The Glade 4.0

_________________
Raell Kromwell

It most certainly is murder.



There is a reason we pay restitution to people who are wrongfully imprisoned.



Recently in Texas, a man was executed for a crime he very clearly did not commit. He was convicted with poor evidence, evidence that was later debunked with better testimony and a greater understanding of fire science. Gov. Perry basically argued that the institution of Capital Punishment is more important than one man's life.

Just because a jury finds you guilty doesn't mean you are actually guilty of the crime. If we take an innocent person's life, that's murder. You can call it manslaughter, I suppose, but in the end, we killed them.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Restitution may be paid if a person is wrongfully imprisoned, but it still isn't kidnapping. Its...well...wrongful imprisonment.

Words have certain meanings that imply certain things. You take words that have a strong emotional impact, and try to apply them in places where they clearly don't belong, in order to use the emotional impact of the word.

It really is annoying as it makes communication difficult. Are you using the real defnition of some word, or are you using your own made up definition of the word.

Weren't you the one complaining about xupposed "nuh uh" tactics?

No, it's not murder. If a person is lawfully executed it cannot be murder because murder, by definition, is unlawful killing.



So what? That still doesn't make it kidnapping to imprison them in the first place. We do that so that they can salvage something of what's left of their life, not because they were the subject of any injustice in being convicted.



So? I believe I made it clear I see no problem there.



Except that it's not murder, just as it's not kidnapping to jail them, as long as its done lawfully.

Sometimes innocent people get convicted. A perfect system is not ever going to happen. I think I've made it perfectly clear I don't see any issue with the idea that once in a great while someone may get executed when they were innocent. As long as it doesn't happen because of someone in the justice system engaging in misconduct I'm ok with that. We all doe eventually.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So, just to be clear, so long as the state says you are guilty, then you are guilty, weather you did the crime or not. And if it's a capital case, the State has the right to kill you, even if you are innocent. And it's not murder if they do.

What ever happened to "better a thousand guilty men go free..."?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

So, some case is made against you. You are identified by eyewitnesses as being the maniac that gunned down the schoolmarm and half her class of fifth grade children. No hard evidence links you to the killings but you have no alibi and the only bullets they were able to find came from a gun like yours, but they were totally deformed, ballistics inconclusive.

You are tried, convicted, sentenced to die. Several appeals go for naught.

You know you are innocent, but hey, this happens rarely, so, no big deal, eh? You get executed, real killer goes free, heck no one is even looking for him anymore, they got you for it.

Still, its cool, here, use this vein, it is easier to access.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I don't have a huge moral issue with the death penalty, the issue is there aren't really any demonstrated benefits. Executions cost more than life imprisonment, and I've seen studies that show it doesn't even deter crime. The occasional wrongful execution might be a small downside but it's still a downside. What are we getting out of it to make it worth the cost?

Just a clarification, X, the executions don't cost more, it's the (near) endless appeals and super-special lockdown that cost so much.

The issue, that I've seen demonstrated regarding deterrance is that executions take so long that they lose the deterrance factor. The studies I've seen relay that in order for deterrence to be effective, punishment must be perceived by actual and potential future perpetrators as being rapid, sure, and severe.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

In that case you're wasting your time responding to tactics I don't use.. although you apparently don't have any objection to doing so yourself.



Not at all. Pointing out that a word is ot being used according to its definition is not circular logic at all. Evidently you don't understand circular logic. Read it carefully again on Wikipedia.



We do? When did you start speaking for everyone? I don't. I see it as an unfortunate occurance wherein society should make an effort to make ammends to the person imprisoned because of the actions of some of its members, but it is not an injustice.



Wow, could you possibly make a more obvious strawman? "If the state says you're guilty" you get a trial, appeals, the whole nine yards, in front of a jury and various appeals judges. At what point did I ever advocate throwing out the idea of trials, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, appeals, or anything like that?

It's not the state saying your're guilty that gets you executed, it's the jury saying you're guilty, tht they're also sure enough you're guilty to impose the death penalty, and then various judges agreeing with them.



Absolutely nothing, and the saying is "ten guilt men", not a thousand. The saying does not just mean that it's better to allow a guilty man to get off than convict an innocent one, it also acknowledges that there is a limit at which that no longer applies, or no one can ever be held accountable lest we find by some bizzare occurance they are innocent.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's also easy to invent oversimplified scenarios and presume that there's a real chance they'll occur. "No physical evidence"? All the shell casings magically disappeared?

Scenarios like this one suck massive amounts of ***. They engage in enormous unspoken background assumptions to make them work, assumptions that there is no good reason to think will happen in practice,

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Lol. Can't believe this one ...

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

If you walked up to someone and stuck a needle in their arm and gave them a lethal injection, it would be murder. You can pretty it up any way you want, but semantics don't change the reality of what the state does when an innocent man is executed. Hell, even when guilty men are executed, the state is committing murder.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I do not fault your position on the death penalty. The opinions are varied and such... BUT; how can you justify making this stance on life here, but support abortion? How is abortion not just murder as well? It is still the taking of a life.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I see this argument way too often. It's also not logically sound, as it ignores the "pro-choice" view that a clump of cells without any semblance of sentience is not yet a human life.

Personally, I would be completely in favor of the death penalty if several other considerations were easy to deal with: (1) I don't want to give my government the power to execute its citizens, because those in power always abuse it, and (2) I don't trust that the legal system gets the right guy--even overwhelming evidence can be a frame job or manufactured evidence. Even one case of executing an innocent person makes all of society into tyrannical killers and is inexcusable to me. So while I have nothing ethically against killing some murdering jackass who deserves it, I can never support allowing the death penalty.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This pretty much perfectly sums up my stance on the death penalty.

No they aren't. Killing someone is not the same thing as murdering someone. It's murder if I walk up and kill someone with a lethal injection because I don't have any legal power to do so.

murder



Note that both definitions pertaining to the law refer to killing under conditions specified by law; i.e. killing illegally. The other definitions are all ways of using "murder" as an idiom.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It doesn't ignore it, it recognizes that the view is incorrect.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Incorrect based on which facts?
It's a different strand of thinking. One looks at what could be and the other looks at what is current.
The smart thing would be to look at each case individually and let the people involved decide on the best out come, but that would take away the fun of intruding into other people's lives.

The alternative ignores the "pro-death penalty" view that once you are convicted of a crime that would be punished by the death penalty.. the person who was convicted of the crime is now a felon who gets no rights or perks and is sentenced to die for the crime they were convicted of.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

That would assume that one is capable of making the determination, which we are currently unable to make without a leap of faith. Even if the leap is only 4 inches...

I come from the pro-choice; pro-death penalty group. If you are willing to end a life that has not had a chance to do any wrong... ya might as well be willing to end a life of one who has done wrong. And I see nothing wrong with being pro-choice... but I will not pretend to have a problem with the death penalty.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I guess we should always have a pretrial to make sure during a murder that the person killed was a human being? I mean if enough people can agree the law can change to be 3/5ths of a person, or a serf or slave so not a person, or a Jew or faggot so not a person. I mean if what a human life is is so subjective this makes sense doesn't it?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

If you agree that living human's have rights you are forced by biology to give them to a human fetus. There exists no logical escape. Thats the thing about facts and logic it often leads places that people aren't willing to go.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Except that you're not using facts or logic.

Why do humans have rights? Don't say "it's my baseline assumption"; there's a reason you're making that assumption. What is it? Why do humans have them but dogs do not?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't really care how someone comes to that understanding - so long as they do.

How do you arrive at it?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I didn't ask how someone does, I asked how you do.

Answer the question... or are you afraid to?

My money is on the latter. I expect to see a lot of high-handed nonsense, but ultimaltely no answer to "what leads Elmo to assume that human beings have inherent rights?" Specifically property rights; I seem to recall you claiming all other rights derive from those because one owns onesself.

How do you know that a person owns himself but a dog does not own itself?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."