty_information_center). "But the overall death row population has remained relatively steady. At a time of budget shortfalls nationwide, the death penalty is turning into an expensive form of life without parole."

Sentence the bastards to LWOP and be done with it.