to the bleeding hearts

by Propagandhi711 Wed May 01, 2013 10:57 am

is your heart bleeding for the state sanctioned murder of this man? I bet it is

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ohio-set-execute-man-baby-girls-death-19080286#.UYEtFKLa_VJ

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed May 01, 2013 11:18 am

this is an odd question. i reject the notion that a bleeding heart for vile criminals is required for a person to be opposed to the death penalty. i am opposed to the death penalty for many ethical reasons none of which have to do with a bleeding heart.

a) i do not believe in the code of hammurabi. i do not believe the state has the right to take a person's life.

b) there is always the chance that a person on death row is actually innocent as has been the case in many recent cases where a person, long imprisoned and on death row has been acquitted due to DNA evidence. it will be a terrible miscarriage of justice to execute an innocent person.

c) there is no evidence that the death penalty reduces the occurrence of such violent crimes.

to answer your question though -- i could not read the article beyond the first few lines because it filled me with revulsion. but if he was found guilty, i feel nothing but revulsion and contempt for this animal.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Wed May 01, 2013 11:37 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:is your heart bleeding for the state sanctioned murder of this man? I bet it is

[url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ohio-set-execute-man-baby-girls-death-19080286#.UYEtFKLa_VJ

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ohio-set-execute-man-baby-girls-death-19080286#.UYEtFKLa_VJ[/quote[/url]]

you sound angry and upset. is that because you believe that opposing the death penalty is tantamount to sympathizing with a child-rapist/murderer?

by southindian Wed May 01, 2013 11:37 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:is your heart bleeding for the state sanctioned murder of this man? I bet it is

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ohio-set-execute-man-baby-girls-death-19080286#.UYEtFKLa_VJ

Good job. All rapists need to get the death penalty and if possible a child rapist should get it twice.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Wed May 01, 2013 11:41 am

southindian wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:is your heart bleeding for the state sanctioned murder of this man? I bet it is

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ohio-set-execute-man-baby-girls-death-19080286#.UYEtFKLa_VJ

Good job. All rapists need to get the death penalty and if possible a child rapist should get it twice.

if that's how you feel, you must be an extraordinarily virtuous person.

by southindian Wed May 01, 2013 11:44 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
southindian wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:is your heart bleeding for the state sanctioned murder of this man? I bet it is

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ohio-set-execute-man-baby-girls-death-19080286#.UYEtFKLa_VJ

Good job. All rapists need to get the death penalty and if possible a child rapist should get it twice.
if that's how you feel, you must be an extraordinarily virtuous person.

ok

by Propagandhi711 Wed May 01, 2013 11:54 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is an odd question. i reject the notion that a bleeding heart for vile criminals is required for a person to be opposed to the death penalty. i am opposed to the death penalty for many ethical reasons none of which have to do with a bleeding heart.

a) i do not believe in the code of hammurabi. i do not believe the state has the right to take a person's life.

if you supported going to any war, you support state right to take a person's life.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
b) there is always the chance that a person on death row is actually innocent as has been the case in many recent cases where a person, long imprisoned and on death row has been acquitted due to DNA evidence. it will be a terrible miscarriage of justice to execute an innocent person.

applying that logic, the state cannot decide on any punishment since there is always a chance that the person accused in innocent. we should be trying cases in perpetuity since there is such thing as absolute certainty of guilt unless the said murder was done in front of 10 or more people.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
c) there is no evidence that the death penalty reduces the occurrence of such violent crimes.

same can be said for any other form of corporal punishment, most ppl that are released from jails do commit crimes. by that measure, death penalty is effective since it ensures that there is no repeat offense.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
to answer your question though -- i could not read the article beyond the first few lines because it filled me with revulsion. but if he was found guilty, i feel nothing but revulsion and contempt for this animal.

so why the calamitous agitation against death penalty in all cases? human life is not THAT precious

by southindian Wed May 01, 2013 12:51 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
c) there is no evidence that the death penalty reduces the occurrence of such violent crimes.

same can be said for any other form of corporal punishment, most ppl that are released from jails do commit crimes. by that measure, death penalty is effective since it ensures that there is no repeat offense.

This is simple and brilliant especially true in cases of rapists who are repeat offenders. Death is the only solution they deserve. Max, you are stumped.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed May 01, 2013 12:59 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is an odd question. i reject the notion that a bleeding heart for vile criminals is required for a person to be opposed to the death penalty. i am opposed to the death penalty for many ethical reasons none of which have to do with a bleeding heart.

a) i do not believe in the code of hammurabi. i do not believe the state has the right to take a person's life.

b) there is always the chance that a person on death row is actually innocent as has been the case in many recent cases where a person, long imprisoned and on death row has been acquitted due to DNA evidence. it will be a terrible miscarriage of justice to execute an innocent person.

c) there is no evidence that the death penalty reduces the occurrence of such violent crimes.

to answer your question though -- i could not read the article beyond the first few lines because it filled me with revulsion. but if he was found guilty, i feel nothing but revulsion and contempt for this animal.

State has all the powers as given by its people through their representatives. To collect Taxes, deny medical benefits, pass laws on death sentencing are all inclusive in that list.

Evidence does not necessarily have to come in data, numbers and statistics. By its nature, all those data come after many such incidents. Analysis and evidence collection comes after the fact to establish whatever people knew already. If one were to go by today's "evidence-based action" one has to reject everything that was older than 500 years and everything non-western.

Experience is as good as "bookish-evidence".

by Captain Bhankas Thu May 02, 2013 4:01 am

the problem with no-death-penalty crowd is their undying faith in human conscience and their belief that it is possible for every human to have the same universal conscience that can tell good from bad. they believe that some criminals will come around and be a gandhi one day because of guilt and remorse. i disagree.

jihadists, honor-killing-walahs, khap panchayats are unlikely to think there is anything wrong with their conscience. how do you deter others from following them? surely not by not hanging them? taking a murderer's life in the hope for a greater good is acceptable to me.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu May 02, 2013 6:05 am

Captain Bhankas wrote:the problem with no-death-penalty crowd is their undying faith in human conscience and their belief that it is possible for every human to have the same universal conscience that can tell good from bad. they believe that some criminals will come around and be a gandhi one day because of guilt and remorse. i disagree.

jihadists, honor-killing-walahs, khap panchayats are unlikely to think there is anything wrong with their conscience. how do you deter others from following them? surely not by not hanging them? taking a murderer's life in the hope for a greater good is acceptable to me.

This has nothing to do with conscience etc. The point is that the death penalty doesn't deter future criminals nor is it reversible in case the accused was mistakenly found guilty. In fact, death penalty does not serve any useful purpose that imprisonment does not already serve.

At the end of the day, death penalty is just societal retribution for a crime. A collective blood-lust on behalf of the victim(s) and their families. And it simply doesn't behoove the more civilized societies to continue with that barbarism. It's only good for us third-world folks.

by Captain Bhankas Thu May 02, 2013 7:09 am

lapses in the investigation and judicial process cannot give a convict his 14 years back nor can they prevent his social death either. but that's a different topic.

it is impossible to calculate the benefits resulting from the fear of possible death because of death penalty. certainly death penalty cannot prevent the crime of passion or undo the criminal act itself but it can reduce the numbers of the other variety. but how does one even begin to measure it (without comparisons with another country)?

on a related note, do you think a civilized society should be pro-life just to be consistent with its stance?

by garam_kuta Thu May 02, 2013 7:56 am

We tend to think of justice as noble, revenge as unworthy - wrong,
argues Thane Rosenbaum. In a piece for The Chronicle of Higher
Education, he writes: A call for justice is always a call for revenge.
Rosenbaum defends the policy of an eye for an eye and dismisses the
policy of turning the other cheek as cowardly and antithetical to human
nature. Vengeance, on the other hand, he calls healthy and human, even a
biological necessity.

....You remember "The Godfather," Neal, is very clear. In the opening scene
of "The Godfather," he tells Bonasera: I can't take the lives of the
people who tried to rape your daughter, because your daughter's still
alive. Now, why would a professional killer care about exactness and
exactitude? Because he knows there are rules about revenge....

Law professor Thane Rosenbaum says it's time for Americans to be honest
about the role revenge plays in our lives. "The distinction between
justice and vengeance is false," he writes in The Chronicle of Higher Education. "A call for justice is always a cry for revenge."

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/08/176583581/op-ed-the-nonexistent-line-between-justice-and-revenge

by Merlot Daruwala Thu May 02, 2013 8:16 am

Captain Bhankas wrote:lapses in the investigation and judicial process cannot give a convict his 14 years back nor can they prevent his social death either.

True. But monetary compensation may take some sting out of the injustice. In the case of death penalty, there's no recourse at all. An innocent man's blood will be on the collective hands of society.

Captain Bhankas wrote:it is impossible to calculate the benefits resulting from the fear of possible death because of death penalty. certainly death penalty cannot prevent the crime of passion or undo the criminal act itself but it can reduce the numbers of the other variety. but how does one even begin to measure it (without comparisons with another country)?

Death penalty is reserved for the rarest of the rare crimes. And you'll ALWAYS have the rarest of the rare crimes - deterrence just doesn't work there.

Captain Bhankas wrote:on a related note, do you think a civilized society should be pro-life just to be consistent with its stance?

The two are unrelated. A civilized society should shun death penalty because it is based on a very primitive principle of retribution and not because it is "pro-life".

by truthbetold Thu May 02, 2013 9:00 am

I keep reading that death penalty is not effective according to the self appointed intelligent masters of such. Where is the evidence? Whose evidence?
prop already gave an example of irrefutable evidence of death penalty. Kasab cannot kill any one any more. Neither can Jeffery caulker.

If death penalty is retribution, why is life sentence not a retribution?
A small group of people think death penalty is not good. But as uppili stated above democratic society thinks otherwise. When society feels it is mature enough to drop death penalty as punishment, then it will do so.

by Captain Bhankas Thu May 02, 2013 9:32 am

MD wrote:Death penalty is reserved for the rarest of the rare crimes. And you'll ALWAYS have the rarest of the rare crimes - deterrence just doesn't work there.

that is why i said "possible" death sentence. shouldn't that possibility deter a potential killer from committing the crime? i think it should.

MD wrote:The two are unrelated. A civilized society should shun death penalty because it is based on a very primitive principle of retribution and not because it is "pro-life".

my angle was : if the state has no right to kill, what right does it have to let defenseless unborn children be killed? and do you think a civilized society should be pro-life?

by Propagandhi711 Thu May 02, 2013 10:24 am

truthbetold wrote:I keep reading that death penalty is not effective according to the self appointed intelligent masters of such. Where is the evidence? Whose evidence?
prop already gave an example of irrefutable evidence of death penalty. Kasab cannot kill any one any more. Neither can Jeffery caulker.

If death penalty is retribution, why is life sentence not a retribution?
A small group of people think death penalty is not good. But as uppili stated above democratic society thinks otherwise. When society feels it is mature enough to drop death penalty as punishment, then it will do so.

well they dont have any evidence that death penalty deters violent crime nor is there evidence that it doesn't. some euro countries where the continentals drink tea and wine with their pinky extended decided they are civilized and decided to do away with it after hundreds of years of murdering, settling scores etc by hanging. forget that the same civilized countries have another arm of their governance declaring wars with 100s of thousands of innocent collateral deaths that folks dont bat an eye towards, but the pure and lily white intellectuals CANNOT BEAR to put a heinous murderer to painless death after letting the fucker live for dozen plus years. yes I know the history behind how the death penalty was misused in the past but this clamor to ban it outright is retarded. and who says society doesn't need revenge or "closure"? why did they kill osama and why did were ppl cheering if revenge/justice isnt something that holds societies together?

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu May 02, 2013 11:23 am

Captain Bhankas wrote:the problem with no-death-penalty crowd is their undying faith in human conscience and their belief that it is possible for every human to have the same universal conscience that can tell good from bad. they believe that some criminals will come around and be a gandhi one day because of guilt and remorse.

that's a preposterous assumption about people who oppose the death penalty. i oppose the death penalty, but do not have an undying faith in the human conscience.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu May 02, 2013 12:46 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Captain Bhankas wrote:the problem with no-death-penalty crowd is their undying faith in human conscience and their belief that it is possible for every human to have the same universal conscience that can tell good from bad. they believe that some criminals will come around and be a gandhi one day because of guilt and remorse.
that's a preposterous assumption about people who oppose the death penalty. i oppose the death penalty, but do not have an undying faith in the human conscience.

I was opposed to death penalty until terrorism became widespread in the last 20 years killings scores of innocents through single incidents. Being totally opposed to death penalty under any circumstances is also a form of extremism.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri May 03, 2013 2:35 am

Captain Bhankas wrote:
MD wrote:Death penalty is reserved for the rarest of the rare crimes. And you'll ALWAYS have the rarest of the rare crimes - deterrence just doesn't work there.

that is why i said "possible" death sentence. shouldn't that possibility deter a potential killer from committing the crime? i think it should.

Deterrence is predicated on rationality. While pre-meditating a crime, the loss of freedom alone is sufficient deterrence even for someone with little else to lose. The rarest of the rare crimes are either committed by psychopaths or by normal people in a fit of passion, rationality is absent from their thinking.

Captain Bhankas wrote:
MD wrote:The two are unrelated. A civilized society should shun death penalty because it is based on a very primitive principle of retribution and not because it is "pro-life".

my angle was : if the state has no right to kill, what right does it have to let defenseless unborn children be killed? and do you think a civilized society should be pro-life?

I understand your point. I didn't say the state has no right to kill. Police are authorized to shoot armed individuals who pose imminent danger to others around. During wars, the army is mandated to kill. As long as the killing is for a greater good, it is justified. But criminals, once imprisoned, pose no further threat to society. A death sentence thereafter is unjustifiable - it is only to satisfy a primitive, third-worldly, retributive bloodlust.

As for abortion, I disagree with the pro-lifer view that rights of a clump of cells trump those of the woman hosting it. The question of "defenceless unborh children" arises only after the first trimester. Abortion beyond that point should be guided solely by medical considerations - risk to mother's health, severe genetic defects in the foetus etc.

Extremists who condemn contraception as well as abortion, and then go on to romanticise the birth and bringing up of individuals with severe genetic defects resulting in life-long disabilities, should be slapped in a public square and sentenced to life-long community service, tending to the daily needs of the severely disabled.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri May 03, 2013 2:54 am

truthbetold wrote:A small group of people think death penalty is not good. But as uppili stated above democratic society thinks otherwise. When society feels it is mature enough to drop death penalty as punishment, then it will do so.

Oh yes. The champion of the awakening masses had to weigh in with his opinion.

Going by your touching belief in the wisdom of the masses, Lincoln should have stepped back and let slavery continue. Rajaram Mohun Roy and those other nosy-parkers should have bowed to the masses and let those widows be burnt with their dead husbands.

And coming to the present, lets do away with those courts and that elaborate, time-consuming justice system. Let the masses decide the innocence or guilt of a person and carry out the verdict as well. Let's go back to that purest form of unbridled democracy - mob rule.

by Kris Fri May 03, 2013 2:55 am

I understand your point. I didn't say the state has no right to kill. Police are authorized to shoot armed individuals who pose imminent danger to others around. During wars, the army is mandated to kill. As long as the killing is for a greater good, it is justified. But criminals, once imprisoned, pose no further threat to society. A death sentence thereafter is unjustifiable - it is only to satisfy a primitive, third-worldly, retributive bloodlust.

>>>In theory, yes. If the state can provide solid assurance that the criminal will not get released on a technicality or bureaucratic incompetence or clever lawyering, I would be in favor of lifetime incarceration and doing away with the death penalty. The reality is that there are convicts who get released and go back to their criminal ways and commit more heinous crimes. This does not even have to be an alarmist number in terms of percentage. Even a minute percentage results in harm to society. Given that reality, absent a 100% assurance, the rights of society to safety trump the right to life of a convicted criminal, IMO.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri May 03, 2013 3:20 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

And coming to the present, lets do away with those courts and that elaborate, time-consuming justice system. Let the masses decide the innocence or guilt of a person and carry out the verdict as well. Let's go back to that purest form of unbridled democracy - mob rule.

Oh yes...That unflinching faith in Indian judiciary and the court system....except when the courts repeatedly declare Modi as innocent when it comes to Gujarat Godhra riots.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri May 03, 2013 4:13 am

Kris wrote:I understand your point. I didn't say the state has no right to kill. Police are authorized to shoot armed individuals who pose imminent danger to others around. During wars, the army is mandated to kill. As long as the killing is for a greater good, it is justified. But criminals, once imprisoned, pose no further threat to society. A death sentence thereafter is unjustifiable - it is only to satisfy a primitive, third-worldly, retributive bloodlust.

>>>In theory, yes. If the state can provide solid assurance that the criminal will not get released on a technicality or bureaucratic incompetence or clever lawyering, I would be in favor of lifetime incarceration and doing away with the death penalty. The reality is that there are convicts who get released and go back to their criminal ways and commit more heinous crimes. This does not even have to be an alarmist number in terms of percentage. Even a minute percentage results in harm to society. Given that reality, absent a 100% assurance, the rights of society to safety trump the right to life of a convicted criminal, IMO.

Ah ok. This is the use of death penalty for its sheer convenience. Prisons are getting overcrowded and there's a risk of bleeding heart officials letting out prisoners on parole or even commuting their life sentences. So let's bump them off, and problem solved.

The rest of the argument about released convicts committing more heinous crimes etc is really the famed zero-tolerance approach. Going by that line of argument, even a petty thief should be locked up for life since he might go out and commit a robbery or even murder. And since locking up for life is not guaranteed, might as well string him up so the problem is solved for good. This is also a form of social engineering, culling the population of its errant sections and building a virtuous society on the foundations of murder.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri May 03, 2013 4:24 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:

And coming to the present, lets do away with those courts and that elaborate, time-consuming justice system. Let the masses decide the innocence or guilt of a person and carry out the verdict as well. Let's go back to that purest form of unbridled democracy - mob rule.

Oh yes...That unflinching faith in Indian judiciary and the court system....except when the courts repeatedly declare Modi as innocent when it comes to Gujarat Godhra riots.

..Or Sajjan Kumar when it comes to the 1984 riots.

by Captain Bhankas Fri May 03, 2013 6:16 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:As for abortion, I disagree with the pro-lifer view that rights of a clump of cells trump those of the woman hosting it. The question of "defenceless unborh children" arises only after the first trimester. Abortion beyond that point should be guided solely by medical considerations - risk to mother's health, severe genetic defects in the foetus etc.

Extremists who condemn contraception as well as abortion, and then go on to romanticise the birth and bringing up of individuals with severe genetic defects resulting in life-long disabilities, should be slapped in a public square and sentenced to life-long community service, tending to the daily needs of the severely disabled.

ok, I understand your position on this matter.

as for deterrence, i am of the opinion that the fear of possible death is more effective than incarceration because the latter offers some hope (howsoever dim) to the criminal of avoiding the punishment (by doing a shawashank, for instance). moreover, social death or the love for life behind bars* can force a criminal to repeat the crime although this is not as much a reason as deterrence for my support of death penalty.

* source - natgeo documentary

by confuzzled dude Fri May 03, 2013 7:07 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:As for abortion, I disagree with the pro-lifer view that rights of a clump of cells trump those of the woman hosting it. The question of "defenceless unborh children" arises only after the first trimester. Abortion beyond that point should be guided solely by medical considerations - risk to mother's health, severe genetic defects in the foetus etc.

Extremists who condemn contraception as well as abortion, and then go on to romanticise the birth and bringing up of individuals with severe genetic defects resulting in life-long disabilities, should be slapped in a public square and sentenced to life-long community service, tending to the daily needs of the severely disabled.

*ahem* chaddi like tendencies detected.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri May 03, 2013 7:49 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:As for abortion, I disagree with the pro-lifer view that rights of a clump of cells trump those of the woman hosting it. The question of "defenceless unborh children" arises only after the first trimester. Abortion beyond that point should be guided solely by medical considerations - risk to mother's health, severe genetic defects in the foetus etc.

Extremists who condemn contraception as well as abortion, and then go on to romanticise the birth and bringing up of individuals with severe genetic defects resulting in life-long disabilities, should be slapped in a public square and sentenced to life-long community service, tending to the daily needs of the severely disabled.

*ahem* chaddi like tendencies detected.

Haha..hey, we third-world types never made any claims to civilized discourse anyway. Our Mahatma Anna has shown us that for highly recalcitrant elements, slapping in the public square is the only remedy.

Btw, we also staunchly believe in death penalty. Hanging in our view is too genteel a punishment. Ideally, there should be some slicing of body parts in public, so potential criminals are deterred. Unfortunately, the majority of our population is still to timid and needs to get tougher. In short, we need to kill and eat more goats. Bring on the goats.

by pravalika nanda Fri May 03, 2013 10:55 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is an odd question. i reject the notion that a bleeding heart for vile criminals is required for a person to be opposed to the death penalty. i am opposed to the death penalty for many ethical reasons none of which have to do with a bleeding heart.

a) i do not believe in the code of hammurabi. i do not believe the state has the right to take a person's life.

b) there is always the chance that a person on death row is actually innocent as has been the case in many recent cases where a person, long imprisoned and on death row has been acquitted due to DNA evidence. it will be a terrible miscarriage of justice to execute an innocent person.

c) there is no evidence that the death penalty reduces the occurrence of such violent crimes.

to answer your question though -- i could not read the article beyond the first few lines because it filled me with revulsion. but if he was found guilty, i feel nothing but revulsion and contempt for this animal.

** yeah, i don't get how the death penalty is such a hot issue. i mean if you're trying to punish a guy for some ghastly thing he did, like murder, now you're going to in turn murder him?? it's a basic common sense issue. so, yes, even if a guy is guilty you can't serve him the death penalty. All human beings have the capacity to kill, and something ticks off these crazy guys and of course they're truly very scary and should be locked up.
** the other thing that scares me is the nra where basically you have all these gun-owners telling us that they need the guns for their safety etc. in other words they're giving us a heads-up that they're prepared to kill. this is already dangerous thinking and we should not allow it.
** in fact, the state and police and the army don't have the right to kill. they do cuz they're powerful. think of all the high-school kids we're sending off to war, telling them it's okay to kill non-americans; it's not okay.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat May 04, 2013 12:15 am

pravalika nanda wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is an odd question. i reject the notion that a bleeding heart for vile criminals is required for a person to be opposed to the death penalty. i am opposed to the death penalty for many ethical reasons none of which have to do with a bleeding heart.

a) i do not believe in the code of hammurabi. i do not believe the state has the right to take a person's life.

b) there is always the chance that a person on death row is actually innocent as has been the case in many recent cases where a person, long imprisoned and on death row has been acquitted due to DNA evidence. it will be a terrible miscarriage of justice to execute an innocent person.

** yeah, i don't get how the death penalty is such a hot issue. i mean if you're trying to punish a guy for some ghastly thing he did, like murder, now you're going to in turn murder him?? it's a basic common sense issue. so, yes, even if a guy is guilty you can't serve him the death penalty. All human beings have the capacity to kill, and something ticks off these crazy guys and of course they're truly very scary and should be locked up.

Ok...are you against death penalty for the gang rapists of the delhi girl who died after being shoved a crowbar "through" her and tore her stomach to pieces, and threw her out of a bus onto the street with her intestine and uterus outside her body?

Do you want these guys hanged or not ?

by Kris Sat May 04, 2013 12:50 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kris wrote:I understand your point. I didn't say the state has no right to kill. Police are authorized to shoot armed individuals who pose imminent danger to others around. During wars, the army is mandated to kill. As long as the killing is for a greater good, it is justified. But criminals, once imprisoned, pose no further threat to society. A death sentence thereafter is unjustifiable - it is only to satisfy a primitive, third-worldly, retributive bloodlust.

>>>In theory, yes. If the state can provide solid assurance that the criminal will not get released on a technicality or bureaucratic incompetence or clever lawyering, I would be in favor of lifetime incarceration and doing away with the death penalty. The reality is that there are convicts who get released and go back to their criminal ways and commit more heinous crimes. This does not even have to be an alarmist number in terms of percentage. Even a minute percentage results in harm to society. Given that reality, absent a 100% assurance, the rights of society to safety trump the right to life of a convicted criminal, IMO.

Ah ok. This is the use of death penalty for its sheer convenience. Prisons are getting overcrowded and there's a risk of bleeding heart officials letting out prisoners on parole or even commuting their life sentences. So let's bump them off, and problem solved.

The rest of the argument about released convicts committing more heinous crimes etc is really the famed zero-tolerance approach. Going by that line of argument, even a petty thief should be locked up for life since he might go out and commit a robbery or even murder. And since locking up for life is not guaranteed, might as well string him up so the problem is solved for good. This is also a form of social engineering, culling the population of its errant sections and building a virtuous society on the foundations of murder.

>>>>You are throwing everything including the kitchen sink Smile

into your argument, except 'culling', 'social engineering' (or heck global warming, while we are at it Smile

, don't figure anywhere in the scenario I posited. Convicted criminals being turned loose on some technicality and going on to repeat heinous crimes is not an idle conjecture. It has happened and continues to happen. To give a concrete example, if there is a possibility that the Delhi rapists may be released and go on more joy-rides, I am not going to be broken up over their loss of right to life. If stringing up this vermin is culling, so be it.

by Kris Sat May 04, 2013 1:04 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:
truthbetold wrote:I keep reading that death penalty is not effective according to the self appointed intelligent masters of such. Where is the evidence? Whose evidence?
prop already gave an example of irrefutable evidence of death penalty. Kasab cannot kill any one any more. Neither can Jeffery caulker.

If death penalty is retribution, why is life sentence not a retribution?
A small group of people think death penalty is not good. But as uppili stated above democratic society thinks otherwise. When society feels it is mature enough to drop death penalty as punishment, then it will do so.

well they dont have any evidence that death penalty deters violent crime nor is there evidence that it doesn't. some euro countries where the continentals drink tea and wine with their pinky extended decided they are civilized and decided to do away with it after hundreds of years of murdering, settling scores etc by hanging. forget that the same civilized countries have another arm of their governance declaring wars with 100s of thousands of innocent collateral deaths that folks dont bat an eye towards, but the pure and lily white intellectuals CANNOT BEAR to put a heinous murderer to painless death after letting the fucker live for dozen plus years. yes I know the history behind how the death penalty was misused in the past but this clamor to ban it outright is retarded. and who says society doesn't need revenge or "closure"? why did they kill osama and why did were ppl cheering if revenge/justice isnt something that holds societies together?

>>>good point!

by garam_kuta Sat May 04, 2013 1:14 am

Kris wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
truthbetold wrote:I keep reading that death penalty is not effective according to the self appointed intelligent masters of such. Where is the evidence? Whose evidence?
prop already gave an example of irrefutable evidence of death penalty. Kasab cannot kill any one any more. Neither can Jeffery caulker.

If death penalty is retribution, why is life sentence not a retribution?
A small group of people think death penalty is not good. But as uppili stated above democratic society thinks otherwise. When society feels it is mature enough to drop death penalty as punishment, then it will do so.

well they dont have any evidence that death penalty deters violent crime nor is there evidence that it doesn't. some euro countries where the continentals drink tea and wine with their pinky extended decided they are civilized and decided to do away with it after hundreds of years of murdering, settling scores etc by hanging. forget that the same civilized countries have another arm of their governance declaring wars with 100s of thousands of innocent collateral deaths that folks dont bat an eye towards, but the pure and lily white intellectuals CANNOT BEAR to put a heinous murderer to painless death after letting the fucker live for dozen plus years. yes I know the history behind how the death penalty was misused in the past but this clamor to ban it outright is retarded. and who says society doesn't need revenge or "closure"? why did they kill osama and why did were ppl cheering if revenge/justice isnt something that holds societies together?

>>>good point!

bump
We tend to think of justice as noble, revenge as unworthy - wrong,
argues Thane Rosenbaum. In a piece for The Chronicle of Higher
Education, he writes: A call for justice is always a call for revenge.
Rosenbaum defends the policy of an eye for an eye and dismisses the
policy of turning the other cheek as cowardly and antithetical to human
nature. Vengeance, on the other hand, he calls healthy and human, even a
biological necessity...

....You remember "The Godfather," Neal, is very clear. In the opening scene
of "The Godfather," he tells Bonasera: I can't take the lives of the
people who tried to rape your daughter, because your daughter's still
alive. Now, why would a professional killer care about exactness and
exactitude? Because he knows there are rules about revenge....

Law professor Thane Rosenbaum says it's time for Americans to be honest
about the role revenge plays in our lives. "The distinction between
justice and vengeance is false," he writes in The Chronicle of Higher Education. "A call for justice is always a cry for revenge."

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/08/176583581/op-ed-the-nonexistent-line-between-justice-and-revenge

by Kris Sat May 04, 2013 1:30 am

garam_kuta wrote:
Kris wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
truthbetold wrote:I keep reading that death penalty is not effective according to the self appointed intelligent masters of such. Where is the evidence? Whose evidence?
prop already gave an example of irrefutable evidence of death penalty. Kasab cannot kill any one any more. Neither can Jeffery caulker.

If death penalty is retribution, why is life sentence not a retribution?
A small group of people think death penalty is not good. But as uppili stated above democratic society thinks otherwise. When society feels it is mature enough to drop death penalty as punishment, then it will do so.

well they dont have any evidence that death penalty deters violent crime nor is there evidence that it doesn't. some euro countries where the continentals drink tea and wine with their pinky extended decided they are civilized and decided to do away with it after hundreds of years of murdering, settling scores etc by hanging. forget that the same civilized countries have another arm of their governance declaring wars with 100s of thousands of innocent collateral deaths that folks dont bat an eye towards, but the pure and lily white intellectuals CANNOT BEAR to put a heinous murderer to painless death after letting the fucker live for dozen plus years. yes I know the history behind how the death penalty was misused in the past but this clamor to ban it outright is retarded. and who says society doesn't need revenge or "closure"? why did they kill osama and why did were ppl cheering if revenge/justice isnt something that holds societies together?

>>>good point!

bump
We tend to think of justice as noble, revenge as unworthy - wrong,
argues Thane Rosenbaum. In a piece for The Chronicle of Higher
Education, he writes: A call for justice is always a call for revenge.
Rosenbaum defends the policy of an eye for an eye and dismisses the
policy of turning the other cheek as cowardly and antithetical to human
nature. Vengeance, on the other hand, he calls healthy and human, even a
biological necessity...

....You remember "The Godfather," Neal, is very clear. In the opening scene
of "The Godfather," he tells Bonasera: I can't take the lives of the
people who tried to rape your daughter, because your daughter's still
alive. Now, why would a professional killer care about exactness and
exactitude? Because he knows there are rules about revenge....

Law professor Thane Rosenbaum says it's time for Americans to be honest
about the role revenge plays in our lives. "The distinction between
justice and vengeance is false," he writes in The Chronicle of Higher Education. "A call for justice is always a cry for revenge."

[url=http://www.npr.org/2013/04/08/176583581/op-ed-the-nonexistent-line-between-justice-and-revenge

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/08/176583581/op-ed-the-nonexistent-line-between-justice-and-revenge[/quote[/url]]

>>>>I think that justice being noble is an ideal and we are evolving constantly in that direction, but there is also a pragmatic side to justice. However, it is healthy to keep having these dialogues so we don't go to extremes. BTW, who is Neal in The GF? I thought it was Don Corleone who says that to Bonaserra. He also tells Tom Hagen to send some of the boys "who don't get carried away by the sight of blood. We are not murderers unlike what the undertaker thinks". I am talking from memory and could be misremembering the scene.

by pravalika nanda Sat May 04, 2013 1:52 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
pravalika nanda wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is an odd question. i reject the notion that a bleeding heart for vile criminals is required for a person to be opposed to the death penalty. i am opposed to the death penalty for many ethical reasons none of which have to do with a bleeding heart.

a) i do not believe in the code of hammurabi. i do not believe the state has the right to take a person's life.

b) there is always the chance that a person on death row is actually innocent as has been the case in many recent cases where a person, long imprisoned and on death row has been acquitted due to DNA evidence. it will be a terrible miscarriage of justice to execute an innocent person.

** yeah, i don't get how the death penalty is such a hot issue. i mean if you're trying to punish a guy for some ghastly thing he did, like murder, now you're going to in turn murder him?? it's a basic common sense issue. so, yes, even if a guy is guilty you can't serve him the death penalty. All human beings have the capacity to kill, and something ticks off these crazy guys and of course they're truly very scary and should be locked up.

Ok...are you against death penalty for the gang rapists of the delhi girl who died after being shoved a crowbar "through" her and tore her stomach to pieces, and threw her out of a bus onto the street with her intestine and uterus outside her body?

Do you want these guys hanged or not ?

**uppili, do I look like a monkey to you? do you think i'm going to do an about-turn cuz you put up all this emotive, disturbing imagery? you need to understand something, when you make important decisions, you need to use "the little gray cells" not your passions, emotions or idiocy. that's essentially what separates smart people (western Europe) from dumb ones (arab tribes).
** what those men did was violent, chilling, unforgivable. also responsible are the culture and people who allowed or created circumstances in which such a thing could occur; people like you and me walked away after the male victim was flung outside the bus. how do you punish all of them?
** in other words, shove it. I am never going to be for the death penalty.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat May 04, 2013 2:08 am

pravalika nanda wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Ok...are you against death penalty for the gang rapists of the delhi girl who died after being shoved a crowbar "through" her and tore her stomach to pieces, and threw her out of a bus onto the street with her intestine and uterus outside her body?

Do you want these guys hanged or not ?
**uppili, do I look like a monkey to you? do you think i'm going to do an about-turn cuz you put up all this emotive, disturbing imagery? you need to understand something, when you make important decisions, you need to use "the little gray cells" not your passions, emotions or idiocy. that's essentially what separates smart people (western Europe) from dumb ones (arab tribes).
** what those men did was violent, chilling, unforgivable. also responsible are the culture and people who allowed or created circumstances in which such a thing could occur; people like you and me walked away after the male victim was flung outside the bus. how do you punish all of them?
** in other words, shove it. I am never going to be for the death penalty.

There is one alternative to death penalty.....

The judge can rule that the convicted criminal should go out on a date with you for 3 consecutive day....

I am sure the criminal would demand death penalty for himself.... Wink

by Sponsored content

to the bleeding hearts

to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts

Re: to the bleeding hearts