• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Control Your Weeping

Tricky said:
Like I've always said: Life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment. Execution is more humane.
Click to expand...

According to the OP, 16 percent preferred death. Which means 84 percent were against being executed.
 
rhoadp said:
Anti-death penalty people often claim that it actually costs more to put someone to death than keep them alive for a life sentence.
Click to expand...

Which always leads me to point out that it is even cheaper to just set them free.
 
Originally posted by BPSCG When the criminal has irreparably broken the social contract between him and society.
Click to expand...

And when is that exactly? Normally, if someone has been convicted of committing a murder, the state either locks him up for a long time (maybe forever) or kills him. If you don't kill him you have to keep him fed. That simple. Since I don't think human justice is infallible, and since I don't approve of killing, period, I wanna keep him alive. So the convicted criminal has to be fed and housed and dressed. I find it perfectly acceptable that a small portion of my taxes are used for this purpose. And I wouldn't approve of the state using my taxes to execute criminals.

Originally posted by BPSCG
But would that give me the right to your food? Or the right to your money so I could buy food?
That's what I've been saying all along. But you said people have a right to food:. If I have a right to food:
  • Do I still have that right if I can't work for it?
  • Do I still have that right if I can work for it but refuse to?
  • If I, as a starving man, have a right to some of your money to buy food, how much am I entitled to? Just enough to keep me from starving for another day? For a week? For the rest of my life?
  • What kind of food am I entitled to? A cup of chicken soup? A McDonald's Happy Meal? Filet mignon stuffed with lobster?
Click to expand...


  • 1) If a part of my taxes are used to feed you in a time of need, that means that yes, you have a right to a small part of my money.
    2) You have a right to food specially if you can't work for it, if you're sick or incapacitated or too young.
    3) Just for enough time to keep you going. Starving people make bad workers and even worse job seekers.
    4) Why caviar and champagne, of course!

    Originally posted by BPSCG
    [*]And how about medical care? How much of your money do I have a right to? Enough to buy Band-Aids? To buy anti-cholesterol medicine? To buy anti-AIDS medicine? To buy a heart transplant?
    Click to expand...
You'll be surprised to learn I agree, we should help those unable to take care of themselves. But when we do so, that's charity, which, IIRC, is not a right. If it were, the panhandler on the street wouldn't have to ask you for your wallet; he could just take it.
Click to expand...


Hey I'm canadian! Around these here parts, everyone has healthcare, even criminals.

Oh I agree, charity is not a right. But see, food on the table and a roof over the head is not charity, its the basics of life. I don't call that charity, I call it social justice. That social contract stuff you mentioned goes both ways: if a society is unable to feed and house a significant number of its members (by not giving them jobs or paying them badly for the jobs they do), these people will also feel like the "social contract" has been broken. That's usually what leads to social unrest.
 
Jocko said:





If you're suggesting here - and I can't see any other way of reading this - that it's fair for death row inmates to be fed/housed/clothed entirely at the whim of non-criminals, then I can hardly argue. After all, what is being discussed is a tax OBLIGATION, not a choice.

Make it a choice and the condemned would starve, lacking a serious and ongoing source of charity. I have no problem with that, but I don't think you realized what you said here.
Click to expand...


You misunderstood: I've never argued for charity. As a said in my previous post, if someone has been convicted of committing a murder, the state either locks him up for a long time (maybe forever) or the state kills him. Either way the state has become responsible for the life (or the death) of the convicted felon. If the state doesn't kill him it has to feed him. Not feeding him would be the same thing as sentencing him to death (duh).
 
Can we all at least agree that its sad that the good ol' days of execuation are over? You know, the upwards of several very, very last minute stays. The condemned is all strapped in; Hood over head; Electrodes well oiled and in place; Wet sponge sitting on the head; final electrode placed over that.

The waiting, blindfolded by the hood. Last meal almost coming back up. Piss running down the leg. Pants now soiled. All quite. No last words. Waiting. The moment arrives. The warden puts hand on large breaker-switch in preperation for midnight. It's ten seconds till.

3...2...1...ring, ring. It's the governor. He's going to review the case just one more time...

Now THAT's Comedy!
 
Ex Lion Tamer said:
And when is that exactly?
Click to expand...
When he's done someone a harm for which no adequate recompense can be made.

You don't execute someone for robbing a liquor store, because we can lock him up as punishment and require him to make restitution. When he has done that, justice has been served, and the books are squared, hence we say he has "paid his debt to society."

How does a murderer square the books? Answer: He can't. He has irreparably broken the social contract.
If you don't kill him you have to keep him fed.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine) Why? You are once again claiming he has a right to food (we HAVE to keep him fed). How did he obtain this right? If a murderer has the right to food at public expense, why does not every other law-abiding person also have that right?
And I wouldn't approve of the state using my taxes to execute criminals.
Click to expand...
[sarcasm]
As has been established in the Terri Schiavo case, if we withhold food from him, we're not executing him; we're merely allowing him to die a peaceful and painless death.
[/sarcasm]
3) Just for enough time to keep you going. Starving people make bad workers and even worse job seekers.
Click to expand...
So if I'm starving today, I have a right to food at your expense, to build up my strength to get a job. And if once I have my strength back, I refuse to get a job and I run out of food again, you must feed me again - it's your obligation and my right.

Oh I agree, charity is not a right. But see, food on the table and a roof over the head is not charity, its the basics of life.
Click to expand...
Food is charity if it's given to you without any obligation on your part; that's the definition of charity.
That social contract stuff you mentioned goes both ways: if a society is unable to feed and house a significant number of its members (by not giving them jobs or paying them badly for the jobs they do), these people will also feel like the "social contract" has been broken. That's usually what leads to social unrest.
Click to expand...
You're misunderstanding the concept of the social contract. The social contract does not require that society give anyone food, housing, or work. It deals simply in the rights and attendant responsibilities of individuals, and the means of enforcing those rights and responsibilities.
In order to live in society, human beings agree to an implicit social contract, which gives them certain rights in return for giving up certain freedoms they would have in a state of nature. Thus, the rights (and responsibilities) of individuals are the terms of the social contract, and the state is the entity created for the purpose of enforcing that contract. Also, the people may change the terms of the contract if they so desire; rights and responsibilities are not fixed or "natural". However, more rights always entail more responsibilities, and fewer responsibilities always entail fewer rights.
Click to expand...
Link.
 
Bruce said:
I think we should round up all the convicted felons, put them on a boat, and ship them off to that barren continent southeast of China. That'll learn 'em.
Click to expand...
We don't kill our murderers and rapists, and so release them early from the punishment they richly deserve. Instead, they live out the remainder of their victims' lives, or potential lives, being reminded every day of what they have done.

Let me just quote the opening post again:
Like inmates on death row across America, Ross is locked up most of the day in a small cell with no access to prison sports or education programs, and no interaction with other inmates.

In an essay posted on the Internet by the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Ross describes his sliver of a window as offering "a wonderful view of the razor-wire fencing and outdoor recreation yard of the prison next door."

Ross, who admitted killing eight women and raping most of them, was sentenced to death in 1987. He first asked to waive his appeals over a decade ago.

"There is so little to focus on. There is so little over which individuals have control. There's so little to distract them from the negative thoughts," said Grassian.
Click to expand...
Some might label me a "liberal" too. But frankly, if this crim gets to suffer like this, poor baby, to pay for his crimes for the next 20-30 years, or for life, then that's a valid punishment in my book. Acceding to his request (to be executed) simply allows him to avoid this punishment.

And once again, I find it amazing that there seems to be only two alternatives being considered here: death penalty OR incarceration in a gaol cell. Where's the imagination? Even the Romans had oubliettes.
 
BPSCG said:
When he's done someone a harm for which no adequate recompense can be made.

You don't execute someone for robbing a liquor store, because we can lock him up as punishment and require him to make restitution. When he has done that, justice has been served, and the books are squared, hence we say he has "paid his debt to society."

How does a murderer square the books? Answer: He can't. He has irreparably broken the social contract.
(emphasis mine) Why? You are once again claiming he has a right to food (we HAVE to keep him fed). How did he obtain this right? If a murderer has the right to food at public expense, why does not every other law-abiding person also have that right?
[sarcasm]
As has been established in the Terri Schiavo case, if we withhold food from him, we're not executing him; we're merely allowing him to die a peaceful and painless death.
[/sarcasm]
So if I'm starving today, I have a right to food at your expense, to build up my strength to get a job. And if once I have my strength back, I refuse to get a job and I run out of food again, you must feed me again - it's your obligation and my right.

Food is charity if it's given to you without any obligation on your part; that's the definition of charity.
You're misunderstanding the concept of the social contract. The social contract does not require that society give anyone food, housing, or work. It deals simply in the rights and attendant responsibilities of individuals, and the means of enforcing those rights and responsibilities. Link.
Click to expand...


Quote:
In order to live in society, human beings agree to an implicit social contract, which gives them certain rights in return for giving up certain freedoms they would have in a state of nature. Thus, the rights (and responsibilities) of individuals are the terms of the social contract, and the state is the entity created for the purpose of enforcing that contract. Also, the people may change the terms of the contract if they so desire; rights and responsibilities are not fixed or "natural". However, more rights always entail more responsibilities, and fewer responsibilities always entail fewer rights.

Woa, I just noticed that you're an idiot! The Schiavo comment gave it away!

I don't think I wanna play ball anymore. Keep it up without me!

Toodles! :p
 
Zep said:
And once again, I find it amazing that there seems to be only two alternatives being considered here: death penalty OR incarceration in a gaol cell. Where's the imagination? Even the Romans had oubliettes.
Click to expand...

We should bring back gladiator games.
 
Originally posted by BPSCG Life on U.S. death row makes inmates want to die
Click to expand...

I hesitate to sound "cruel", but mostly these people have done worse to others, so pity is perhaps misplaced. On the other hand behaving like them is no better and perhaps one should reintroduce that old Greek custom of offering a way out via something like hemlock, I believe. Their choice. That's fair to the victims and the perpetrator, is it not?
 
Bruce said:
I know a few Christians that I'd like to feed to the lions during half-time. :j2:
Click to expand...

These convicts already have showbiz names.

The Green River Killer vs. The Unabomber.
 
Ex Lion Tamer said:
Woa, I just noticed that you're an idiot!
Click to expand...
This from someone who found himself arguing that charity is a right.
 
So, the fact that some death row inmates want to be executed, is supposed to support the death penalty stance. Actually, it would appear to do the opposite. It proves that life in prison without parole is a pretty damn effective punishment.

Of course, it's all about the money right. All that money that you, as a taxpayer, are dishing out to keep lifers behind bars. Hence, it's only logical to kill them off. Gotta save a few bucks!
 
Luke T. said:
Which always leads me to point out that it is even cheaper to just set them free.
Click to expand...
A statement that is:
A) Idiotic and
B) Almost certainly not true.
 
BPSCG said:
This from someone who found himself arguing that charity is a right.
Click to expand...
From you own definition of a social contract:

"Thus, the rights (and responsibilities) of individuals are the terms of the social contract, and the state is the entity created for the purpose of enforcing that contract. Also, the people may change the terms of the contract if they so desire; rights and responsibilities are not fixed or "natural""
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom