Conniving? Crazy? Convicted.

[Clove]

Woman convicted in case of baby cut from mother's womb

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (AP) -- A woman whose attorneys had argued that she was delusional when she killed an expectant mother, cut the baby from her womb and took the infant home was found guilty Monday.

Lisa Montgomery was convicted of kidnapping resulting in the death of a young mother in 2004.

Jurors convicted Lisa Montgomery, 39, of kidnapping resulting in death in the 2004 attack on 23-year-old Bobbie Jo Stinnett in the northwest Missouri town of Skidmore.

The jury deliberated for about four hours before rejecting Montgomery's insanity defense. Jurors could have acquitted her outright or found her not guilty by reason of insanity.

Prosecutors said they plan to seek the death penalty. Attorneys will argue the issue Wednesday.

After the verdict was read, Montgomery dried her eyes and one of her attorneys patted her back. Her husband, Kevin, and Stinnett's husband, Zeb, showed no emotion.

Defense attorneys claimed Montgomery was suffering from pseudocyesis, which causes a woman to falsely believe she is pregnant and exhibit outward signs of pregnancy. They portrayed her as a victim of severe mental illness whose delusion of being pregnant was being challenged, causing her to enter a dreamlike state when the killing took place.

They also argued that she had post-traumatic stress disorder brought on by mental, physical and sexual abuse in her childhood.

Federal prosecutor Roseann Ketchmark called the pseudocyesis claim "voodoo science" during closing arguments...

Continued at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/22/pregnant.slaying.ap/index.html

[Lomoriond]

I don't care if you are from planet zippy and have six personalities... if you cut a baby from another woman's womb, you have forfeited your right to live among human beings.

IMHO of course

[Doughboy]

I don't care if you are from planet zippy and have six personalities... if you cut a baby from another woman's womb, you have forfeited your right to live among human beings.

IMHO of course

Agreed. Thats one crazy bitch...

[diethx]

I don't care if you are from planet zippy and have six personalities... if you cut a baby from another woman's womb, you have forfeited your right to live among human beings.

IMHO of course

IMHO too.

[DCSL]

She's fucked up, alright, but crazy or not, I'd rather she get the death penalty. But then, I spent a portion of my formative years in Texas.

[Lomoriond]

I had to keep reading to make sure




"The only good thing that comes from this tragedy is that little Victoria is a healthy baby and is reunited with her family," U.S. Attorney John F. Wood said.


I bet she'll have loads of therapy dealing with it when she gets older, but at least she's alive and well.

[diethx]

She's fucked up, alright, but crazy or not, I'd rather she get the death penalty. But then, I spent a portion of my formative years in Texas.

I only wish she did this in Nebraska, so she would be guaranteed the chair and some fried brains. A lethal injection is too good for her.

[Skeeter]

Do they still hang people in Texas? Because that sounds fitting.

[diethx]

Do they still hang people in Texas? Because that sounds fitting.

Texas has lethal injection as the sole method.

[Jayvn]

fuck hanging..they need some of that good ole catholic shit where they slowly lower you onto the spike crotch first. fucking crazy bitch

[ViridianAsp]

She's fucked up, alright, but crazy or not, I'd rather she get the death penalty. But then, I spent a portion of my formative years in Texas.


She does deserve to die and no, she wasn't insane...Despite all the Hippy Dippiness that most Californians buy into...

I was raised by Texans.

Texan Justice FTW.

[Sharnath]

As a Texan and a correctional officer it breaks my heart to tell everyone that we are no longer putting people to death in Texas, at least for the time being. Something about lethal injection being cruel and unusual punishment... I'm sure given the opportunity I could come up with a few new ideas but I'm sure those would be cruel and unusual as well. As a matter of fact I promise they would be. I think all those who think lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment should walk a day in my boots surrounded by up to 100 of the most violent individuals the state of Texas has to offer. Makes that eye for an eye thing look pretty good most days.

Sharnath
Weed Mage

[DCSL]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! That was one of the few things I loved most about right wing Texas outside of the three blue counties!

[Gan]

All this talk about Texas just warms my heart.

Injection is too kind for this lady. She needs to be hung by her own entrails. Thats about as parallel as I can get to what she put her victim through.

(Nice to see another CO posting here too. I did my time working for TDC (yes I started there before the name change to TDCJ).)

The one thing I dont miss is that crash gate slamming behind me every morning.

[Clove]

Generally I'm against capital punishment except for the following:

White Collar Crime
Serial Killers
Public Sabotage

As to the method- pnuematic guillotine.

[TheEschaton]

It's a federal crime, and prosecuted as such. She'll be subject to the federal death penalty, whether Texas put a moratorium on the death penalty or no. I believe federal only does lethal injection as well.

I am against the death penalty, and this case doesn't change my mind. Throw her in solitary confinement for the rest of her life without possibility of parole, and throw away the key.

-TheE-

[Clove]

It's a federal crime, and prosecuted as such. She'll be subject to the federal death penalty, whether Texas put a moratorium on the death penalty or no. I believe federal only does lethal injection as well.
-TheE-

Especially since this didn't take place in Texas.

[DeV]

Give her life, let her waste away in prison for the remainder of it. Solitary confinement, 23 hours a day, seems just as fitting. If she wasn't crazy before she will be soon enough.

[Stanley Burrell]

Maybe she thought it was a blood red (fetus) scarab and was trying to save the other woman by inflicting a level 3 major to the swollen area in order to free the evil beast. No empaths, though, very sad :(

My morbid GemStone humor is so awesome, I give myself the jibblies.

[Sharnath]

I still hear the crash gates close behind me four times a week and it still gives me the chills every time. I think everyone should get a few days of work in a state prison. I would change so many minds about so many things. I have about a year until I get my parole and I'll never have to see a prison again. Very soon I'll be a college student once again. I think they call people like me non-traditional students...

Sharnath
Weed Mage

[Goretawn]

I am against the death penalty, and this case doesn't change my mind. Throw her in solitary confinement for the rest of her life without possibility of parole, and throw away the key.

-TheE-

I think I would rather pay for her to die, then pay for her to live. A bit cheaper that way.

[TheEschaton]

Not if you factor in the moral payment you have to factor in for being a murderer, state sanctioned or not.

[diethx]

Not if you factor in the moral payment you have to factor in for being a murderer, state sanctioned or not.

Not everyone considers it murder. Some of us consider it justice.

[Clove]

Not if you factor in the moral payment you have to factor in for being a murderer, state sanctioned or not.

Killing<>Murder

[TheEschaton]

Murder is definitely not the same as killing. Murder is the intentional killing of someone.

And again, I don't equate "justice" with "sinking to the same level".

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.*

*Had to throw it out there.

-TheE-

[diethx]

And again, I don't equate "justice" with "sinking to the same level".

I'm pretty glad those who make these big decisions don't think like you.

[TheEschaton]

I'm pretty pissed about that, actually.

Violence is never morally acceptable. Even when it's state sanctioned. In fact, especially when it's state sanctioned.

[diethx]

I'm pretty pissed about that, actually.

Violence is never morally acceptable. Even when it's state sanctioned. In fact, especially when it's state sanctioned.

You need to keep in mind that your morals are not everyone's morals.

[ElanthianSiren]

Eh... I'm for expanding death penalty invoking crimes.

I'm glad she'll be removed from the gene pool.

[TheEschaton]

Morality is absolute. It isn't a question of what I believe or what you believe.

-TheE-

[Tea & Strumpets]

I'm pretty pissed about that, actually.

Violence is never morally acceptable. Even when it's state sanctioned. In fact, especially when it's state sanctioned.

How can anyone be this stupid?

[diethx]

Morality is absolute. It isn't a question of what I believe or what you believe.

-TheE-

In your Catholic mind, maybe.

[Celephais]

Morality is absolute. It isn't a question of what I believe or what you believe.
What? Morales cannot be defined, they're entirely influenced by context. Otherwise you're going to end up with morale paradoxes that any idiot could answer with reasonable thought.

Violence of any sort is immoral? Is it okay to be immoral to stop someone else from doing something immoral? If someone was going to kill 10 people, and then kill himself, or you could just kill them... you would be moraly obligated to kill them, yet you say that it's absolute, you cannot kill.

The context sensitivity of morals is what makes laws so complicated... and you want to be a fucking lawyer.

[Gan]

LOL at TheE and his morality killing.

We've bashed on him for this before. Someone break out the popcorn.

:popcorn:

[TheEschaton]

I happen to think a definitive sense of right and wrong is vital to being a lawyer. It's those who DON'T have that sense of morality who can argue that 9/11 was "morally justifiable" in the eyes of those who did it.

Furthermore, if morality is NOT absolute, you cannot absolutely say anything is right or wrong. You can't say 9/11 is wrong. You can't even say that the act this woman did was wrong. You can only say that the overarching majority says that what this woman should be considered wrong.

Morality allows you to say that even if this woman, and her victim, were the only people on an abandoned island, and she had created her own set of rules to live by, that what she did was wrong, despite the lack of conflict with her own worldview and the lack of others to say she should be considered wrong.

If, at any point, you want to consider the intentional killing of someone in a particular case inherently wrong, you inevitably come to the conclusion that all intentional killings of human beings are inherently wrong. That's not to say you cannot defend yourself. Self-defense may be justifiable, but it is still wrong. It is not a right, nor is it the moral thing to do. It is an immoral wrong used merely to prevent a further immoral wrong.

-TheE-

[Celephais]

Furthermore, if morality is NOT absolute, you cannot absolutely say anything is right or wrong. You can't say 9/11 is wrong. You can't even say that the act this woman did was wrong. You can only say that the overarching majority says that what this woman should be considered wrong.
Nope, I'm saying that any given set of circumstances needs to be evaluated under it's own merits. I'm saying that what this woman did was absolutely wrong, but I allow for the possibility of a woman ripping the unborn child out of another woman as being morally correct (I can't imagine a circumstance, but hey, maybe there is one).


Morality allows you to say that even if this woman, and her victim, were the only people on an abandoned island, and she had created her own set of rules to live by, that what she did was wrong, despite the lack of conflict with her own worldview and the lack of others to say she should be considered wrong.
Again, not what I'm saying... if they were on the abandoned island and the mother said "I'm going to go drown my preggored self!" and this woman killed the mother in order to save the baby inside her... sure, that'd be okay.


If, at any point, you want to consider the intentional killing of someone in a particular case inherently wrong, you inevitably come to the conclusion that all intentional killings of human beings are inherently wrong.
Real life is not absolutes. Human beings were given the ability to see shades, machines think in 1s and 0s. (hooray metophores!)


That's not to say you cannot defend yourself. Self-defense may be justifiable, but it is still wrong.
It's wrong to defend yourself... wow... :wtf:

[Caiylania]

What she did is horrendous and she deserves to be drawn and quartered.

Killing someone is not always wrong- if someone is trying to rape or kill me or my child for example - my knife goes in their heart. (I don't have a gun or I would say bullet to the brain)

Are you telling me I would be wrong in this instance, E?

[CrystalTears]

I can't wait for the day TheE has to defend someone who killed another in self-defense. That poor soul is going to end up in the slammer.

[Clove]

Actually I agree with the E on the absolute nature of morality. You can't base anything on "merits" because without a common moral philosophy you don't have merits. I think E has it all wrong when he declares all deliberate killing immoral, however.

[LazyBard]

800K for life in prison, 60K for leathal injection, 12 cents for a bullet.
I will take option 3 for the win alex.


and yes the #'s are pulled out of my ass so dont ask me to state sources :)

[CrystalTears]

The lethal injection could be way cheaper if you get some junkie from an alley to do it.

[Celephais]

Actually I agree with the E on the absolute nature of morality. You can't base anything on "merits" because without a common moral philosophy you don't have merits. I think E has it all wrong when he declares all deliberate killing immoral, however.
I don't think anyone is saying morals can bend for things like "well she does have a cute smile, we'll let it slide", but more like morales, while defined and absolute, are so complex and paticular that it's stupid to put your foot down on any one broad topic and declare it moral/immoral.


The lethal injection could be way cheaper if you get some junkie from an alley to do it.
No joke! Perfect way to get these drugies jobs... "Want to cushy government job? Inject people with baking soda for a living!"

[Clove]

800K for life in prison, 60K for leathal injection, 12 cents for a bullet.
I will take option 3 for the win alex.


and yes the #'s are pulled out of my ass so dont ask me to state sources :)

I can't source this either, but my understanding is that most of the expense comes from the length of time they are on death row and the cost of appeals etc. The actual method of execution isn't expensive- whatever the poison (pun intended) if execution occurred within 90 days of sentencing I'm betting it would be much cheaper.

My reasons for being against executions (in most circumstances) is because:

1) In some cases there is a possibility of rehabilitation
2) Defendants are sometimes wrongfully found guilty.
3) I don't think it is an effective deterrent
4) Instead of healing the injured parties, it only wounds more (i.e. the survivors of the condemned)

I do believe it is a good sentence for:

1) Gross White Collar Crime
2) Serial Murder
3) Public Sabotage

In all cases the damage to community is great and determining the guilty party pretty foolproof. In the first case it would likely make a good deterrent (wealthy people are rarely so desperate they'll risk death to steal more money) and in the last two cases chances of rehabilitation are next to zero.

[Gan]

Bottom line, some people need to be terminated. Specifically those who demonstrate no regard, remorse, or intention to rehabilitate/cease the parrisitic behavior.

Specifically speaking I favor the death penalty for instances where people have killed other people with malice and intent and in extreme cases of repeated and or malicious pedophilia.

With all that in mind I have one last requirement before application of the death penalty. Absolute proof. There are too many instances where errors have been made, be it intentional or mistakenly, and the wrong people were punished/executed. So the burden I place upon the state is one of absolute proof. Such as video footage of the crime, multiple eye-witnesses, or undeniable forensic evidence. *OR better yet, being caught in the act - just shoot them right then and there. ;)

Its a tall order, but until the handicap of human error can be overcome, I think some restrictions are necessary from my perspective.

[Latrinsorm]

What? Morales cannot be defined, they're entirely influenced by context. Otherwise you're going to end up with morale paradoxes that any idiot could answer with reasonable thought.It turns out that this isn't the case.
Violence of any sort is immoral? Is it okay to be immoral to stop someone else from doing something immoral? If someone was going to kill 10 people, and then kill himself, or you could just kill them... you would be moraly obligated to kill them, yet you say that it's absolute, you cannot kill.Moral statements are "shoulds", not "cans". That aside, the answer to your problem lies in the word "okay": it is never a moral response to kill someone; however, it is sometimes the least immoral response to kill someone. It is vital to understand the distinction being made here.
The context sensitivity of morals is what makes laws so complicated... and you want to be a fucking lawyer.Laws and morals are qualitatively different systems. Laws are based on consequences: do not do this or such and such will happen to you. Moral statements are self-sufficient: something is good or bad per se.

One might ask what the "right" thing to do is in Caiylania's proposed situation: the answer is that the only moral thing to do is prevent rape from ever occurring in the first place. We can't do that (yet) so we're stuck with picking the least wrong choice (in this case, knifing someone).

.

The idea that anyone "deserves" death contradicts "yeah well your morals aren't my morals", btw.

[TheEschaton]

What Latrin said.

And CT, I don't plan on ever being a defense lawyer, thank you very much.


-TheE-

[Gan]

What Latrin said.

And CT, I don't plan on ever being a defense lawyer, thank you very much.


-TheE-

I'm still waiting for the day when you have to prosecute a case that the DA wants to apply the death penalty to. And eager to see your response.

[TheEschaton]

Luckily, I would never prosecute in such a state. NY has a moratorium on the death penalty, and MA, where I study, it's been illegal for years.

If it was legal, and I was asked to apply, I would not only refuse to do it, but argue strenuously against any ADA being asked to seek it. If I wasn't fired, I'd quit, if they said I had to do it.

[Nieninque]

Morals =/= morales

[Gan]

What Latrin said.

And CT, I don't plan on ever being a defense lawyer, thank you very much.


-TheE-


Luckily, I would never prosecute in such a state. NY has a moratorium on the death penalty, and MA, where I study, it's been illegal for years.

If it was legal, and I was asked to apply, I would not only refuse to do it, but argue strenuously against any ADA being asked to seek it. If I wasn't fired, I'd quit, if they said I had to do it.

And thus this second statement would result in the first statement being false. ;)

[Celephais]

It is vital to understand the distinction being made here.
I understand the distincition being made, but we live in a real world, as you stated, we are unable to strictly adhere to morals. The fact is that morals need to be applied, and I do not think it's correct to put a stigma on someone as having "done something immoral". This conversation (for me) stemmed from TheE saying that "Not if you factor in the moral payment you have to factor in for being a murderer, state sanctioned or not." So he's saying that if you do something that's choosing a "lesser moral action" that you have to pay a price "morally".

Given no realistic choice, there should be no payment for that immorality. By your statement "killing" is wrong, then it gets into the whole hippie thing of "stepping on microsopic organizms is killing", and then as you said you have to take the "less immoral" choice, and you admit it's never possible to not be immoral... then it's just a lexicon difference between the two of us and we understand the word to be two different things.

[TheEschaton]

Errr, how so? I would only prosecute, and only in a state where the death penalty is not sought as punishment.

[Gan]

Interesting aside on international capital punishment figures.

Most Executions carried out in 2006

China (at least 1,010 but sources suggest the real tally is between 7,500 and 8,000)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty#_note-8)
Iran (177)
Pakistan (82)
Iraq (at least 65)
Sudan (at least 65)
United States (53)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty

[Gan]

Errr, how so? I would only prosecute, and only in a state where the death penalty is not sought as punishment.

Providing you werent blackballed. (non-racially of course)

You could always work in one of the following states:

Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts (ruleout), Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.

[Latrinsorm]

we are unable to strictly adhere to morals.This is what I'm saying, though. Being unable to always cohere to a particular rule does not mean that the rule must be abandoned across the board: quite the contrary! This is why the distinction between can and should is important: if the rule was "you can't kill" and then you go and do it, clearly the rule can't be right. The rule being "you shouldn't" specifically implies that you can do otherwise.
I do not think it's correct to put a stigma on someone as having "done something immoral".I certainly don't stigmatize people. Think of it more as a collaborative correction than an ostracization (which is now a word).
So he's saying that if you do something that's choosing a "lesser moral action" that you have to pay a price "morally".The idea is again less that some external authority hands down a sentence (like in a legal proceedings) and more that there's an inherent sense of wrongness that has to be addressed, whether through rumination or repression (and I'd suggest that this has been empirically verified by psychological treatment of LEOs and armed forces).
By your statement "killing" is wrong, then it gets into the whole hippie thing of "stepping on microsopic organizms is killing"Not really. The alleged hippies are misinformed as to the distinctions between bacteria and humans.
and you admit it's never possible to not be immoralCertainly you've heard the "we're all sinners" theme before. :D In seriousness, of course. Nothing in the world is devoid of chaos, it would smack of wrongness if it was possible to always follow any set of instructions. The point of it is to improve rather than to crystallize, which naturally encompasses the self and the community (and thus the laws governing that community).

[Celephais]

Interesting aside on international capital punishment figures.
Can you get the per/capita on that? (don't feel like doing math/lookups... someone?)

Maybe even the per/crimina?

[vorlash]

Adhere, not cohere. And the saying should be; Void of something. Devoid means to populate it, despite what popular usage dictates.

However, on the issue of moral lawyers. I think you will have a difficult time as a lawyer without flexibility in your moral stance.

Regardless of your personal views on a given subject, it's really not about you at all.

If you cannot defend a client's position successfully due to a moral objection it can prove detrimental to your abilities as a prosecutor as well. Chances are your rigid moral stance may hinder your ability to convey your arguments to people who have flexible moral stances (the jury/the judge).

Primarily the role of the lawyers should always fall within the impartiality of the law, rather than the personal opinions of the lawyers. I also feel that too many lawyers walk out of law school without that understanding.

Personally I don't care for the death penalty because it's never proper punishment. In order for punishment to be effective, it needs to be appropriate, equal, and timely. Sadly the penal system rarely meets the equal measures part, and never the timely requirement.

[ViridianAsp]

It's a federal crime, and prosecuted as such. She'll be subject to the federal death penalty, whether Texas put a moratorium on the death penalty or no. I believe federal only does lethal injection as well.

I am against the death penalty, and this case doesn't change my mind. Throw her in solitary confinement for the rest of her life without possibility of parole, and throw away the key.

-TheE-

Why?

So she can be a ward of the country or state? It's probably more cost effective to have the woman, who deserves to die, get the death penalty. She took another woman's life...

Eye for an Eye.

[Bobmuhthol]

It always makes me lol when people don't realize how much money goes into execution.

[TheEschaton]

Gan, your stats didn't leave out the many states which've put the moratorium on the death penalty, including even Texas at this point.


If you cannot defend a client's position successfully due to a moral objection it can prove detrimental to your abilities as a prosecutor as well. Chances are your rigid moral stance may hinder your ability to convey your arguments to people who have flexible moral stances (the jury/the judge).

First of all, I would be representing the People of NY (or MA, if I'm really unlucky). What're the views of the State? I think it's to promote a just, and moral society. Secondly, I think that your view that abiding by a strict, to-one-side role is not good is negated by the adversarial positions of the prosecutor and the defense lawyer. Theoretically, if both are equally skillful, justice prevails, either as an amalgamation of both sides' views, or, in extreme cases of obvious guilt or innocence, in the prevailing view of one side.



So she can be a ward of the country or state? It's probably more cost effective to have the woman, who deserves to die, get the death penalty. She took another woman's life...

Eye for an Eye.


A) Cost effectiveness is the single worst reason to do anything. Cost effectiveness is the reason corporations use to justify toxic materials in their toys.

B) Whether she deserves death or not, it's my feeling it isn't our right to hand it out, because I don't think we can be adequate judges of whether someone deserves to have their lives ended. Admittedly, this is more of a religious view, and runs against the currently dominant view of secular humanism, which deems human beings the most rational, highest order-thinking beings ever, an obvious fallacy whether you believe in a god or not.

C) An eye for an eye is a rule made up by the Irrational, harsh God of the Old Testament. All it did in the OT was lead to more and more war and violence. Violence begets violence, and an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as I've already said in this thread.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Adhere, not cohere.I dunno, it seems "congruous to" is acceptable usage, cohere slides right in.
And the saying should be; Void of something. Devoid means to populate it, despite what popular usage dictates.It's actually like flammable and inflammable, they mean the same thing from different roots (you know how those wacky French are!).
Primarily the role of the lawyers should always fall within the impartiality of the law, rather than the personal opinions of the lawyers.Let's suppose that a particular law is wrong. Is it truly your position then that a lawyer should not only not work to change that but even assist in enforcing it?

[TheEschaton]

Sadly, that's what lawyerly ethics say, Latrin, but I disagree with just about all of the supposed Lawyer's Code of Ethics.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Devoid means to populate it, despite what popular usage dictates.

Do you mean despite how dictionaries define it? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=devoid

[vorlash]

Words gain acceptance to a dictionary through usage, that doesn't mean that they were used correctly to begin with.

At any rate, semantics aside, Lawyers aren't there to change the law, they are there to practice it. Lobbyists and special interest groups are there to change the law, not practice it.
Judges are there to interpret the law and make sure that it is translated to the jury in a reasonable fashion, and to prevent "spin" when attempted by either side.

Again, sadly, we have in our court system people who feel that they should be doing all three at once.

Justice is not only blind, she tends to be bored as well.

[ViridianAsp]

It always makes me lol when people don't realize how much money goes into execution.


Are you telling me keeping a prisoner for let's say fifty years is more cost-effective than an execution?

If so, I'd like to see what you base it off of, I'm actually really curious.

[Bobmuhthol]

North Carolina spends more per execution than on a non-death penalty murder case
The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993). On a national basis, these figures translate to an extra cost of over $1 billion spent since 1976 on the death penalty. The study,"The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina" is available http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/northcarolina.pdf

[TheEschaton]

It's standard knowledge that people who are sentenced to death appeal more, and thus litigate more, and cost the state more to fight their appeals, than your average lifer.

The pro-death penalty people would say cut down on how much you can appeal, but then there's that pesky Bill of Rights which that one gets in the way of.

-TheE-

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

The pro-death penalty people would say cut down on how much you can appeal, but then there's that pesky Bill of Rights which that one gets in the way of.

Pretty much.

I'm against the death penalty mostly because we can't be sure 100 percent of the time- and if we kill one innocent person and let the murderer go, that is one person too many IMO. That's on top of what may be viewed as "hippy" beliefs of collective suffering, etc... however, I do view capital punishment as state sanctioned murder and find it heinous for the very reason that it isn't 100 percent.

The only way to reduce the cost of the death penalty to make it cheaper than a life term is to reduce the amount of appeals people make, but that would also make it more likely to falsely incriminate and murder innocent people, which I can't support.

[Warriorbird]

I'm pro death penalty. I find it fits in well with my "culture of death" stance.


Primarily the role of the lawyers should always fall within the impartiality of the law, rather than the personal opinions of the lawyers. I also feel that too many lawyers walk out of law school without that understanding.

You're hilarious.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I'm against the death penalty mostly because we can't be sure 100 percent of the time->>

You must be against science, anything to do with liberal arts, and the entire justice system as a whole, then.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

<<I'm against the death penalty mostly because we can't be sure 100 percent of the time->>

You must be against science, anything to do with liberal arts, and the entire justice system as a whole, then.

No, because in those cases peoples lives don't hang directly in the balance.

If they did, I WOULD be against them.. but as they are only indirectly related to our immediate ability to remain alive, no, I have no objection.

Evolution and scientific theorems being wrong don't immediately and directly effect me, nor do liberal arts.. the justice system, perhaps debatable, but I only feel it needs slight reform. Besides that, not really, no.

Nice try though.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I'm pro death penalty. I find it fits in well with my "culture of death" stance.

Could you explain this a bit more? I'm not being sarcastic but I'm a bit ignorant as to what exactly you mean and would like to know more specifics.. my view may differ but I'm interested all the same.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<No, because in those cases peoples lives don't hang directly in the balance.>>

I guess a life sentence isn't as severe as execution in terms of innocent suffering.

[Warriorbird]

I'm pro choice, pro death penalty, and in favor of allowing assisted suicide.

[ViridianAsp]

I'm pro choice, pro death penalty, and in favor of allowing assisted suicide.

I'm pro-choice only if the circumstances call for it, otherwise, if you make your bed you lay in it (heh). But the rest, I agree on.

I believe that with today's advancements in sciences that determine guilt, most of the time it's 100 percent...or very, very damn close to it.

You can argue all you want over it, but I feel if you take a life, with the specific intent of doing so, you forfeit your own life.

[Gan]

Gan, your stats didn't leave out the many states which've put the moratorium on the death penalty, including even Texas at this point.-TheE-

Source please.

[TheEschaton]

Earlier in this thread, when the corrections officer from Texas (Sharnath) said they had stopped lethal injections in Texas?

-TheE-

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm pro choice, pro death penalty, and in favor of allowing assisted suicide.

I'll see you and raise you pro-guns :P

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

<<No, because in those cases peoples lives don't hang directly in the balance.>>

I guess a life sentence isn't as severe as execution in terms of innocent suffering.


Innocents suffer but it's still fixable.

Imprison someone for twenty years and find out they were innocent? They suffered and were wronged, however, it can at least be rectified, or attempted to be- the person can be released, given monetary reparation, etc. Won't make it go away and there will still be some major issues, but they have their life.

Kill someone and find out twenty years later they're innocent? What the fuck can you do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You can't bring them back, you can't make it better for a family that suffered and grieved for their dead relative. Now on top of the originally murdered person and their suffering family, you have created another victim and another set of people who are innocent and suffering something not only heinous and violent, but state-sanctioned.

Maybe it's not TOTALLY fixable, but at least the family still gets their family member/loved one back, at least the person gets a chance at starting over, at least there is still a chance.

[TheEschaton]

Maybe we can kill his family too, so they don't needlessly suffer if they find out their son/father/husband is innocent. ;)

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

I'll see you and raise you pro-guns :P

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

[Gan]

Earlier in this thread, when the corrections officer from Texas (Sharnath) said they had stopped lethal injections in Texas?

-TheE-

I think you misunderstood him. Texas is still executing death row inmates.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=190&scid=

[Celephais]

Innocents suffer but it's still fixable.
What if we imprisson someone who's 25, they spend the next 50 years of their life in prison, and then die, then some new technology comes out in forensics and we realize he was innocent... fix that. Or the same thing if we convict a 70 year old of murder... doesn't really matter if we give him death or not at that point... or a terminally ill individual.

It might be "more" fixable, but there is a point where you've taken away so much freedom that you cannot give it back. Whilst I am pro-death penatly, I think the only arguement that causes me to sway is the use of the death penalty as a bargaining chip to force confessions... Individuals who are innocent and facing the death penalty would be more likely to take a plea bargain and live, than maintain their innocence.

[Celephais]

I think you misunderstood him. Texas is still executing death row inmates.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=190&scid=
hehe, this kinda made me laugh...


"Volunteer" refers to inmates who have voluntarily waived their normal appeals (not necessarily that they have volunteered for execution).

They sure have a lot of stay of executions there...

[Gan]

hehe, this kinda made me laugh...

Yea, the volunteer language gave me a chuckle too.

[Latrinsorm]

At any rate, semantics aside,Apology accepted! :D
Lawyers aren't there to change the law, they are there to practice it.Let me phrase my question in a more concrete way: Suppose you're a lawyer in 1851's America (I wonder if anyone can guess where I'm going with this!!!). Suppose further that one day you come home to find a black guy hiding under your porch. Upon interrogation, he tells you that he's an escaped slave and being pursued by the local police. Do you:
a) Turn him in, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.
b) Do nothing and/or pretend you never saw him.
c) Assist him in avoiding slavecatchers, actively breaking the aforementioned laws.
d) Other.

I look forward to your response!
I believe that with today's advancements in sciences that determine guilt, most of the time it's 100 percent...or very, very damn close to it.It's odd that you use the word "believe". Why don't you just ask some forensic scientists what their uncertainties are?
You can argue all you want over it, but I feel if you take a life, with the specific intent of doing so, you forfeit your own life.So whoever executes this woman is also liable to be put to death?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

What if we imprisson someone who's 25, they spend the next 50 years of their life in prison, and then die, then some new technology comes out in forensics and we realize he was innocent... fix that. Or the same thing if we convict a 70 year old of murder... doesn't really matter if we give him death or not at that point... or a terminally ill individual.

It might be "more" fixable, but there is a point where you've taken away so much freedom that you cannot give it back. Whilst I am pro-death penatly, I think the only arguement that causes me to sway is the use of the death penalty as a bargaining chip to force confessions... Individuals who are innocent and facing the death penalty would be more likely to take a plea bargain and live, than maintain their innocence.

I see your point, but like I said before, that is only one facet of my moral feelings regarding the death penalty and isn't what I entirely base my views on.. I feel morally a certain way about things but don't neccesarily disagree with the fact that they are still legal (i.e. I am morally against the idea of giving a child up for adoption but would never support the adoption system being outlawed).. a lot of my feelings regarding the law itself is related to things like you said- the fact that execution is used as a bargaining chip (sickos like the Green River killer, for instance), the fact that it's biased on the socio-economic level, and the fact that it generally costs more to execute someone than it does to let them rot away in prison all factor in.



So whoever executes this woman is also liable to be put to death?

To go along with this, the precedent in society is not always that taking a life with intent to do so is wrong/means you forfeit your own life. Abortion is the intentional killing of a living fetus and is not just perfectly acceptable by law in our society, but some statistics even cite that 1 in 3 women will have an abortion sometime in her lifetime. Were killing someone out and out "wrong" in every case and meant you forfeit your life, not only would the Pro-Life movement be stronger and more unified, but most Pro-Lifers wouldn't be so edgy about actually discussing a valid punishment for women who get abortions or have had them in the past. That is not to say that some people do believe those women deserve death, etc but given the moderate views of most people in this regard, I think it's safe to say that when killing crosses the line into murder is a bit more of a grey area rather than black and white.

Other instances are killings done in self-defense and to preserve bodily integrity, and as Latrin has pointed out, the state itself kills and yet the person who flips the switch or puts in the needle is not held accountable for murder/forfeits their life for doing so.

[Clove]

... and as Latrin has pointed out, the state itself kills and yet the person who flips the switch or puts in the needle is not held accountable for murder/forfeits their life for doing so.

Don't encourage him! :tumble:

[Gan]

So whoever executes this woman is also liable to be put to death?

I would hope he/she meant with 'malice'.

I wouldnt want to put words in his/her mouth though.

[Latrinsorm]

Malicious intent is certainly bad, but I would argue that the detached murderer is the most egregious. I think if we're being honest with ourselves we've all reached points where we (as rational, thinking beings) lose control to emotions (of whatever kind). That's not to say we're all murderers, obviously, but only to point out that crimes of passion don't really seem inhuman (quite the contrary!). If we're going to be serious about retracting the right to life and thus dehumanizing people, it seems to me that we should at least go about it coherently. The guy who calmly strangles a nine-year-old to death out of boredom seems way farther out on the fringe than a woman gone mad from being molested as a kid, however brutal her behavior.

I guess I can boil that down to: the only pervasive difference between examples of capital punishment and murder is that the law says it's ok to do capital punishment (in some situations).

This, of course, is all assuming that the right to life is ours to offer and retract.

[Tsa`ah]

It always makes me lol when people don't realize how much money goes into execution.

This should tell you that the costs relevant to the system are out of sync with what they're supposed to do.

It's like the army spending 5 grand on a crapper.

[Clove]

Malicious intent is certainly bad, but I would argue that the detached murderer is the most egregious.

I think you're being too specific in your definition of malice. Most definitions I read include "meaness" or "cruel" in addition to passion. And I think solving your boredom by killing a child would qualify as cruel; my solution would be a Wii.

[Nieninque]

The guy who calmly strangles a nine-year-old to death out of boredom seems way farther out on the fringe than a woman gone mad from being molested as a kid, however brutal her behavior.

And yet have you ever heard of a serial killer of a really nasty murderer who didnt attempt to diminish their responsibility due to mental health or insanity?

A little too convenient, perhaps?

[Latrinsorm]

I think you're being too specific in your definition of malice. Most definitions I read include "meaness" or "cruel" in addition to passion.It's more the "intent" part. The intent is not to be cruel or even to harm: those are tangential. The kind of person I'm envisioning is the one who behaves not in order to to generate painful feelings in others (though he will) but as if those feelings (and his targets in general) were totally irrelevant. To a person such as this, the decision to kill or not is exactly equal to you or I making the decision to go to Burger King or McDonalds.

Though this wasn't my original intended result, such a description draws uncomfortably near to the required detachment of some executioners, further buttressing my earlier point.
And I think solving your boredom by killing a child would qualify as cruel; my solution would be a Wii.As Immanuel Kant said, "Dude, the Wii totally pwnz the XBox. More like three-SHITTY, amirite?"
And yet have you ever heard of a serial killer of a really nasty murderer who didnt attempt to diminish their responsibility due to mental health or insanity?Actually yes, I've heard of serial killers who either took great pride in their endeavors or found their trials totally meaningless.

Supposing that they would generally pursue that option, though, I'm still not very worried. We do have psychologists that behave as scientists these days.

[thefarmer]

So whoever executes this woman is also liable to be put to death?


In North Carolina, funny state that I live in, the State Medical Board tried to threaten to revoke the licence of any doc that helped in an execution (Even if they just checked the guys vitals to see if he was alive or dead). I believe several doctors/groups sued and the (state supreme?) courts ruled that the Board didn't have that power.

Now this is from memory and I'm too lazy to look up an article, but the gist is still there.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

And yet have you ever heard of a serial killer of a really nasty murderer who didnt attempt to diminish their responsibility due to mental health or insanity?

A little too convenient, perhaps?

I would agree that most serial killers ARE mentally fucked up.

To kidnap, torture, and kill multiple people in calculated, cold-blood crimes to sate some fucked up personal desire generally makes someone mentally "gone" IMHO. Antisocial Personality Disorder I believe is what most of them have-- the total inability to feel empathy for others and a disconnect of themselves from other humans. I think you'd HAVE to be fucked up to go about a totally normal life except for being a blood-thirsty and brutal serial killers. That's why soldiers come back from war all traumatized by the violence- it's not naturally inherent human instinct/ability to kill indiscriminately.

Do I think it "excuses it"? Hell no I don't, but then in a way I also feel that death is letting them off the hook.

[Clove]

As Immanuel Kant said, "Dude, the Wii totally pwnz the XBox. More like three-SHITTY, amirite?"

FFS Latrin, everyone knows that's a Schopenhauer quote.

[Tsa`ah]

Do I think it "excuses it"? Hell no I don't, but then in a way I also feel that death is letting them off the hook.

So you believe what? That they'll suffer for what they have done the rest of their life?

That's not how their minds works. Sociopaths will not likely find lost humanity in prison. They'll not feel a bit of remorse, they'll not plead for forgiveness ... that's not how they're wired and there's no way to re-wire them.

They certainly won't enjoy the rest of their lives behind bars ... but there's no hook to let them off of. Go listen to any sociopath responsible for even a single murder.

I have serious reservations about the potential of reform for anyone responsible for murder, let alone the ability to function in society outside of prison. Locking such people up as opposed to removing their potential for further harm accomplishes what?

[Latrinsorm]

Locking such people up as opposed to removing their potential for further harm accomplishes what?First off, "as opposed to" is a misleading phrase. It is possible to lock people up for their entire life. Second, every action has consequences, even extremely trivial actions. Clearly an act as extreme as killing someone will not avoid this principle.

Snipe version: Not sinking to their level.
FFS Latrin, everyone knows that's a Schopenhauer quote.:bananahit:

[Tsa`ah]

First off, "as opposed to" is a misleading phrase. It is possible to lock people up for their entire life. Second, every action has consequences, even extremely trivial actions. Clearly an act as extreme as killing someone will not avoid this principle.

You're absolutely right to believe what you want, I happen to believe in the greater good of the whole.

Such individuals are akin to cancer in society and I happen to believe that letting cancer live is detrimental no matter the manner in which it is allowed to survive.

[Latrinsorm]

I happen to believe that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The greatest good lies not in death but in life.

[Tsa`ah]

Which is your belief ... not mine.

I don't think MLK had sociopaths in mind when he uttered those words.

[Clove]

..."injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". The greatest good lies not in death but in life.


...I don't think MLK had sociopaths in mind when he uttered those words.

x1,000,000

[CrystalTears]

You're absolutely right to believe what you want, I happen to believe in the greater good of the whole.
I can't help but snicker when I hear "the greater good" now.

"He wrote that I was 55 but I'm really 53!"

Sorry, I was off topic, please hang the bitch.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't think MLK had sociopaths in mind when he uttered those words.Even a cursory examination of his works reveals that he would agree with me without reservation on this topic.

[TheEschaton]

MLK, more than most, realized that it applies most to sociopaths.

[Tsa`ah]

On your part sure .... since the guy is a long dead CIVIL RIGHTS figure .... you can only pull that sentiment out of your ass.

[Latrinsorm]

On your part sure .... since the guy is a long dead CIVIL RIGHTS figure .... you can only pull that sentiment out of your ass.I can't decide if I'm more baffled or disappointed that anyone would ever suggest Dr. King would support the death penalty in any way. I'm leaning towards baffled though.

[Tea & Strumpets]

MLK, more than most, realized that it applies most to sociopaths.

Yes, he made it clear that psychopaths need our understanding far more than law abiding citizens.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

So you believe what? That they'll suffer for what they have done the rest of their life?

I don't believe they will suffer morally, no. They lack the ability to do so. However, I feel that they will suffer (they lose their rights, have to live in solitary confinement, are demeaned and embarassed) and I also feel that by them being alive they contribute- had we immediately killed all sociopaths who were serial killers we would have a hard time now understanding why people kill.

I'm sure some people disagree but I think studying how these people's brains work is important, not blowing them out of their head before we do so.


That's not how their minds works. Sociopaths will not likely find lost humanity in prison. They'll not feel a bit of remorse, they'll not plead for forgiveness ... that's not how they're wired and there's no way to re-wire them.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that they don't suffer other things. Sociopaths are egocentric and being denied access to people to manipulate, being controlled, and being subdued under the system I think would make them miserable enough even without the guilt over their horrendous actions.


They certainly won't enjoy the rest of their lives behind bars ... but there's no hook to let them off of. Go listen to any sociopath responsible for even a single murder.

I actually love watching "The Most Evil" for the reasons I described above and for what you said- to listen to what these people think of their own actions. It's scary as hell but insightful. You may not think there's even a hook for these people but I disagree.


I have serious reservations about the potential of reform for anyone responsible for murder, let alone the ability to function in society outside of prison. Locking such people up as opposed to removing their potential for further harm accomplishes what?

I don't believe in reform and rehabilitation for serial killers/rapists. However, just because I don't agree with reform and rehabilitation doesn't mean I think the best option is to just kill them, especially given the flaws in the system. By locking them up they are removed from causing further harm to innocent people, and they also can serve a purpose for studies, etc for a cheaper price, less legal and moral fuss, and without having to deal with flaws in the system related to plea-bargaining, socio-economic factors, and the like.

[ViridianAsp]

I don't believe in reform and rehabilitation for serial killers/rapists. However, just because I don't agree with reform and rehabilitation doesn't mean I think the best option is to just kill them, especially given the flaws in the system. By locking them up they are removed from causing further harm to innocent people, and they also can serve a purpose for studies, etc for a cheaper price, less legal and moral fuss, and without having to deal with flaws in the system related to plea-bargaining, socio-economic factors, and the like.

It isn't like most murderers go through an express lane, it usually take awhile for them to be excecuted, if they can be studied...and if they ALLOW it to happen. We cannot forcibly study them, that lies under the cruel and unusual.

Why let them rot in a cell? Why?

None of them are fit for life, seriously. They are bad, evil people and there is no coming back from that. And I don't understand why letting them, most of them act up in the prisons... Why should they give a fuck for authority if they are stuck there all their lives?

Yes, we should just babysit them for the whole of their lives. Maybe I should go out and kill someone. Then I'd be set for life too and what sort of consequence is that?

It isn't.

[Gan]

None of them are fit for life, seriously. They are bad, evil people and there is no coming back from that. And I don't understand why letting them, most of them act up in the prisons... Why should they give a fuck for authority if they are stuck there all their lives?

The number of people behind bars (and on death row) who 'find' Jesus would amaze you. And believe me when I say that they might have 'found' Jesus while in prison, Jesus isnt included in the bus ticket distribution when an inmate makes parole. In fact, he's left where he was found as soon as the convict hits the streets. (99% of the time)

[Nieninque]

No sense in depriving other in-mates of a friend.

[ViridianAsp]

The number of people behind bars (and on death row) who 'find' Jesus would amaze you. And believe me when I say that they might have 'found' Jesus while in prison, Jesus isnt included in the bus ticket distribution when an inmate makes parole. In fact, he's left where he was found as soon as the convict hits the streets. (99% of the time)


I don't care if they do "Find Jesus"...

They should be happy, they'll be meeting him real soon.

One of my aunt's ex-husbands "found jesus" in prison, three years later he was selling, using and distributing heroin and it seems he picked it up soon after his parole was up.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

It isn't like most murderers go through an express lane, it usually take awhile for them to be excecuted, if they can be studied...and if they ALLOW it to happen. We cannot forcibly study them, that lies under the cruel and unusual.

Why let them rot in a cell? Why?

None of them are fit for life, seriously. They are bad, evil people and there is no coming back from that. And I don't understand why letting them, most of them act up in the prisons... Why should they give a fuck for authority if they are stuck there all their lives?

Yes, we should just babysit them for the whole of their lives. Maybe I should go out and kill someone. Then I'd be set for life too and what sort of consequence is that?

It isn't.

I don't believe in the kind of evil like ultimate evil. What they did was evil and fucked up-- but as for absolute Evil? No.

It's more expensive to kill someone than to let them rot away in prison, and it's also an incredibly biased system that doesn't execute the people who deserve it but rather the people who can't afford otherwise. All "morals" aside, financially it makes more sense to let them stay in prison and it's also more sensible, IMO, given the flaws.

If you think that prison is like a holiday inn or something and that you're "set" and that prison isn't a consequence, maybe you should visit one or something. I guess we're all entitled to our opinions but the only really good purpose I can see with capital punishment is satisfying someone's revenge.



--

As for people reforming- I do believe people reform, actually. Not serial killers or most violent people, but my own Uncle was in prison twice for drugs-- he got out, "Found Jesus" (after he was out, imagine that) and now has lived a clean and good life with a wife, two kids, two cats, a dog and an honest job, and has lived like that for over 10 years now.

Obviously I don't believe that all criminals are "fixable" but some people do go on after prison and do fine.

[TheEschaton]

I just don't see how killing another person somehow solves the killing they did.

Nor do I see why we should sink to the same level.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

I can't decide if I'm more baffled or disappointed that anyone would ever suggest Dr. King would support the death penalty in any way. I'm leaning towards baffled though.

It's on ongoing thing for you. No one suggested that King was pro-capitol punishment.

In all likeliness, MLK was probably very anti-death penalty. What we don't know, since he never made mention of it, is if would have believed that no circumstance was commiserate of the death penalty.

People, such as yourself, like to hold up historical hallmarks as if they're the end all and be all of any debate ... sadly you're mistaken. While I doubt King's stance on basic civil rights would ever waiver, this isn't the 1950's and there's really no telling if King would say "Fry the bitch" had he lived another 39 years.

In a nutshell, if you can't use your own words ... don't use a dead man's ... because it really means squat to the argument.


By locking them up they are removed from causing further harm to innocent people, and they also can serve a purpose for studies, etc for a cheaper price, less legal and moral fuss, and without having to deal with flaws in the system related to plea-bargaining, socio-economic factors, and the like.

Here's a double "wow" for you.

All too often we forget about the harm these people have done, and we forget about their victim and those survived by those victims. While a plea for lenience on the part of the victim's family in any conviction, a plea for closure if oft ignored.

We factor out justice for the family for the sake of "justice" for the criminal ... and I'm sorry, but to me closure and healing for the survivors means more to me than a piece of genetic trash.

I'm guessing you believe putting someone to death is inhumane, yet you're all for making them lab rats sacrificed up to the gods of cost effectiveness. That's a bit of a double standard.

[TheEschaton]

Err, I'm sorry, but if you think family can/should get closure from the killing of someone, you're either delusional or a sick fuck.

Edit: And as I said earlier in the thread, "cost effectiveness" is the worst reason to do anything. And I also don't believe in animal testing.

[Tsa`ah]

Err, I'm sorry, but if you think family can/should get closure from the killing of someone, you're either delusional or a sick fuck.

Edit: And as I said earlier in the thread, "cost effectiveness" is the worst reason to do anything. And I also don't believe in animal testing.

Sick fuck I am then. As I've stated many times before ... if someone took the lives of my children or my wife ... the best outcome that person has is running to the police and getting life in prison before I get to them.

If you don't get it, you don't get it ... there's nothing to be said on either part because the view isn't going to change ... but if you believe more in the well being of a murderer than the anguish of a suffering family ... I'd say you were the sick fuck.

[Gan]

Err, I'm sorry, but if you think family can/should get closure from the killing of someone, you're either delusional or a sick fuck.

I fall into the sick fuck category too, because I would have no problem or remorse in exterminating someone who killed my wife and or child. My only delimma would be what method to use.

[Warriorbird]

I just don't see how killing another person somehow solves the killing they did.

How does keeping them locked up for life solve it? It doesn't. The death penalty, if pulled off, at least provides some closure for the families.

[TheEschaton]

You're polarizing the terms to make it sound uneven. I don't make value judgments and weigh one's anguish versus one's WELL BEING. I weigh one's already-present anguish versus one's LIFE, which is a much easier analysis.

There's no reason the death of another should ever make you feel happy or content - so which do I value more? One man's life or the anguish of a family which won't be cured by the death of that man? I value the man's life, and a solution which will ACTUALLY bring the family closure.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

Will it?

Neither is going for any sort of rehabilitation.

How is the man's life valuable?

[TheEschaton]

I'm not (necessarily) saying his life is valuable, as that's a religious argument. I'm simply saying the immorality of killing him isn't worth it.

-TheE-

[Gan]

There's no reason the death of another should ever make you feel happy or content

Why not? Is this the world according to TheE?

The death of my wife or son's killer would definately make me happy and content. Why do you say it wont? What gives you the basis to make this determination on behest/behalf of another?

[Tsa`ah]

The mind, emotions .... whatever ... complicated things.

A friend of mine had spent life up to moment he turned 18 a victim of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse.

At age 20 he testified against his father (who had been molesting his younger sister and decided to take it outside the family with a neighbor's child). From the age of 15 the kid had been labeled as trouble. At age 17 he had 6 arrests for possession, 2 DUIs, various other charges that included assault.

His father got 6-12 and he somewhat turned his life around, though he still abused drugs and did some incredibly stupid shit that had the potential of compromising his freedom.

Every time his father came up for parole ... he'd just crash and lose control of his life. Every parole hearing marked him getting fired from a job and about a month self destruction.

A rare stroke of poetic justice happened around year 8 of his father's incarceration. The man was diagnosed with testicular cancer, it was caught way too late and he died in prison.

THE DAY that piece of shit died marked the day his son stopped living with the past, worried for the day his father would come after him ... whatever.

He earned his GED, earned an associates, worked his way into a management position, earned his bachelors and hasn't so much as received a traffic ticket since. He doesn't drink, he doesn't abuse any sort of drug that I'm aware of ... he turned into a normal productive human being when the source of his anguish gave up his last breath.

Closure is powerful thing. It's just unfortunate that victims are denied closure at every turn because of people who don't believe in "sinking" to the criminal's level.

[Sean of the Thread]

Closure ftw.

[Latrinsorm]

It's on ongoing thing for you.It's true, I keep forgetting that you make comments that don't have anything to do with the current thread. Mea culpa.
What we don't know, since he never made mention of it, is if would have believed that no circumstance was commiserate of the death penalty.You apparently don't know. Is this the part where I scornfully remark on your "reading comprehension", hur hur hur?
People, such as yourself, like to hold up historical hallmarks as if they're the end all and be all of any debate ... sadly you're mistaken.I initially wrote "you couldn't be more wrong" here, but you disprove that statement so frequently it doesn't have any meaning anymore, so I'll stick with a simple "Incorrect".
In a nutshell, if you can't use your own wordsThe problem wasn't my lack of use.
Closure is powerful thing.And this would be the part where I say "Which is your belief ... not mine." Productive, huh?

[Tsa`ah]

Let's see .. respond to ass drippings or let them splat ...

[Caiylania]

The mind, emotions .... whatever ... complicated things.

A friend of mine had spent life up to moment he turned 18 a victim of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse.

At age 20 he testified against his father (who had been molesting his younger sister and decided to take it outside the family with a neighbor's child). From the age of 15 the kid had been labeled as trouble. At age 17 he had 6 arrests for possession, 2 DUIs, various other charges that included assault.

His father got 6-12 and he somewhat turned his life around, though he still abused drugs and did some incredibly stupid shit that had the potential of compromising his freedom.

Every time his father came up for parole ... he'd just crash and lose control of his life. Every parole hearing marked him getting fired from a job and about a month self destruction.

A rare stroke of poetic justice happened around year 8 of his father's incarceration. The man was diagnosed with testicular cancer, it was caught way too late and he died in prison.

THE DAY that piece of shit died marked the day his son stopped living with the past, worried for the day his father would come after him ... whatever.

He earned his GED, earned an associates, worked his way into a management position, earned his bachelors and hasn't so much as received a traffic ticket since. He doesn't drink, he doesn't abuse any sort of drug that I'm aware of ... he turned into a normal productive human being when the source of his anguish gave up his last breath.

Closure is powerful thing. It's just unfortunate that victims are denied closure at every turn because of people who don't believe in "sinking" to the criminal's level.

Those are the people who IMHO deserve death the most- predators of children. I'm glad the son survived all that and got his closure.

[Tea & Strumpets]

If you execute someone like Ted Bundy, who raped, murdered, and then raped his victims again, you have sunk to their level. Basically, anyone involved in his execution was a rapist, murderer, and a necrophiliac.

These discussions are pretty pointless since the folks with the opposing viewpoint have proven time and again just in this thread that they are completely retarded.

Also self defense should be illegal.

[Clove]

These discussions are pretty pointless since the folks with the opposing viewpoint have proven time and again just in this thread that they are completely retarded.

Also self defense should be illegal.

And you also shouldn't make more than 50k/year.

[Warriorbird]

And if you make over 100k you've exploited somebody.

[Celephais]

And if you make over 100k you've exploited somebody.
I think you meant to post this in the arguement clinic thread.

[CrystalTears]

I'm not (necessarily) saying his life is valuable, as that's a religious argument. I'm simply saying the immorality of killing him isn't worth it.

-TheE-
This argument has been had with you before. You seem to value everyone's life the same, and that doesn't make any sense. Not everyone can have the same value, because that would make everyone the same, or having no value at all.

Everyone has different levels of worth. The man who took it upon himself to take the life of another couldn't possibly have the same worth as the innocent he killed. Are you saying the killer should be left to live? Why should he get to live while another was never given a choice?

I'm rather anti-death penalty myself, however for people who are positively guilty of several murders, I don't see why they should continue living.

[Celephais]

The man who took it upon himself to take the life of another couldn't possibly have the same worth as the innocent he killed.
While I agreed with everything else you've said... I don't necessarly think that someone taking the life of another out of malice makes them instantly worth less than the life of the person they took.

If I were to leave my apt, walk down some alley and knife some drug addict in a dark corner, because I was sick of living in a corrupted city, and then go to work, I might be a (American) psycho, but I'd still be contributing more to society than that drug addict who was just draining society... I would think my life would still be worth more (but then someone who could just so coldly kill is likely to cause more harm than good eventually, but lets just say I had a bad morning, and it's not norm or indicitive of future behavior... we'll just say that I was mad because I ran out of shampoo that morning).

Where I might branch a bit would be vigilantism... I wouldn't encourage it, because it's clear innocents could get harmed, but I don't think I'd bat an eye if someone went all Boondock Saints in this city.

[Latrinsorm]

Not everyone can have the same value, because that would make everyone the same, or having no value at all.
It's not that everyone has the same value, it's that everyone has the same inherent or intrinsic value. It's this inalienable value that leads to things like "killing is always wrong" and the like.
Why should he get to live while another was never given a choice?It's exactly analogous to freedom of speech debates: the right to live isn't restricted to people who don't piss us off or in generaly aren't horrible. That's not a right, or at least it's not the kind of right we claim to be interested in.

[CrystalTears]

Yeah, I meant in the sense of both being equal (since TheE refuses to assign worth to human beings), so my bad for not being specific.

How someone lives their life on a day to day basis will determine his worth.

As far as speaking about people who are serial murderers, imo, they gave up their right to live when they took the life of another. Just as someone doesn't have the right to scream FIRE in an open public gathering, neither does the fucker who did the killing.

[Clove]

It's exactly analogous to freedom of speech debates: the right to live isn't restricted to people who don't piss us off or in generaly aren't horrible. That's not a right, or at least it's not the kind of right we claim to be interested in.


You have an "inalienable right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you deny these rights to others, you forfeit yours. Murdering someone denies your victim's right to life. Now the question is- does society revoke your right to liberty, or your right to life?

[TheEschaton]

No, no, no, the point of inalienable rights is that you CANNOT BE DENIED THEM. No matter what you say or do.

I assign, like Latrin said, an intrinsic value to all life. Certainly people can be much greater than that, through acts of charity and so forth, but no one can sink below that.

People are afforded fundamental rights not because they live in a certain place, or follow certain laws, but because they are human beings - this is based on the idea of the intrinsic value of being a human being. Life is one of them. Other rights (economic security, luxury, etc) are afforded, theoretically on you earning that right, and those can be taken away if someone's fundamental right trumps it, that's because it's not based on the intrinsic value of human life, but rather the qualitative worth of their life. And even that's fucked up, because economic rights aren't usually awarded to those who have, qualitatively, a good life.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

As far as speaking about people who are serial murderers, imo, they gave up their right to live when they took the life of another. Just as someone doesn't have the right to scream FIRE in an open public gathering, neither does the fucker who did the killing.That's not the comparison though. Certainly a person doesn't have the right to kill. The analogy there would be that a person who does scream fire would have their vocal cords removed or something: their freedom of speech would be permanently forfeited somehow.

Inalienable doesn't only mean it can't be taken away, it means you can't give it up.

That liberty must be curtailed is an unavoidable consequence of being unable to reliably isolate someone without bars and walls and whatnot*. There is no preventative increase in capital punishment over life imprisonment, so the question would be: how is capital punishment similarly unavoidable? "Because we'd all really like to" leads to things like utilitarianism, and we can all agree that that's a dangerous road to tread.

* edit: or rehabilitate at all.

[Clove]

No, no, no, the point of inalienable rights is that you CANNOT BE DENIED THEM. No matter what you say or do.

I'm sorry it looks nice as an excuse to the public to commit treason, but an undeniable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness doesn't exist and isn't what was meant when the Declaration of Independence called them inalienable. With the exception of the pursuit of happiness which is impossible to deny, the other two don't exist. We cannot be denied them IF and only IF we meet our social contract. Or are you suggesting that we abolish prisons as well as capital punishment; incarceration denies your right to liberty after all.

[Clove]

Inalienable doesn't only mean it can't be taken away, it means you can't give it up.

Suicide - relinquishing your right to life.
Vows - relinquishing your right to liberty.

What Latrin meant to say is these rights can't be transferred. You can't give your right to liberty, life or pursuit of happiness to another person. They're yours alone to use.

[Latrinsorm]

The social contract is to ensure those rights aren't violated, not to generate them in the first place. And I quote: "That to secure these [inalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

[Latrinsorm]

Suicide - relinquishing your right to life.
Vows - relinquishing your right to liberty.Quite the contrary, you relinquish your life by committing suicide, not your right to it. This is also how murder can exist even while people have a right to their own lives.

[Clove]

The social contract is to ensure those rights aren't violated, not to generate them in the first place. And I quote: "That to secure these [inalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

And how do Governments secure these rights? In part by exacting consequences on any who infringe on them, up to and including denying them certain rights or privileges.

Inalienable does not mean irrevocable. It means nobody else can exercise them in your place; they cannot be transferred to another.

[Clove]

Quite the contrary, you relinquish your life by committing suicide, not your right to it. This is also how murder can exist even while people have a right to their own lives.

Really? If you still retain the right, how do you reclaim it then, I wonder? Holding hands with JEEzus amirite?

:thinking:

[TheEschaton]

I'm sorry it looks nice as an excuse to the public to commit treason, but an undeniable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness doesn't exist and isn't what was meant when the Declaration of Independence called them inalienable. With the exception of the pursuit of happiness which is impossible to deny, the other two don't exist. We cannot be denied them IF and only IF we meet our social contract. Or are you suggesting that we abolish prisons as well as capital punishment; incarceration denies your right to liberty after all.

Your understanding of the Declaration of Independence is shockingly wrong. Inalienable EXACTLY means irrevocable, and there's plenty of evidence that the Framers thought exactly that.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Your understanding of the Declaration of Independence is shockingly wrong. Inalienable EXACTLY means irrevocable, and there's plenty of evidence that the Framers thought exactly that.

-TheE-

Why exactly did they build prisons and specify capital punishment for treason then? Clearly, they were prepared to revoke them.

Let me answer that for you- because irrevocable rights don't exist. The Framers published an apology to justify their treason and as much as they admired Enlightment philosophy even they understood that inalienable as defined as irrevocable is only good as propaganda to justify a revolution.

It's a beautiful document and a pretty idea- but inalienable rights? Nonsense. Our social contract dictates that we retain our rights to the limit that we allow others theirs. Period.

Inalienable rights exist in fantasy-land.

[TheEschaton]

The Declaration is a statement of ideals. It reflected what the Framers wanted in an ideal democracy. The Constitution was the realistic reflection of that statement. Just because the Constitution is less idealistic than the Declaration, the idea is that it tries to mirror it, and in all cases, is in some way striving for it.

Namely, just because it isn't realistic, doesn't mean that it can't mean what it said. You sound like the judge in the 1850s who concluded that slaves can't be human beings, because 1) the Framers said "all men are created equal", and 2) they owned slaved, and 3) they couldn't have been possibly hypocrites to such high ideals. In fact, the opposite was true: they did say that, and they were hypocrites to their ideals, but it was those ideals laid out which allowed people to eventually conclude - hey, slavery is not good.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Namely, just because it isn't realistic, doesn't mean that it can't mean what it said. You sound like the judge in the 1850s who concluded that slaves can't be human beings, because 1) the Framers said "all men are created equal", and 2) they owned slaved, and 3) they couldn't have been possibly hypocrites to such high ideals. In fact, the opposite was true: they did say that, and they were hypocrites to their ideals, but it was those ideals laid out which allowed people to eventually conclude - hey, slavery is not good.

-TheE-

No, I sound like a man who doesn't believe that philosophy is frozen in the Enlightenment era. Far wiser men than you and I have criticized inalienable rights as defined as irrevocable. If you want me to agree that these rights cannot be transferred then you have my agreement. My personal opinion is that even the Framers understood that it was unrealistic idealsim; how could they not?

Ideal<>Reality and we were having a discussion about realistic responses to crime.

[TheEschaton]

I think that they thought it was idealistic, but I would certainly disagree that they thought it was unrealistic.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

And how do Governments secure these rights?Poorly. This goes back to what Celephais and I were talking about earlier though: government (esp. our kind) are the best thing we've got for this kind of thing, but that doesn't make them or their means good or acceptable.
If you still retain the right, how do you reclaim it then, I wonder?Assuming by "it" you mean "your life", you can't. Again, my having a right to something in no way indicates that I do or can own or possess it. It indicates that I should, and that other people (including myself) shouldn't endeavor take it from me.
Why exactly did they build prisons and specify capital punishment for treason then?The same reason Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
Our social contract dictates that we retain our rights to the limit that we allow others theirs.I'm looking right at our social contract and that's not what it says. :shrug:

[Clove]

I think that they thought it was idealistic, but I would certainly disagree that they thought it was unrealistic.

-TheE-

Then I'm afraid they were wrong.

[Clove]

Assuming by "it" you mean "your life", you can't. Again, my having a right to something in no way indicates that I do or can own or possess it. It indicates that I should, and that other people (including myself) shouldn't endeavor take it from me.

If you commit suicide you relinquish all rights in this world, because you cease being a part of it. To say "you've lost your life, not your right to it" is an amusing distinction but completely irrational.

:clap:

But thanks for the fun.

[TheEschaton]

Who's to say they weren't right to think they could achieve their ideals, and you aren't wrong?

What makes it more impossible to achieve those ideals now, considering equality is now actually applied to all humankind (in the United States). I'd say we're closer to those ideals now then they were then.

[Warriorbird]

considering equality is now actually applied to all humankind (in the United States)

How Republican of you.

We talked about intrinisic rights and the loss thereof today in my Civil Law class. It was quite interesting. The fact that American felons don't get to vote is considered pretty crazy to some European scholars.

[Latrinsorm]

If you commit suicide you relinquish all rights in this world, because you cease being a part of it.Every theory of rights describes them as transcendent; in some way beyond and above this world. That's why they're shoulds and not cans or wills: it's literally impossible to in any way materially interact with a right.
To say "you've lost your life, not your right to it" is an amusing distinction but completely irrational.Was Patrick Henry irrational? Was William Wallace irrational?? Yes, obviously the answer is yes. The fact remains, however, that it is a manifest contradiction to suggest that inalienable rights can yet be alienated. You were much better off with the "the government infringes upon our rights to begin with" tack, even though it was similarly barren.

[Clove]

The fact remains, however, that it is a manifest contradiction to suggest that inalienable rights can yet be alienated.

It's not a contradiction at all it's an attack on its validity. God is infallible, to suggest that He could not be is a contradiction (unless you can point to a divine fallacy).

Abstracting the concept of rights to the level you're suggesting is absurd. The suggestion that we have rights without any responsibility, or any ability to exercise them is ridiculous and allows anyone to claim any "right" at all. Where's my inalienable right to property? "We hold these truths to be self evident..." or in other words "It's true because we're telling you it is!". Nice. "Bestowed by the Creator..." Which Creator would that be? Which religion's God bestows inalienable rights? Which one granted us the inalienable right to pursue happiness? What if the religion I adhere to doesn't bestow these inalienable rights? What if I'm not a Mason? :). Maybe the Creators were a group of men writing a PR paper to justify revolution?

We have rights because we have governments that bestow them upon us. Our government allows all human beings the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are inalienable to the extent that only each individual can exercise those rights; but they are in practice and concept revocable. So long as you don't deny your fellow these fundamental rights (which is a far better term imo) you enjoy them.

[TheEschaton]

We have rights because we have governments that bestow them upon us.

This is the absurd bit. The whole point is that if the government tomorrow decided to take all these "inalienable rights" away, there would be a valid and just cause to rise against that government, because those things can neither be taken away, nor bestowed, by any government, but are NATURAL to all human beings. It is a moral and just struggle to overcome any government that would "revoke" those inalienable rights. It's couched in the words of a "Creator" centered language because that was the social context they were writing in at that day.

I mean, that seems like a relatively obvious conclusion.

-TheE-

[Clove]

This is the absurd bit. The whole point is that if the government tomorrow decided to take all these "inalienable rights" away, there would be a valid and just cause to rise against that government, because those things can neither be taken away, nor bestowed, by any government, but are NATURAL to all human beings. It is a moral and just struggle to overcome any government that would "revoke" those inalienable rights. It's couched in the words of a "Creator" centered language because that was the social context they were writing in at that day.

I mean, that seems like a relatively obvious conclusion.

-TheE-

Cannot be granted or taken away? Only in the context of "I have a right to x, and nothing you do or say can take it away from me!". I think pop psychology calls this "denial".

Hmmmm so a Creator didn't bestow them? What did then? Social context?

The only obvious conclusion here is: It's true because the E believes it ought to be.

I'll say it once again; greater minds than all of us have criticized the concept of inalienable rights- and practical, real world experience sure seems to support those criticisms. With that in mind, I'll close with this quote:

"We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe."

Jonathan Wallace

[Latrinsorm]

The suggestion that we have rights without any responsibility, or any ability to exercise them is ridiculous and allows anyone to claim any "right" at all.People can claim anything (c.f. the Hyphe thread). Rights inherently have responsibilities in an egalitarian setting: my having a right to life carries with it the responsibility to not infringe on your right to life. The difference between you and I is that you take this responsibility to be the requirement for the right. I, on the other hand, point out once again that the distinction to be made here is can vs. should.
"We hold these truths to be self evident..." or in other words "It's true because we're telling you it is!".As you're well aware, Enlightenment folks considered humans to have a natural light of reason. It's gone out of vogue to some extent in philosophy (for obvious reasons), but we all use some version of it in daily life.
What if the religion I adhere to doesn't bestow these inalienable rights?As above, this is irrelevant. "Human" is the active ingredient, not "deist" or "Mason" or "white".
greater minds than all of us have criticized the concept of inalienable rights- and practical, real world experience sure seems to support those criticisms.The only way "real world experience" can have any support either way is if you define what rights are drastically differently from how they are defined in our founding documents. Once again, what actually happens has no bearing on what should happen, and vice versa.

Jonathan Wallace is clearly a utilitarian (or at least wearing a utilitarian hat or perhaps a scarf). I'll spare you the full indictment, posit the case of the tortured man, and encourage you to be a bit more discerning in your citations.

[Shifted]

Got about this far before i had to comment.


Morality is absolute. It isn't a question of what I believe or what you believe.

I have to differ on that. Morality is not absolute. Morality is someone's opinion of morality. There is no set of rules saying 'This is moral but this is not'. If nothing else, it's popular opinion. I believe that some people should be killed for the things they do.

[QUOTE=TheEschaton]I happen to think a definitive sense of right and wrong is vital to being a lawyer. It's those who DON'T have that sense of morality who can argue that 9/11 was "morally justifiable" in the eyes of those who did it.[QUOTE]

Erm... Of course it was morally justifiable in the eyes of the people who did it. Their morals are different.

[QUOTE=TheEschaton]Furthermore, if morality is NOT absolute, you cannot absolutely say anything is right or wrong. You can't say 9/11 is wrong. You can't even say that the act this woman did was wrong. You can only say that the overarching majority says that what this woman should be considered wrong.[QUOTE]

There is a difference between morality and legality.

[QUOTE=TheEschaton]If, at any point, you want to consider the intentional killing of someone in a particular case inherently wrong, you inevitably come to the conclusion that all intentional killings of human beings are inherently wrong. That's not to say you cannot defend yourself. Self-defense may be justifiable, but it is still wrong. It is not a right, nor is it the moral thing to do. It is an immoral wrong used merely to prevent a further immoral wrong.[QUOTE]

Erm... wanting to live is inherently wrong.... right.

[Latrinsorm]

There is no set of rules saying 'This is moral but this is not'.There are obviously quite a few. The relevant question is where they come from.
There is a difference between morality and legality.As was previously demonstrated in the thread, using only law as a basis for morality leads to really crappy results.
Erm... wanting to live is inherently wrong.... right.This is an incorrect interpretation of the situation.
Target wants to live - morally ok!
Murderer wants to kill - morally not ok!
Target has no other resort but to kill the murderer - morally not ok; however, it is by definition the least immoral option remaining.

[Shifted]

Target wants to live - morally ok!
Murderer wants to kill - morally not ok!
Target has no other resort but to kill the murderer - morally not ok; however, it is by definition the least immoral option remaining.

Actually, least immoral for the murderee would be to die.

[TheEschaton]

Morality is someone's opinion of morality.

You realize how retarded this statement is? Even if it was somehow crazily true, it's a circular definition. Something can't be someone's opinion of something. Morality is absolute, and yes, people have different definition of what is moral. That doesn't make their view "morality" per se, those rules are unchanging and immutable.

And the point of the 9/11 analogy is not to point out that the hijackers thought what they were doing was moral, but to point out that because of an absolute morality, we can say that that is absolutely wrong, DESPITE whether they think it was moral.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Jonathan Wallace is clearly a utilitarian (or at least wearing a utilitarian hat or perhaps a scarf). I'll spare you the full indictment, posit the case of the tortured man, and encourage you to be a bit more discerning in your citations.

Jonathan Wallace is one of many and you're welcome to disagree his reasoning specifically or generally- take it up with him. I obviously have criticisms of Enlightenment philosophy, but I won't caution you not to cite them.

By being human you have the ability to live, be free and pursue happiness; not the "inalienable right". You're not entitled to it without qualification and experience does prove this out- in anarchy and in society.

That they are "self evident" is axiomatic. Come on Latrin, if you're as well read in philosophy as you seem, you're aware of all the arguments against "natural laws" or "inalienable laws". Don't make me reprint them.

[Clove]

You realize how retarded this statement is? Even if it was somehow crazily true, it's a circular definition.

As circular as "self-evident"?

[Shifted]

You realize how retarded this statement is? Even if it was somehow crazily true, it's a circular definition.

It may be a circular definitition, but what is perceived as moral changes over time. Something that changes cannot be considered absolute. Show me something that says what is moral and what is not, and then it would possibly be absolute.

[TheEschaton]

The morality that human beings believe is a reflection of absolute morality. It's a simple idea, really - there's an absolute morality out there, and we are constantly evolving and trying to reach the ideals of that morality.

-Thee-

[ViridianAsp]

Morality is usually defined by our peers as a majority. At least that's the way I see it. but certain groups hold different morals.

I have morals other people would probably consider far too constrained or prude.

While I might think others are lax and ill-enforced.

*shrugs* It's all a matter of opinion.

[Shifted]

While on the other hand I have morals that most people would consider entirely too loose.

[Clove]

Morality is usually defined by our peers as a majority. At least that's the way I see it. but certain groups hold different morals.

Not a bad stab but I have a few questions. What are peers? How much of a majority? How big does the group need to be before its majority actions are considered moral? Small Amazonian tribe big? Jim Jones big? Greece big? Roman Catholic church big?

[Clove]

While on the other hand I have morals that most people would consider entirely too loose.

But isn't that the greater part of your appeal? :tumble:

[oldanforgotten]

Morality is usually defined by our peers as a majority. At least that's the way I see it. but certain groups hold different morals.

I have morals other people would probably consider far too constrained or prude.

While I might think others are lax and ill-enforced.

*shrugs* It's all a matter of opinion.

Morals are defined on an individual basis.

Laws are what are defined over time by the will of the people. The courts usually lag behind the will a few decades, but that?s about the time it takes to change the people making them.

As for the universal violence is bad thing, I think that is a very sheltered and protected opinion. Using violence in an aggressive manner is usually wrong. Using violence to defend oneself can many a times be acceptable. There are times when violence may be the only recourse.

The problem here, in truth, is primarily the media, because the coverage tends to focus on the sensational.

90%+ of the white people in Mississippi do not have racist beliefs. But the 10% of them that do are so vocal, they seem to speak for the state.
99% of muslims have beliefs that may differ greatly from our own, but are peaceful in their own lives. It?s the 1% who are sociopaths that get all the attention, and brand the entire region as ?full of terrorists?.
99% of Christians do not believe in firebombing abortion clinics, but we sure hear a lot about the ones that do.
99% of jewish people are not Zionists, but rather normal people who are just jewish. The 1% of them that want to beget violence with aggressive violence, rolling tanks through towns, etc. give a bad rap to the rest.
More than half of Americans as a whole support the death penalty. But the sensationalists who oppose it get the majority of attention on the topic.
I?m sure 99% of Americans believe in some form of Animal Welfare or Animal Rights. But then you have PETA, who sensationalize the matter and create distance between themselves and the moral majority.

What we are often given as the most pressing evidence in making a decision that is best for everyone are specific extreme cases that are believed to sway the more indecisive or those who generally don?t care into a strong belief. Personally, I support the death penalty, and I believe she should be put to death by lethal injection. Just because a crime is particularly heinous doesn?t mean the SYSTEM should punish in a cruel manner. But my personal support of the death penalty is not in a manner of eye for an eye.

If a person can be rehabilitated, the period of corrections should reflect that, and the person should be given the chance to be rehabilitated. If it is determined that rehabilitation is impossible, then it is impossible, and the person should be put to death. The period that people are sent to prison right now in this day and age, are completely arbitrary based on a book that says this long for this crime. One can easily argue for more violent crimes that people are often placed into a corrections facility that fucks them up far more than rehabilitates. If a person warrants life in prison with no parole, what is the exact difference between that and death, as far as society is concerned?

And one last note for TheE. If you consider it murder whenever a person is sentenced to death, then you also MUST consider it a crime every time a person is released from prison only to commit another one, because the system allowed that crime to occur. In which case, the lack of capital punishment or imposition of life in prison is often causing more death and violence.
________
How To Roll A Joint (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

[Stanley Burrell]

90%+ of the white people in Mississippi do not have racist beliefs. But the 10% of them that do are so vocal, they seem to speak for the state.
99% of muslims have beliefs that may differ greatly from our own, but are peaceful in their own lives. It’s the 1% who are sociopaths that get all the attention, and brand the entire region as “full of terrorists”.
99% of Christians do not believe in firebombing abortion clinics, but we sure hear a lot about the ones that do.
99% of jewish people are not Zionists, but rather normal people who are just jewish. The 1% of them that want to beget violence with aggressive violence, rolling tanks through towns, etc. give a bad rap to the rest.
More than half of Americans as a whole support the death penalty. But the sensationalists who oppose it get the majority of attention on the topic.
I’m sure 99% of Americans believe in some form of Animal Welfare or Animal Rights. But then you have PETA, who sensationalize the matter and create distance between themselves and the moral majority.

I like how you only capitalized Christians :lol2:

Edited: Oh and screw those non-capital letter-deserving peta bastids :mad:

[oldanforgotten]

I like how you only capitalized Christians :lol2:

Edited: Oh and screw those non-capital letter-deserving peta bastids :mad:

Well, if it means anything, I'm non religious...
________
Chevrolet Matiz (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Matiz)

[Clove]

Well, if it means anything, I'm non religious...

Yeah but how do you feel about Peta...

[Clove]

What Latrin said.

And CT, I don't plan on ever being a defense lawyer, thank you very much.


-TheE-


Luckily, I would never prosecute in such a state. NY has a moratorium on the death penalty, and MA, where I study, it's been illegal for years.

If it was legal, and I was asked to apply, I would not only refuse to do it, but argue strenuously against any ADA being asked to seek it. If I wasn't fired, I'd quit, if they said I had to do it.


And thus this second statement would result in the first statement being false. ;)

Oh come on... can't you picture the E as the Ultimate Personal Injury Lawyer?

[oldanforgotten]

Yeah but how do you feel about Peta...

I did kinda mention them in the same sense as a bunch of other extremists in respect to their majority norms.
________
Free whole foods gift cards (http://bestfreegiftcard.com/whole-foods-gift-cards/)

[Stanley Burrell]

DOWN WITH THE petists.

[Latrinsorm]

You're not entitled to it without qualification and experience does prove this out- in anarchy and in society.I don't know why you refuse to address this, but it is absolutely irrelevant to my alleged right to life if you or anyone can take my life. There's nothing empirical about this kind of thing.
That they are "self evident" is axiomatic.There is no real way to derive these rights from absolutely nothing, but no one is honestly that strict about knowledge. It gets a little close to ad hominem, but the question becomes IF folks are specifically sceptical (to be Hume) about this particular area, what's up with that? Do you go into a math class and repeatedly challenge "1+1=2"?
but what is perceived as moral changes over time. Something that changes cannot be considered absolute.This is actually a very famous error made by Descartes. In short, how an object is perceived is not a characteristic of the object but of the perceiver. Consider an optical illusion that makes two lines look to be of different lengths: clearly you wouldn't suggest that the lengths of these lines change as people perceive them differently.

That morality is perceived differently speaks only to the imperfection of our observation apparatus and the need for continued vigilance.

[TheEschaton]

And again, Clove, I said I wanted to be a prosecutor, but surely not in a state with the death penalty.

[Gan]

Oh come on... can't you picture the E as the Ultimate Personal Injury Lawyer?

There are already predictions that TheE will be an ambulance chaser within 5 years of passing the bar, if he passes. ;)

[Clove]

I don't know why you refuse to address this, but it is absolutely irrelevant to my alleged right to life if you or anyone can take my life.

And I say you're confusing the ability to live, be free, and pursue happiness as a right to it.



There's nothing empirical about this kind of thing.There is no real way to derive these rights from absolutely nothing, but no one is honestly that strict about knowledge. It gets a little close to ad hominem, but the question becomes IF folks are specifically sceptical (to be Hume) about this particular area, what's up with that? Do you go into a math class and repeatedly challenge "1+1=2"?

1+1=2 does actually have a proof, but the formulas are beyond me. Regardless inalienable rights being self-evident IS axiomatic and if that is your only argument of its existence then we are free to reject it. We can trust an "axiom" for 1+1=2 because while we may technically be taking that "truth" on faith, experience time and time again shows it true to everyone. You're just not in that situation with inalienable rights. In nature (or anarchy) all people have the "right" to all things in so far as their strength can secure it. We have the ability not the entitlement.


This is actually a very famous error made by Descartes. In short, how an object is perceived is not a characteristic of the object but of the perceiver. Consider an optical illusion that makes two lines look to be of different lengths: clearly you wouldn't suggest that the lengths of these lines change as people perceive them differently.

That morality is perceived differently speaks only to the imperfection of our observation apparatus and the need for continued vigilance.

Cute but of no help to you here. It may speak to our imperfection to perceive individually but that only makes your argument more axiomatic and less believable:

"It's self evident."
"But experience points to these contradictions."
"Yes, of course, but that's only because we're unable to perceive it properly"
"Alright then where did we get this truth"
"Oh that's not important, we got it from somewhere"

And on and on and on. There is a precise definition for this type of argument in philosophy: Full of shit.

[Latrinsorm]

And I say you're confusing the ability to live, be free, and pursue happiness as a right to it.That's exactly my point though: they're not the same. I'm not using my living as the basis for my right to life, so it makes 0 sense to say that because my living can be taken from me (as in an anarchy) I must not actually have an inalienable right to life.
1+1=2 does actually have a proof, but the formulas are beyond me.It has a ton of proofs. The only problem is they're all based on postulates, from Plato's to Whitehead and Russell's.
Regardless inalienable rights being self-evident IS axiomatic and if that is your only argument of its existence then we are free to reject it. We can trust an "axiom" for 1+1=2 because while we may technically be taking that "truth" on faith, experience time and time again shows it true to everyone.Declaring experience trustworthy is just as axiomatic as merely stating something is the case, it's just a more convoluted circular statement. Again, I'm not saying I distrust experience (hello, scientist), but I am saying that having a highly variable trust threshold is suspicious.
Cute but of no help to you here.I was addressing specifically the point that "what we call morality changes all the time therefore there is no absolute morality". As I stated, there is no way to rigorously derive our inalienable rights.

[Shifted]

I know it's a week old bump, but i found something interesting...

Right is not right, so is not so. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument. If so were really so, it would differ so clearly from not so that there would be no need for argument.
-Chuang-tzu

[Latrinsorm]

Oh like anyone cares what a somnambulistic butterfly thinks. :P