Death Penalty Poll

[b.k. barunt]

. . . but just because a few innocents might die, doesn't mean that the taxpayers should have to pay for someone's life in the big house.

Would you be so quick with that if you knew one of the innocents? Pretty callous of you i'd say, in a glib kind of way. I say that if there's a chance that one innocent man in a thousand would die, pay the fooking taxes and don't whine about it until you've whined about the billions of dollars that are wasted on far less important matters.


Honibaz

[Burrito]

. . . but just because a few innocents might die, doesn't mean that the taxpayers should have to pay for someone's life in the big house.

Would you be so quick with that if you knew one of the innocents? Pretty callous of you i'd say, in a glib kind of way. I say that if there's a chance that one innocent man in a thousand would die, pay the fooking taxes and don't whine about it until you've whined about the billions of dollars that are wasted on far less important matters.


Honibaz

As I have said before, that if that were to happen to me, it would cloud my judgment and I would most likely be making an emotional decision, not a rational one. I don't support the government wasting money in any way, but the originator of this thread brought up the economic costs of the death penalty, and I replied, and the debate followed that path to this piont.

[MeDeFe]

Burrito, I think you're confusing or mixing "level-headed, rational" with "completely lacking empathy". You have also failed to tell us just how you determine a person's value in US$ (though personally I would prefer to be valued in €, the exchange rates are better).


You have said that if you were somehow directly concerned with a case of a person (either you or a friend or relative) being sentenced to death, you would probably make quite a different judgement, but that this would be clouded by emotions and therefore untrustworthy. But tell me, from where do you derive the right to kill an innocent person who through unlucky circumstances appeared guilty and to inflict such severe emotional pain on them and their families? Besides the glaringly obvious question I just asked, writing it off as "unfortunate and exceptional cases that somehow serve the greater good" is unsatisfying on at least two levels.

Politically speaking, this means that the state reserves the right to take away all of a person's liberties at will, or at best based only on suspicions. If the occasional innocent may be executed and this is regarded as acceptable it greatly detracts from the value we accord civil liberties. Let me spell it out. A person is suspected of having committed a murder, he is given a fair trial, and, although he denies any wrongdoing, he is convicted due to circumstantial evidence. The due process of the law was followed, evidence was presented and weighed, the person's innocence could not be ascertained and him being guilty seemed probable, so he was convicted. He is swiftly and efficiently executed at minimal costs to the taxpayer. The only problem is that the person really was innocent. Now, what happened? What happened was that the state took away all of this person's liberties based on suspicions. Even if the person were guilty, his liberties would have been taken away on suspicions alone. That is because you cannot have such a thing as a perfect trial, there is no such thing as definite proof. You can complain about things being inefficient but you don't have a better system, the more you streamline trials and make them effective, the less fair they will be and the more likely it will be that there are mistakes. This is a huge problem when you're talking about taking away all of a person's rights and liberties, and ultimately their life.

Morally, you are saying that one sort of killing people is ok while another sort of killing people isn't. Fitz already pointed out some of the flaws with this, mainly the one big flaw that you don't have a leg to stand on. You condemn killing on an individual level, but if the practice is institutionalized and proceduralized it suddenly becomes acceptable. Forgive me if I don't immediately see why this should be the case and think you're being a hypocrite. If the state declares killing on an individual level unacceptable, the state had better set an example and refrain from doing it rather than give some people the power to decide whether someone should be killed or not and some the power to do it.



You mentioned that "level of education, age, chosen profession, etc." are some of the factors that determine a person's worth in a currency of choice. I don't want this to go under because of my previous three paragraphs, but could you elaborate on this so I can laugh and point my finger at you before proceeding to ripping your worldview apart and showing you and everyone else who's reading this that you are wrong on the internet? Maybe list the main factors that you think count towards a person's $-worth and how they relate to each other.

[jay_a2j]

Do you really think that killing a person in self defense is equal to say, killing your girlfriend because she wouldn't blow you off?

In the eyes of man probably not, in the eyes of God yes.

[GabonX]

People have a basic inalienable right to self defense.

Abolishment of the Capital Punishment means that the right will have to be used more often.

[xelabale]

I think he is touching on some legitimate concepts bk, but that his presentation is very poor. If he really believes that a person's income should affect judgment in a court of law I can't defend his position, but what I think he is trying to say is that society has no obligation to indefinately fund the existence of convicted murderers.

Also, your comment about no rich man being executed unjustly in the last 200 years may be applicable in the United States, but if you were a Jew in Germany in the 30's, or had money in Eastern Europe or Russia and wanted to keep it in the era of the Iron Curtain circumstances were very different, not that these things are at all relevant to the current debate...

GabonX, I am genuinely impressed.

I don't understand your comment in the post above, though.

[notyou2]

Huh?

[GabonX]

I think he is touching on some legitimate concepts bk, but that his presentation is very poor. If he really believes that a person's income should affect judgment in a court of law I can't defend his position, but what I think he is trying to say is that society has no obligation to indefinately fund the existence of convicted murderers.

Also, your comment about no rich man being executed unjustly in the last 200 years may be applicable in the United States, but if you were a Jew in Germany in the 30's, or had money in Eastern Europe or Russia and wanted to keep it in the era of the Iron Curtain circumstances were very different, not that these things are at all relevant to the current debate...

GabonX, I am genuinely impressed.

I don't understand your comment in the post above, though.

I was addressing the post directly before that one but I didn't quote it.

bk was commenting on something that Burrito had said and the first paragraph was in reference to that.

The second paragraph isn't particularly relevant to the conversation. It was addressing a comment that bk made in passing.

[notyou2]

I didn't understand it either, thus the "Huh?"

[GabonX]

It should read like this:

Well even though this is off topic, I will still answer you. Some people are simply more valuable than others, and I am sure that there is a way to put this in dollar values. If you owned a business, and were looking to hire, who would you choose first? The burned out druggie, or the honor roll high school athlete? The president gets an entire Secret Service to protect him, while everyone else has to rely on anonymity and self-defense. Why? Because he is more valuable then an average person. Prison inmates are some of the least valuable people in this country. Even (most) illegal immigrants work hard, but inmates are in fact a drain on the hard earned money of (generally) hard working people.
I am in fact an atheist. I don't believe in a magical man in the clouds who controls everything.

Most of my gut level response to such arrogant ignorance would be considered "flaming", so i'll try to candy coat it for you.

Your being an atheist does not give you the right to set yourself up as a little tin god and deem who is "more valuable" and who is not. I know at least 6 or 7 "burned out druggies" who are decorated vets - one who was given the Congressional Medal of Honor. I guess they've outlived their usefulness (especially the one with no legs) on your scale of value. Nevertheless, if we were to take any one of them and compare their "value" when they were your age to your "value" now, you'd come up embarrassingly shy.

You are a shining (in the glaring sense) example of a society who judges a man's "value" by his financial status. Your laws protect the rich and oppress the poor, which is why no rich man was ever executed unjustly in the last 200 years or so, but we have a shitload of poor dead suckers.

If someone rapes or kills one of my family or close friends, i will kill them. Do i want the government to have that right? f*ck no! I think they've already shown anyone with half a brain that they're not capable of applying it in a fair and equitable manner. Anyone who is for the death penalty doesn't give a shit about the hundreds of innocent men and women who have been put to death, as it doesn't affect them in the least bit if that person is outside of a small circle of friends.

Honibaz

I think he is touching on some legitimate concepts bk, but that his presentation is very poor. If he really believes that a person's income should affect judgment in a court of law I can't defend his position, but what I think he is trying to say is that society has no obligation to indefinately fund the existence of convicted murderers.

Also, your comment about no rich man being executed unjustly in the last 200 years may be applicable in the United States, but if you were a Jew in Germany in the 30's, or had money in Eastern Europe or Russia and wanted to keep it in the era of the Iron Curtain circumstances were very different, not that these things are at all relevant to the current debate...

[notyou2]

People have a basic inalienable right to self defense.

Abolishment of the Capital Punishment means that the right will have to be used more often.

I believe it is this post that we failed to fully comprehend.

[Burrito]

Burrito, I think you're confusing or mixing "level-headed, rational" with "completely lacking empathy". You have also failed to tell us just how you determine a person's value in US$ (though personally I would prefer to be valued in €, the exchange rates are better).


You have said that if you were somehow directly concerned with a case of a person (either you or a friend or relative) being sentenced to death, you would probably make quite a different judgement, but that this would be clouded by emotions and therefore untrustworthy. But tell me, from where do you derive the right to kill an innocent person who through unlucky circumstances appeared guilty and to inflict such severe emotional pain on them and their families? Besides the glaringly obvious question I just asked, writing it off as "unfortunate and exceptional cases that somehow serve the greater good" is unsatisfying on at least two levels.

Politically speaking, this means that the state reserves the right to take away all of a person's liberties at will, or at best based only on suspicions. If the occasional innocent may be executed and this is regarded as acceptable it greatly detracts from the value we accord civil liberties. Let me spell it out. A person is suspected of having committed a murder, he is given a fair trial, and, although he denies any wrongdoing, he is convicted due to circumstantial evidence. The due process of the law was followed, evidence was presented and weighed, the person's innocence could not be ascertained and him being guilty seemed probable, so he was convicted. He is swiftly and efficiently executed at minimal costs to the taxpayer. The only problem is that the person really was innocent. Now, what happened? What happened was that the state took away all of this person's liberties based on suspicions. Even if the person were guilty, his liberties would have been taken away on suspicions alone. That is because you cannot have such a thing as a perfect trial, there is no such thing as definite proof. You can complain about things being inefficient but you don't have a better system, the more you streamline trials and make them effective, the less fair they will be and the more likely it will be that there are mistakes. This is a huge problem when you're talking about taking away all of a person's rights and liberties, and ultimately their life.

Morally, you are saying that one sort of killing people is ok while another sort of killing people isn't. Fitz already pointed out some of the flaws with this, mainly the one big flaw that you don't have a leg to stand on. You condemn killing on an individual level, but if the practice is institutionalized and proceduralized it suddenly becomes acceptable. Forgive me if I don't immediately see why this should be the case and think you're being a hypocrite. If the state declares killing on an individual level unacceptable, the state had better set an example and refrain from doing it rather than give some people the power to decide whether someone should be killed or not and some the power to do it.



You mentioned that "level of education, age, chosen profession, etc." are some of the factors that determine a person's worth in a currency of choice. I don't want this to go under because of my previous three paragraphs, but could you elaborate on this so I can laugh and point my finger at you before proceeding to ripping your worldview apart and showing you and everyone else who's reading this that you are wrong on the internet? Maybe list the main factors that you think count towards a person's $-worth and how they relate to each other.

It is entirely possible for an innocent man to be put on death row. The current court system, since it is based on humans, can make mistakes. No matter how hard we try to prevent them, mistakes will be made and prejudices, preconceptions, and stereotypes will play a part in trials. Bot the fact is, nearly all criminal cases are solved on circumstantial evidence. Unless there is direct eyewitness testimony (which is generally held to be unreliable) or the crime is caught through some other medium( caught on camera, sound recorded, etc.), then all evidence is simply circumstantial. So I ask you what you would do, let every criminal go free just because there is the slightest chance that they might be innocent, simply because no one else actually saw the crime happen? Yes, innocent people occasionally are convicted, but until we achieve the ability to read minds, our court system is the best there is. It is not perfect, but it is better than any other. They went through the system and it found them guilty. The system is the best around. that is good enough for me. And if there is obvious proof of prejudice in the original court hearing, then that is what appeals are for.

Instigation of a crime and a rational, well thought out response by society to are are not the same, even if the act is ultimately the same. That is like saying a father that beats his son is the same as a boxer fighting in a match. Sure, the outcome is the same (someone gets hit), but the intentions are entirely different.

What I am saying is that some people are simply better. Some people simply offer more to society. If I were starting an organization, or a town, or a country, I would prefer certain people over others. I would want to turn away those with psychological problems, those who don't try hard enough, people who are not willing to take care of themselves, people who offer little to society. I would choose sane, sound, healthy, hardworking people, because they would be more of an asset to what I was trying to accomplish. They are better than others, and I am sure there is a way to calculate this in monetary terms. I don't know what it is, and I'm not going to spend time devising a way to do so, but I am sure it is possible.

[Symmetry]

It is entirely possible for an innocent man to be put on death row. The current court system, since it is based on humans, can make mistakes. No matter how hard we try to prevent them, mistakes will be made and prejudices, preconceptions, and stereotypes will play a part in trials. Bot the fact is, nearly all criminal cases are solved on circumstantial evidence. Unless there is direct eyewitness testimony (which is generally held to be unreliable) or the crime is caught through some other medium( caught on camera, sound recorded, etc.), then all evidence is simply circumstantial. So I ask you what you would do, let every criminal go free just because there is the slightest chance that they might be innocent, simply because no one else actually saw the crime happen? Yes, innocent people occasionally are convicted, but until we achieve the ability to read minds, our court system is the best there is. It is not perfect, but it is better than any other. They went through the system and it found them guilty. The system is the best around. that is good enough for me. And if there is obvious proof of prejudice in the original court hearing, then that is what appeals are for.

Instigation of a crime and a rational, well thought out response by society to are are not the same, even if the act is ultimately the same. That is like saying a father that beats his son is the same as a boxer fighting in a match. Sure, the outcome is the same (someone gets hit), but the intentions are entirely different.

What I am saying is that some people are simply better. Some people simply offer more to society. If I were starting an organization, or a town, or a country, I would prefer certain people over others. I would want to turn away those with psychological problems, those who don't try hard enough, people who are not willing to take care of themselves, people who offer little to society. I would choose sane, sound, healthy, hardworking people, because they would be more of an asset to what I was trying to accomplish. They are better than others, and I am sure there is a way to calculate this in monetary terms. I don't know what it is, and I'm not going to spend time devising a way to do so, but I am sure it is possible.

What would you do with the people born into your utopia who developed mental or physical health problems? Or who became a liability to what you were trying to accomplish?

[Burrito]

It is entirely possible for an innocent man to be put on death row. The current court system, since it is based on humans, can make mistakes. No matter how hard we try to prevent them, mistakes will be made and prejudices, preconceptions, and stereotypes will play a part in trials. Bot the fact is, nearly all criminal cases are solved on circumstantial evidence. Unless there is direct eyewitness testimony (which is generally held to be unreliable) or the crime is caught through some other medium( caught on camera, sound recorded, etc.), then all evidence is simply circumstantial. So I ask you what you would do, let every criminal go free just because there is the slightest chance that they might be innocent, simply because no one else actually saw the crime happen? Yes, innocent people occasionally are convicted, but until we achieve the ability to read minds, our court system is the best there is. It is not perfect, but it is better than any other. They went through the system and it found them guilty. The system is the best around. that is good enough for me. And if there is obvious proof of prejudice in the original court hearing, then that is what appeals are for.

Instigation of a crime and a rational, well thought out response by society to are are not the same, even if the act is ultimately the same. That is like saying a father that beats his son is the same as a boxer fighting in a match. Sure, the outcome is the same (someone gets hit), but the intentions are entirely different.

What I am saying is that some people are simply better. Some people simply offer more to society. If I were starting an organization, or a town, or a country, I would prefer certain people over others. I would want to turn away those with psychological problems, those who don't try hard enough, people who are not willing to take care of themselves, people who offer little to society. I would choose sane, sound, healthy, hardworking people, because they would be more of an asset to what I was trying to accomplish. They are better than others, and I am sure there is a way to calculate this in monetary terms. I don't know what it is, and I'm not going to spend time devising a way to do so, but I am sure it is possible.

What would you do with the people born into your utopia who developed mental or physical health problems? Or who became a liability to what you were trying to accomplish?

That wasn't my point. Obviously, I would prefer that there simply weren't any of those problems, and I don't have an immediate solution to that question. Anyways, that was simply an example to show that some people contribute more, not actually an idea.

[Symmetry]

It is entirely possible for an innocent man to be put on death row. The current court system, since it is based on humans, can make mistakes. No matter how hard we try to prevent them, mistakes will be made and prejudices, preconceptions, and stereotypes will play a part in trials. Bot the fact is, nearly all criminal cases are solved on circumstantial evidence. Unless there is direct eyewitness testimony (which is generally held to be unreliable) or the crime is caught through some other medium( caught on camera, sound recorded, etc.), then all evidence is simply circumstantial. So I ask you what you would do, let every criminal go free just because there is the slightest chance that they might be innocent, simply because no one else actually saw the crime happen? Yes, innocent people occasionally are convicted, but until we achieve the ability to read minds, our court system is the best there is. It is not perfect, but it is better than any other. They went through the system and it found them guilty. The system is the best around. that is good enough for me. And if there is obvious proof of prejudice in the original court hearing, then that is what appeals are for.

Instigation of a crime and a rational, well thought out response by society to are are not the same, even if the act is ultimately the same. That is like saying a father that beats his son is the same as a boxer fighting in a match. Sure, the outcome is the same (someone gets hit), but the intentions are entirely different.

What I am saying is that some people are simply better. Some people simply offer more to society. If I were starting an organization, or a town, or a country, I would prefer certain people over others. I would want to turn away those with psychological problems, those who don't try hard enough, people who are not willing to take care of themselves, people who offer little to society. I would choose sane, sound, healthy, hardworking people, because they would be more of an asset to what I was trying to accomplish. They are better than others, and I am sure there is a way to calculate this in monetary terms. I don't know what it is, and I'm not going to spend time devising a way to do so, but I am sure it is possible.

What would you do with the people born into your utopia who developed mental or physical health problems? Or who became a liability to what you were trying to accomplish?

That wasn't my point. Obviously, I would prefer that there simply weren't any of those problems, and I don't have an immediate solution to that question. Anyways, that was simply an example to show that some people contribute more, not actually an idea.

That's fair enough, and I get your point, although I disagree with much of it. I'll try to bring this back on topic. I'm just wondering how that notion of value should apply to the death penalty. In your post you suggest that the alternative to guilt is innocence, but that's not really accurate. A lot of people are released from death row, but forced to serve an alternative sentence due to extenuating circumstances. Others are set free, and others are executed despite evidence that should have come to light earlier. I'm not convinced that an argument about someone's relative worth to the country's agenda in terms of their health or hard work should be used as an argument to rush people towards death. It's a dangerous idea, and completely subject to contemporary ideologies.

[Burrito]

It was simply a comment I intended to demonstrate how worthless inmates are, not as an argument for the death penalty, which is why I repeatedly said it was off topic. As I said before, there are mistakes made in the current American system of law. There is not much outside of science fiction that can change that. You may not believe that anyone has the right to kill another human being, even when it is believed to be the deserved punishment by many. There might be innocent deaths caused by this process, but that is no reason to completely stop the practice. I certainly don't support those deaths, don't intend for them to happen, but in all probability they will. It is something akin to "acceptable losses" in warfare.

There was a previous post, I can't find it at the moment, that claimed capital punishment only exists now because of "mob rule." I wish to point out that the strongest country in the world, the USA, is a democracy, and this "mob rule" you seem to think so little of is the basis upon which this country is built upon. In this country, popular opinion often does determine what is right, and to change the law you must change people's opinions.

[xelabale]

It was simply a comment I intended to demonstrate how worthless inmates are, not as an argument for the death penalty, which is why I repeatedly said it was off topic. As I said before, there are mistakes made in the current American system of law. There is not much outside of science fiction that can change that. You may not believe that anyone has the right to kill another human being, even when it is believed to be the deserved punishment by many. There might be innocent deaths caused by this process, but that is no reason to completely stop the practice. I certainly don't support those deaths, don't intend for them to happen, but in all probability they will. It is something akin to "acceptable losses" in warfare.

There was a previous post, I can't find it at the moment, that claimed capital punishment only exists now because of "mob rule." I wish to point out that the strongest country in the world, the USA, is a democracy, and this "mob rule" you seem to think so little of is the basis upon which this country is built upon. In this country, popular opinion often does determine what is right, and to change the law you must change people's opinions.

Yes it is. End of. We must realise that we have fundamentally different opinions on this point, and this is the crux of the matter, which is going to make any further argument very difficult, and potentially pointless.
Except it's unnaceptable. Ooops, there we go again.
Can't argue with your last paragraph.

[Burrito]

It was simply a comment I intended to demonstrate how worthless inmates are, not as an argument for the death penalty, which is why I repeatedly said it was off topic. As I said before, there are mistakes made in the current American system of law. There is not much outside of science fiction that can change that. You may not believe that anyone has the right to kill another human being, even when it is believed to be the deserved punishment by many. There might be innocent deaths caused by this process, but that is no reason to completely stop the practice. I certainly don't support those deaths, don't intend for them to happen, but in all probability they will. It is something akin to "acceptable losses" in warfare.

There was a previous post, I can't find it at the moment, that claimed capital punishment only exists now because of "mob rule." I wish to point out that the strongest country in the world, the USA, is a democracy, and this "mob rule" you seem to think so little of is the basis upon which this country is built upon. In this country, popular opinion often does determine what is right, and to change the law you must change people's opinions.

Yes it is. End of. We must realise that we have fundamentally different opinions on this point, and this is the crux of the matter, which is going to make any further argument very difficult, and potentially pointless.
Except it's unnaceptable. Ooops, there we go again.
Can't argue with your last paragraph.

Very well, that is that. you have an emotional/moral opposition to death, while I realize that death is a natural thing.


I found the post. It was AAFitz. THANK YOU, YOU COMMIE BASTARD!!!

[Symmetry]

It was simply a comment I intended to demonstrate how worthless inmates are, not as an argument for the death penalty, which is why I repeatedly said it was off topic. As I said before, there are mistakes made in the current American system of law. There is not much outside of science fiction that can change that. You may not believe that anyone has the right to kill another human being, even when it is believed to be the deserved punishment by many. There might be innocent deaths caused by this process, but that is no reason to completely stop the practice. I certainly don't support those deaths, don't intend for them to happen, but in all probability they will. It is something akin to "acceptable losses" in warfare.

There was a previous post, I can't find it at the moment, that claimed capital punishment only exists now because of "mob rule." I wish to point out that the strongest country in the world, the USA, is a democracy, and this "mob rule" you seem to think so little of is the basis upon which this country is built upon. In this country, popular opinion often does determine what is right, and to change the law you must change people's opinions.

Yes it is. End of. We must realise that we have fundamentally different opinions on this point, and this is the crux of the matter, which is going to make any further argument very difficult, and potentially pointless.
Except it's unnaceptable. Ooops, there we go again.
Can't argue with your last paragraph.

Very well, that is that. you have an emotional/moral opposition to death, while I realize that death is a natural thing.


I found the post. It was AAFitz. THANK YOU, YOU COMMIE BASTARD!!!

It's not really natural if you sentence someone to death and then inject them full of lethal drugs.

[xelabale]

It was simply a comment I intended to demonstrate how worthless inmates are, not as an argument for the death penalty, which is why I repeatedly said it was off topic. As I said before, there are mistakes made in the current American system of law. There is not much outside of science fiction that can change that. You may not believe that anyone has the right to kill another human being, even when it is believed to be the deserved punishment by many. There might be innocent deaths caused by this process, but that is no reason to completely stop the practice. I certainly don't support those deaths, don't intend for them to happen, but in all probability they will. It is something akin to "acceptable losses" in warfare.

There was a previous post, I can't find it at the moment, that claimed capital punishment only exists now because of "mob rule." I wish to point out that the strongest country in the world, the USA, is a democracy, and this "mob rule" you seem to think so little of is the basis upon which this country is built upon. In this country, popular opinion often does determine what is right, and to change the law you must change people's opinions.

Yes it is. End of. We must realise that we have fundamentally different opinions on this point, and this is the crux of the matter, which is going to make any further argument very difficult, and potentially pointless.
Except it's unnaceptable. Ooops, there we go again.
Can't argue with your last paragraph.

Very well, that is that. you have an emotional/moral opposition to death, while I realize that death is a natural thing.

I have no problem with death, only killing, call me a moral relativist.

[Burrito]

Very well, that is that. you have an emotional/moral opposition to death, while I realize that death is a natural thing.

I have no problem with death, only killing, call me a moral relativist.

But members of the same species killing each other over much less trivial things than justice is natural.

It's not really natural if you sentence someone to death and then inject them full of lethal drugs.

I said death is natural, not naturally occurring death.

[xelabale]

Very well, that is that. you have an emotional/moral opposition to death, while I realize that death is a natural thing.

I have no problem with death, only killing, call me a moral relativist.

But members of the same species killing each other over much less trivial things than justice is natural.

It's not really natural if you sentence someone to death and then inject them full of lethal drugs.

I said death is natural, not naturally occurring death.

You're losing me on this one, minit roll, are you saying we are no better than animals? Death is natural, dying by bullet is unnatural, your argument is spurious.

[Burrito]

Very well, that is that. you have an emotional/moral opposition to death, while I realize that death is a natural thing.

I have no problem with death, only killing, call me a moral relativist.

But members of the same species killing each other over much less trivial things than justice is natural.

It's not really natural if you sentence someone to death and then inject them full of lethal drugs.

I said death is natural, not naturally occurring death.

You're losing me on this one, minit roll, are you saying we are no better than animals? Death is natural, dying by bullet is unnatural, your argument is spurious.

I am saying that one person killing another, regardless of the way that they do so, for their own advantage is one of our base instincts, because we are animals. We may have very large and well developed brains, a sense of self and responsibility and morals, but our base instincts are still feral in nature. We are animals. When it comes right down to life and death, most people are brutal and vicious animals, dong things they would never dream of doing otherwise. Try reading Elie Wiesel's book Night about his experience in the German internment camps, and tell me that those humans were fully aware and conscious of what they were doing (the prisoners, not the Germans).

[xelabale]

But we can choose not to be like that,



and we must.

[notyou2]

Very well, that is that. you have an emotional/moral opposition to death, while I realize that death is a natural thing.

I have no problem with death, only killing, call me a moral relativist.

But members of the same species killing each other over much less trivial things than justice is natural.

It's not really natural if you sentence someone to death and then inject them full of lethal drugs.

I said death is natural, not naturally occurring death.

You're losing me on this one, minit roll, are you saying we are no better than animals? Death is natural, dying by bullet is unnatural, your argument is spurious.

I am saying that one person killing another, regardless of the way that they do so, for their own advantage is one of our base instincts, because we are animals. We may have very large and well developed brains, a sense of self and responsibility and morals, but our base instincts are still feral in nature. We are animals. When it comes right down to life and death, most people are brutal and vicious animals, dong things they would never dream of doing otherwise. Try reading Elie Wiesel's book Night about his experience in the German internment camps, and tell me that those humans were fully aware and conscious of what they were doing (the prisoners, not the Germans).

Your last post is exactly right,but by showing compassion, that is what raises us as humans above animals. So if we lower ourselves to capital punishment, we have resorted back to animals.