Control Your Weeping

[RandFan]

You mean turn Australia into a penal colony?

Nahhh... it would never work.

heh heh.... you said penal.

 

[Tony]

Whence comes my obligation to pay for his support?

Probably from the same place as your obligation to pay taxes. Where that is, I don’t really know. Let me know when you find it.

 

[Tony]

If someone rapes and kills, I think that person deserves to die. The problem is finding guilt or innocence, a task I don't trust the state to properly handle. As has been said before, I also have a problem with state sanctioned killings, mostly due to the fact that the state rarely has the moral authority to carry out such punishments.

 

[punchdrunk]

And I also fervently support my right to have my tax dollars not put to use paying to keep alive the guy who raped and killed them (I know, someone's gonna pop in here now and point out that's not technically a right...).

Anti-death penalty people often claim that it actually costs more to put someone to death than keep them alive for a life sentence. If true, does that make a difference in your thinking?

Oh, BTW, I am opposed to cruel and unusual punishments; it's wrong to execute a criminal in such a way that would cause unwarranted suffering. So, since it was established several weeks ago that it is a peaceful way of dying, I propose that he be starved to death.

But, but, but....

 

[aerocontrols]

What if they had life without parole, with all of the other conditions being the same?

I hope he doesn't kill anyone when he's in prison, then. Or rape anyone. I guess if he does, we can give him life + 5 years.

 

[Jocko]

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.

Learn who, the felons or the Australians?

Ohhh.... I get it.

 

[BPSCG]

Probably from the same place as your obligation to pay taxes. Where that is, I don’t really know. Let me know when you find it.

Nice attempt to dodge the question. My obligation to pay taxes comes from the fact that I want the benefits of civilized society, and those benefits cost money. If you want something that isn't an innate right, you have to pay for it.

Now, whence comes my obligation to pay for the support of a vicious murderer? What do I get in exchange for providing his food, clothing, shelter, and medical care? From where does a vicious murderer derive the right to be supported by my tax dollars? I assume you are not a vicious murderer; do you have the right to be supported by my tax dollars? If not, why does the murderer have the rights that you, a law-abiding citizen, do not?

 

[Tony]

Nice attempt to dodge the question.

No dodge intended.

Now, whence comes my obligation to pay for the support of a vicious murderer? What do I get in exchange for providing his food, clothing, shelter, and medical care?

I looks like you did an astounding job of answering that question yourself:

My obligation...comes from the fact that I want the benefits of civilized society.

 

[Kerberos]

Now, whence comes my obligation to pay for the support of a vicious murderer? What do I get in exchange for providing his food, clothing, shelter, and medical care?

The assurance that if it is later discovered he was innocent after all, he can be released. I personally don’t have any major problems with executions of people who’s guilt has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, but no system is perfect.

From where does a vicious murderer derive the right to be supported by my tax dollars?

From the same place that a slightly less vicious murderer, who hasn't gotten the death sentence, derives his right to be supported by your tax dollars.

 

[Orwell]

Yes it is, but it doesn't answer the question I asked, which was, "Do you believe this guy has the right to food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for the rest of his natural life, at my expense and that of the rest of society? If so, what would he have had to do to lose that right?"

I'd rather have them living at society's expense than give to society the right to kill them. You obviously are not in favour of killing non-violent offenders (I think). Yet, the state has to feed them when they're put behind bars. Where do you draw the line?

In that case, I have decided to quit my job, and I expect you will provide me with all of the essentials of life, as is my right.

I shall duly inform my family, my friends, and my neighbors of the same.

I would thank you for your offer, but I don't thank people for providing me what is rightfully mine.

That's a "curious" interpretation of what I said. If you were starving, I would consider it immoral to deprive you of food or of the means to obtain food. Acknowledging that food is a fundamental necessity to which people have a right doesn't oblige me, or anyone else, to provide you with food forever. But it does mean that we should help if you are, for some reason, unable to feed yourself by your own means. You could ask "what if I refuse to do anything to feed myself"? Well, I don't think anyone would willingly starve out of laziness... Normally, at least. Maybe people with mental health problems would, I dunno.

 

[Roadtoad]

It's one thing if there's a question of guilt. But in the cases we're seeing discussed in this thread, there's isn't any.

Frankly, I would think that if there were absolutely NO question of guilt, it would be in society's best interest to carry out a very swift execution. (And please, note, I said in the event that there was no question at all of guilt, that any attempt at a stay or an attempt to overturn would merely be an attempt to prolong the process, to age the case, and maybe hope for a turn towards a more liberal court makeup.) Frankly, I'm disappointed that Sirhan Sirhan is still alive, that I'm still supporting Richard Allen Davis, that Juan Corona is still fat and happy at Corcoran State Prison.

If you have someone who truly has a diminished capacity, or someone where there may be some possible sign that they're innocent, then you cannot execute them until there's no question whatsoever.

We've already seen multiple instances where overzealous cops or DAs falsified evidence. We've seen cases overturned in Illinois where it turned out guys were on Death Row for crimes they didn't commit, which was verified by DNA testing.

We're already seeing at least once case where Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is suggesting someone went to his death who might have been innocent.

Scary business, kids. And need I remind anyone about Ruben "Hurricane" Carter?

 

[chocolatepossum]

What if they had life without parole, with all of the other conditions being the same?

Well, a good bit of what goes towards making the time on death row "worse than death" as I said, is (I imagine) the threat of execution hanging over you.

I just meant that you shouldn't be putting potentially innocent people in a situation that would make them want to go to the chair rather than fighting their case in court (even if they are actually innocent) and then stepping in and killing them when they give up.

 

[BPSCG]

I looks like you did an astounding job of answering that question yourself:

My obligation...comes from the fact that I want the benefits of civilized society.

So are you re claiming that one of the benefits of a civilized society is keeping a vicious murderer alive? Odd, that. Maybe we should import other countries' vicious murderers and support them, too, so we can be even more civilized.

 

[BPSCG]

You obviously are not in favour of killing non-violent offenders (I think).

Don't put words in my mouth.

Yet, the state has to feed them when they're put behind bars. Where do you draw the line?

When the criminal has irreparably broken the social contract between him and society.

That's a "curious" interpretation of what I said. If you were starving, I would consider it immoral to deprive you of food or of the means to obtain food.

But would that give me the right to your food? Or the right to your money so I could buy food?

Acknowledging that food is a fundamental necessity to which people have a right doesn't oblige me, or anyone else, to provide you with food forever.

That's what I've been saying all along. But you said people have a right to food:

I would say that everyone has a right to the essentials of life...

. 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?
• 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?

But it does mean that we should help if you are, for some reason, unable to feed yourself by your own means.

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.

 

[Tony]

So are you re claiming that one of the benefits of a civilized society is keeping a vicious murderer alive?

That's a strawman. I'm not claiming anything. I have yet to opine in our exchange.

 

[Jocko]

I'd rather have them living at society's expense than give to society the right to kill them. You obviously are not in favour of killing non-violent offenders (I think). Yet, the state has to feed them when they're put behind bars. Where do you draw the line?

Er, how about drawing it between mundane and heinous offenses? Oh, wait, we have. Look up "capital crime" if you need details.

That's a "curious" interpretation of what I said. If you were starving, I would consider it immoral to deprive you of food or of the means to obtain food. Acknowledging that food is a fundamental necessity to which people have a right doesn't oblige me, or anyone else, to provide you with food forever. But it does mean that we should help if you are, for some reason, unable to feed yourself by your own means. You could ask "what if I refuse to do anything to feed myself"? Well, I don't think anyone would willingly starve out of laziness... Normally, at least. Maybe people with mental health problems would, I dunno.

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.

 

[Jocko]

I think we're all missing the point here.

Who can argue that it's MORE inhumane to execute a criminal who WANTS to die?

How he/she came to prefer death is a point that I, frankly, cannot be bothered with.

 

[Skeptic]

I fervently support the right of Dzung Ngoc Tu, Paula Perrera, Tammy Williams, Debra Smith, Taylor Robin Stavinksy, April Brunias, Leslie Shelley, and Wendy Baribeault to not be raped and killed.

Good thing you mentioned them--they seem to mysteriously disappear from some people's deep concern for the well-being of humanity. Only the murderer gets attention if, heavens forbid, he is depressed after living on death row awaiting execution. Strange.

 

[fishbob]

So are you re claiming that one of the benefits of a civilized society is keeping a vicious murderer alive? Odd, that. Maybe we should import other countries' vicious murderers and support them, too, so we can be even more civilized.

Originally posted by BPSCG Don't put words in my mouth.

Not that I'm not disagreeing with your position, but right now I am busy disagreeing with your BS tactics.

 

[Roadtoad]

I fervently support the right of Dzung Ngoc Tu, Paula Perrera, Tammy Williams, Debra Smith, Taylor Robin Stavinksy, April Brunias, Leslie Shelley, and Wendy Baribeault to not be raped and killed.

Good thing you mentioned them--they seem to mysteriously disappear from some people's deep concern for the well-being of humanity. Only the murderer gets attention if, heavens forbid, he is depressed after living on death row awaiting execution. Strange.

It's unfortunate, but keep in mind that it's the killer on Death Row who has the attorney. For the most part, the rights of the victims have been set aside so that the rights of the State can take the fore.

Since this has been the case, we've made it easier to forget the victims, Skeptic. It's wrong, but that's what we have given ourselves.