The Death Penalty: Chinese style.

[X]

To me it is more serious to kill two people than to kill one. I think society has to draw the line somewhere, but that's up to a jury. I definitely think that guy in Norway who killed 65 or what ever the number was deserves the death penalty.

Heck, Eisenhower approved of a US soldier getting the firing squad for desertion during War World 2. He drew the line at a very serious time during the war.

That is not an answer to Hokulele's question.

 

[MRC_Hans]

To me it is more serious to kill two people than to kill one.

OK, mostly I think so, too.

I think society has to draw the line somewhere, but that's up to a jury. I definitely think that guy in Norway who killed 65 or what ever the number was deserves the death penalty.

I think you were asked where YOU draw the line. So far it seems to be somewhere between 1 and 65. Do you think you could be a bit more specific? And what about context? What if someone goes berserk, fires wildy around him and kills three people. Is that better or worse than killing three people, carefully planned, at different times?

You see, IF you are going to have death penalty, you need to be able to be VERY specific about these things, otherwise some silly little detail could mean the difference between life and death for someone.

Heck, Eisenhower approved of a US soldier getting the firing squad for desertion during War World 2. He drew the line at a very serious time during the war.

I suggest we leave martial law out of the discussion, for the time being.

Hans

 

[zooterkin]

To me it is more serious to kill two people than to kill one. I think society has to draw the line somewhere, but that's up to a jury.

In which jurisdictions does the jury hand down a sentence, or put the range of possible sentences on the statute book?

I definitely think that guy in Norway who killed 65 or what ever the number was deserves the death penalty.

Ok, how much lower would you go? 30? 15? 5?

Heck, Eisenhower approved of a US soldier getting the firing squad for desertion during War World 2. He drew the line at a very serious time during the war.

Do you approve?

 

[Mojo]

To me it is more serious to kill two people than to kill one. I think society has to draw the line somewhere, but that's up to a jury. I definitely think that guy in Norway who killed 65 or what ever the number was deserves the death penalty.

What about the guy who, according to you, killed over 400,000 in Haiti, Thailand, and Indonesia?

 

[joobz]

To me it is more serious to kill two people than to kill one.

So you advocate killing someone who killed two or more people.
ok.

Heck, Eisenhower approved of a US soldier getting the firing squad for desertion during War World 2. He drew the line at a very serious time during the war.

Wait. Now you are supporting the killing of people who didn't kill anyone.

 

[Hokulele]

Wait. Now you are supporting the killing people who didn't kill anyone.

Even better, he supports the death penalty for someone who tries to avoid killing people.

 

[DOC]

Even better, he supports the death penalty for someone who tries to avoid killing people.

Nice guess but incorrect. Actually, that soldier who got the firing squad, deserted after facing the German artillery for awhile which no doubt could be a terrifying experience. He was given multiple chances to return to his unit but would not; since he did jail time back in the states before the war he said he would prefer jail to the front. Basically one officer said they owed it to the guys who didn't desert to take a stand. He was the only soldier in the war executed for desertion. They made a movie about the incident, something Eddie Slovik.

 

[Amazer]

Nice guess but incorrect. Actually, that soldier who got the firing squad, deserted after facing the German artillery for awhile which no doubt could be a terrifying experience. He was given multiple chances to return to his unit but would not; since he did jail time back in the states before the war he said he would prefer jail to the front. Basically one officer said they owed it to the guys who didn't desert to take a stand. He was the only soldier in the war executed for desertion. They made a movie about the incident, something Eddie Slovik.

Can you at least try and stop derailing your own threads?

And perhaps try answering X's question... if it's not too much to ask.

 

[DOC]

Can you at least try and stop derailing your own threads?

Hokulele made a misleading statement, which is why I had to continue.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hokulele made a misleading statement, which is why I had to continue.

OK, you did. Now, back to our show. Answers?

Hans

 

[joobz]

Nice guess but incorrect. Actually, that soldier who got the firing squad, deserted after facing the German artillery for awhile which no doubt could be a terrifying experience. He was given multiple chances to return to his unit but would not; since he did jail time back in the states before the war he said he would prefer jail to the front.

So he was refusing to kill people. Got it.

Basically one officer said they owed it to the guys who didn't desert to take a stand. He was the only soldier in the war executed for desertion. They made a movie about the incident, something Eddie Slovik.

Ok,so the state had to kill the guy who didn't want to kill Germans so that the people who were killing germans wouldn't be encouraged to stop killing germans.

Now that You have defended the practice of killing citizens who refuse to go to war, perhaps you can explain how this is any better than China's use of the death penalty?

 

[DOC]

DOC: Is your argument in this thread that China uses capital punishment because it's not Christian enough?

I think the more Christian they become the less capital punishment you will see and the more freedom the people they will see. History shows the more communistic a country is the less personal freedom there is.

If so, the notion is shown for the absurd non-starter it is by the fact that Christian scripture supports capital punishment, and the Catholic Church supports capital punishment based on scriptures, and that you yourself support capital punishment due to your Christianity.

Someone should like their chances of committing a murder in a Christian country over committing a murder in a communist atheistic country. Commit murder in China or North Korea and see what happens.

And the Catholic Church feels the death penalty should very very rarely be used. Remember how the pope requested of George W. Bush to not execute that women about 15 years ago but he didn't.

 

[joobz]

I think the more Christian they become the less capital punishment you will see and the more freedom the people they will see. History shows the more communistic a country is the less personal freedom there is.

communism and christian are not opposites.

Someone should like their chances of committing a murder in a Christian country over committing a murder in a communist atheistic country. Commit murder in China or North Korea and see what happens.

What about in the atheistic European countries vs. the US?

And the Catholic Church feels the death penalty should very very rarely be used. Remember how the pope requested of George W. Bush to not execute that women about 15 years ago but he didn't.

except when the catholic Church did support murder and torture?

 

[Cleon]

I think the more Christian they become the less capital punishment you will see and the more freedom the people they will see.

Yeah, those centuries when the Church was running society in Europe were known for their respect for human rights and tolerance of others.

...In that lovely parallel universe you seem to inhabit.

 

[X]

I think the more Christian they become the less capital punishment you will see and the more freedom the people they will see. History shows the more communistic a country is the less personal freedom there is.

Thank you for answering my question.

In summary: Yes, your position is that China uses the death penalty because it isn't Christian enough. But given that you (a Christian) do not object to the death penalty, and even support it in some cases, how can you claim to object to China's imposition of the death penalty? Is your whole problem that China does not base their laws around your religion? Even though the punishments are the same? If so, that's a problem you have to fix for yourself. I'll help you get started: It's called xenophobia.

Look, I'll lay it out simply:
China: Uses capital punishment.
America: Uses capital punishment.
Christian Scripture: Supports capital punishment.
Catholic Church: Supports capital punishment.
DOC: Supports Capital punishment, but not in China, because it's not Christian.

If it looks absurd, that's because it is.
(And if you want to get a sense for how I view it, replace "capital punishment" with "cold-blooded murder".

Using your religion as a means to condemn China for a practice you support is hypocritical. It is easy to see that you are simply using your religion as a cover for your xenophobia. The sooner you admit that you have culture-based prejudices, the sooner you can either work to fix them or simply accept that you are imperfect. Either way, you'll stop trying to whack others over the head with your prejudices and become a better person.

If you come back and protest that it's not the death penalty itself you object to, but rather the apparently cavalier way in which China hands it down, then we're back to the other part of my original question:

If [your argument is not that China kills people because it's not Christian enough], then why on earth are your bringing your god-bothering into this discussion?

Which is it?

Someone should like their chances of committing a murder in a Christian country over committing a murder in a communist atheistic country. Commit murder in China or North Korea and see what happens.

Their chances? You probably don't mean that I have a better chance of killing someone in a Christian country. I suspect you are referring to punishment. And so what? Execution is execution. I'm pretty sure being dead is the same in China, North Korea and America.

And the Catholic Church feels the death penalty should very very rarely be used. Remember how the pope requested of George W. Bush to not execute that women about 15 years ago but he didn't.

Bush didn't what? Didn't execute the woman or didn't listen to the church?
Obviously, I don't remember. I'm not American, and I don't stay informed on ever past news even coming from the country to my South. Especially ones that occurred when I was about 14, and had more important things on my developing mind (like girls, and cycling, and girls, and swimming, and girls).

But my point was not about under what conditions the Catholic church supports the death penalty. It's that it supports it at all. Surely an institution claiming to be a model and teacher of morality would be more moral if it didn't support killing people for any reason.