Will that be one bullet or two?

[heathergives]

https://menafn.com/updates/pr/2019-04/28/P_6a4565f8-8image_story.jpg

 

[HisArpy]

I hate the fallacy of the exception when the Left uses it, do you think then that I approve of it when the right uses it?

I am against the death penalty, but if we are going to prove how barbaric we still are, I have no problem with any means used to carry out the primitive rites...

I will note, as I do often when it comes to subjective valuation, your extreme case today tends to become almost normative and then it allows for the next almost-as-eggregious an example to be included into the execution pool and as the pool grows, it gets harder and harder to define where exactly you think it should end, because you don't get to make the decision. When it comes to subjective measure, you are just one and in order to make your vision true, you have to compromise with those of a different vision. This is why I try to stick to the more Objective standard of jurisprudence.

Jurisprudence, in my experience, consists of the viewpoints of the collective individuals who make up society tempered by reason.

The Death Penalty serves a purpose. Whether it does so poorly or well, is irrelevant to the purpose it serves since it is the tool which society chooses to use to address that purpose. As to whether it encompasses some sort of "floating" tipping point, you are correct. Where you go wrong is that the determination on when to call for the Death Penalty is based on historical and legal standards. From there, it it up to a jury to decide during deliberations if the facts warrant such a penalty. And then that determination is reviewed by the courts yet again.

These provisions serve to limit abuses of the Death Penalty to only those cases which truly deserve such a punishment. Yet, the claims against it's use are that some people have been wrongly convicted and executed. Which isn't a valid argument against the penalty, but instead is an argument that the evidence was improperly presented, deliberated, and examined at each and every step of the way. Which is an indicator that the standards of evidence and appellate review, not the degree of punishment, are what need to be looked at.

Unfortunately, such an argument is not as appealing emotionally as one which decries the Death Penalty in toto.

I will also note that mass slaughter appears to have increased in frequency with the decline of the use of the Death Penalty. There may be studies out there on this topic; however, it doesn't interest me enough to go looking for them and wading through the hysterical trash most will consist of. In the place of such, I merely state my observations and opinion that since the 1970's, when the Death Penalty fell out of favor, incidents of mass slaughter have increased.

 

[DMBFFF]

Harvest the condemned for organs. He (or she, though such is rarer) has taken life, he must now give it.


Maybe sell the organs to the highest bidder.

 

[Ramone45]

https://menafn.com/updates/pr/2019-04/28/P_6a4565f8-8image_story.jpg

That seems quick and painless.

 

[Matthew Craig]

Harvest the condemned for organs. He (or she, though such is rarer) has taken life, he must now give it.


Maybe sell the organs to the highest bidder.

You obviously failed your human rights 101 class, progressive nazi.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Jurisprudence, in my experience, consists of the viewpoints of the collective individuals who make up society tempered by reason.

The Death Penalty serves a purpose. Whether it does so poorly or well, is irrelevant to the purpose it serves since it is the tool which society chooses to use to address that purpose. As to whether it encompasses some sort of "floating" tipping point, you are correct. Where you go wrong is that the determination on when to call for the Death Penalty is based on historical and legal standards. From there, it it up to a jury to decide during deliberations if the facts warrant such a penalty. And then that determination is reviewed by the courts yet again.

These provisions serve to limit abuses of the Death Penalty to only those cases which truly deserve such a punishment. Yet, the claims against it's use are that some people have been wrongly convicted and executed. Which isn't a valid argument against the penalty, but instead is an argument that the evidence was improperly presented, deliberated, and examined at each and every step of the way. Which is an indicator that the standards of evidence and appellate review, not the degree of punishment, are what need to be looked at.

Unfortunately, such an argument is not as appealing emotionally as one which decries the Death Penalty in toto.

I will also note that mass slaughter appears to have increased in frequency with the decline of the use of the Death Penalty. There may be studies out there on this topic; however, it doesn't interest me enough to go looking for them and wading through the hysterical trash most will consist of. In the place of such, I merely state my observations and opinion that since the 1970's, when the Death Penalty fell out of favor, incidents of mass slaughter have increased.

Yes, all good arguments of the heart, but very much subjective arguments that justify your particular stand on who should die. You, and others have tried to personalize the argument, to turn it into an argument of the most egregious and now you engage in post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

In the example given in your summation, you imply that the death penalty would deter the mass shooter, which is a powerful emotional rhetorical advice, "But SC, look at all the people that would still be alive if I had my way!"

But, 'but' is a very powerful word in which I now reply, BUT in most mass shootings, the shooter, in fact ends up dead, leaves a manifesto to explain why he died and then dies at the end, often by his own hand.

I find your arguments arguments of passion about a crime of passion.
The threat of a death penalty clearly does not preclude the use or the unleashing of passion.

The question is, and remains, should we use the state as a tool of revenge?
for that is what the death penalty is.
Take all of your arguments and replace 'death penalty' with abortion and answer me, are these not the same (types of) arguments?

 

[oneblueye]

hey...

I believe Russian executions are the most effective...
one to the back of the head on the way back to the courtroom for sentencing.

 

[Liar]

https://data.whicdn.com/images/71536322/original.gif

I mean, if you're gonna do it, here's a proven method.

 

[OldJourno]

That's exactly what the proponent of abortion proclaims because it is in the here and now and expedient problem-solving. Many years later, when the woman has time to reflect and contemplate upon her life, no one is there for her in her time of regret. She might even face harsh penalties such as being societally ostracized for having left the faith.

Remorse is an emotion which tends to be less immediate when working within the parameters of the motivated mob.

Abortion remorse is not confined to women.

 

[cleaver]

Harvest the condemned for organs. He (or she, though such is rarer) has taken life, he must now give it.


Maybe sell the organs to the highest bidder.

You obviously failed your human rights 101 class, progressive nazi.

a song

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, all good arguments of the heart, but very much subjective arguments that justify your particular stand on who should die. You, and others have tried to personalize the argument, to turn it into an argument of the most egregious and now you engage in post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

In the example given in your summation, you imply that the death penalty would deter the mass shooter, which is a powerful emotional rhetorical advice, "But SC, look at all the people that would still be alive if I had my way!"

But, 'but' is a very powerful word in which I now reply, BUT in most mass shootings, the shooter, in fact ends up dead, leaves a manifesto to explain why he died and then dies at the end, often by his own hand.

I find your arguments arguments of passion about a crime of passion.
The threat of a death penalty clearly does not preclude the use or the unleashing of passion.

The question is, and remains, should we use the state as a tool of revenge?
for that is what the death penalty is.
Take all of your arguments and replace 'death penalty' with abortion and answer me, are these not the same (types of) arguments?

IMO, it's not a tool of "revenge" but one of ultimate ostracism.

At some point society has the right and power to eliminate those miscreants who have gone beyond the limits of a peaceful and law-abiding society's tolerance.

Those who lie in wait to ambush the unsuspecting. Who, engage in mass slaughter. Who torture before they kill. The list of those for whom the death penalty is appropriate is narrow, but ultimately it is a list of behaviors which no society should have to tolerate from any individual. Not in the first place, and certainly not with any possibility for a second offense of the same. As such, society has the power to eliminate them before they can harm society again.

Even life in prison harms society because society must pay for their keep. Why? Why burden society with that obligation when the money can be used for other good projects rather than to prolong the life of one who is no longer part of society and will never be a part of society again?

The death penalty eliminates punishing society for the wrongs of those few by eliminating the ones who offend so badly that there is no place in society for them. Not now. Not in the future. Not ever.

BTW, where would you put a serial killer like the night stalker or Jeffery Dahmer if "people can change" and such a person was granted a release from prison? What city or neighborhood would accept them?

The idea of releasing a death penalty eligible killer on the basis of personal or emotional beliefs isn't something a rational society will comprehend. Perhaps individuals may, but society in general will not.

Beyond that, as I said earlier, your beliefs are laudable and I support your choice and views in this as your choices and views. Ultimately however, they are not ones I share.