DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Stanley "Tookie" Williams.. Thoughts?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 219, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/13/2005 10:11:32 AM · #51
Originally posted by moondoggie:

I find myself in agreement with DrAchoo. Christianity constantly call us to walk the path of Christ. This implies acting as Christ would, not as God would. Christ explicitly implored us not to judge and condemn others but instead to forgive as we have been forgiven. Leave the judgement and retribution to God. For us here on earth, it is enough to simply try and find the strength to forgive, as that simple act requires much greater strength than does revenge.


A couple of points for you to consider. It sounds as though your position of being "christ like" rather than "God like" draws its distinction between judgement/retribution and forgiveness. I believe that both can occur simultaneousely. The relationship that we are to understand between us and our Father is one of parent vs. child. In each family, the parents have responsibility to teach, correct, and discipline. The children have the responsibility to learn and become educated in the ways of their parents. When children choose to behave detrimental to the parents teachings, then the parent must correct and in some cases discipline. This process continues until either the desired result is obtained or the child is forsaken by their own stubborn choices. The parents forgive the child their transgressions, however the correction and subsequent discipline are still metted out.

Few parents can imagine a scenario whereby they would not forgive their own child(ren) a transgression, and it is likewise with our Father. We are welcome back "home", regardless of our past behavior. However, there is a limit to our "Fathers" (read parents) forgiveness. If we continue to behave in defiance of his teachings, if we continue to disregard the corrections and disciplines metted out, then at some point we will be unwelcome at his house. That is why he has set aside another place for those who refuse to love him. It is this way with all parents. A child can be soo disobedient, for soo long that they are no longer welcome at the parents house.

The discipline of Tookie Williams is not to be abhored. It was a secular decision made by a jury and upheld. It was in accordance with State Law. The religious component between Father and son will be carried out in accordance with the same principles illustrated in families around the world every day. If Tookie sought forgiveness from his Father and a place at his table, then I\'m certain he found it. However, the discipline was still administered. Just as it would be in your house.

the fact that it took 24 years to occurr is the true travesty

Message edited by author 2005-12-13 10:20:41.
12/13/2005 10:27:25 AM · #52
My thoughts on the death penalty in general:

Firstly, it should only be used when absolute evidence or a guilty plea is available, that means caught on video, DNA evidence, we found your semen in the dead 7 yr old girl.

Second, it should be delivered quickly in such cases so that it functions as a deterrent. The Tookie case is a rare exception in that there was enough notoriety that it drew awareness. But in most cases, we wait 20 yrs before executing the death penalty and at which point no one even remembers the individual. It has no effect on the current gang members. Gangs, who often use the beating and/or killing of people as "entrance exams".

Thirdly, due to the fact that most criminals are repeat offenders and numerous violent individuals who have (or should have had) life sentences and are released only to commit the same or worse crimes. Some assurance must be given to society to remove these members from it.

If we had a system that assured the following:

a) that a violent criminal could never be released to commit violence and harm again

b) a system that allowed said detainees to work in supporting their own sustenance (yes, I believe all prisoners should be in work programs - I have to work all day to have food and a roof over my head, why should misbehaving get you out of such. No, criminals should not have Xboxes, cable TV and Playstations.)

If these two items above were ensured than I support the abolishing of the death penalty. But they're not...far from it.

***

Sure it's hard to tell the mother of a man about to be executed "we are killing your son" but it's even harder to tell the father of a young college student that "your daughter was brutally raped and murdered by a convicted murder/rapist we released back into society"

Frankly, if I've got to choose the death of one or the other, I'll choose the guilty party.

Originally posted by "Rae-Ann":

OK...the death penalty...costs more then life in prison...


The only reason it costs more than life in prison is because of the legal fees and the constant legal fight of whether the death penalty is right or not. And the fact, that by the time most criminals receive the execution of the death penalty, many have served near life terms. People arguing in support of the death penalty, particularly for it just in absolute cases want a "speedy" execution. In which case it won't even cost 1/1000th of the cost.

Originally posted by "DrAchoo":

However, as I looked at the question again later in life I realized that the only time Christ addresses captial punishment, when He confronts the adultress, He refuses to allow her execution."


Yes, he refused to let a mob execute mob justice. That's much different than government justice. Furthermore, even by Jewish law the case was a mistrial. The accusers claimed to have caught her in the act. But where was the man. If they caught her in the act then they caught the man as well. And they must by law bring both forward.

The land of Judea had lost the authority to pronounce capital punishment. This is why they had to deliver Jesus up to Pontus Pilate. They no longer had authority to pronounce capital justice. Thus, the actions of the men, the mob, to bring the adulteress for judgment were completely illegal.

Secondly, Christ also showed that at times forced was needed. Read the passage about making the whip and chasing the thieves (priest's merchants) out of the temple.

The issue is this, we've got bleedy heart liberals who want to have everyone one reformed and release. And thus our "life sentences" mean jack. And we constantly release convicted criminals on bare minimum time only to have them rape the widow and make the orphans.

Keep them locked up, treat them civily, and work them to minimize their cost/burden to society - and I am all with you. But until then. I can't let young girls be raped and people murdered simply because we don't want to act.

Originally posted by "Rae-Ann":

I, too am more a proponent of "turn the other cheek", then "eye for an eye"


Yes, but even the "eye for an eye" was designed as a "restrictor" not a "license" as everyone seems to assume. Before the institution of an "eye for an eye", it was both eyes for an eye. And a neck for both eyes. And your whole family for my brother's neck. And my whole clan for your family. The "eye for an eye" was to establish restraint.

Originally posted by "kdkaboom":


My personal (and secular) concern is with the image this portrays to the youth he has been trying to steer clear of gangs since his "rehabilitation".


My feeling is his end kinda showed that it was the right choice afterall. I really feel his voice should have said the following if he really wanted to be profound "Do I want to die, no. Will I try to appeal and seek clemency, yes - for I do not want to die. However, if such fails...than I will be merely receiving the justice due to me for the actions I chose in my youth. Actions which cannot be undone. Would I like to live, yes. But if I die...youth of the nation, realize that such IS the consequence of the gang lifestyle."

Originally posted by "kdkaboom":


(Prison IS about rehabilitation, you know, and when it actually happens, everyone scoffs.)

This is where you and I greatly disagree. Prison, is not about rehabilitiation (that concept was added recently and it's led to the death of many innoncents). Prison is merely about keep the society safe from harmful elements.

Originally posted by "kdkaboom":


I think the death penalty is a waste of time. Death isn't even a real punishment for criminals, it's a fucking freedom from a cage.


I agree, but our laws forbid cruel and unusual punishment. IMHO, justice for a raper of a 7 yr old little girl should be the parents or their chosen representative receives a $500 gift card to Home Depot. And the perpetrator is strapped into a chair. The parents than gets to remove the perpetrating items from the perpetrator. Do it on national TV live and I bet you rape will be cut by a 1/3 after the 4th televising.

Originally posted by "kdkaboom":


And, really, it is fucking barbaric.


And raping and killing 7 yr old little girls is not?

Originally posted by "kdkaboom":

We see executions on foreign tv and gasp in horror.


Are you pro-choice (abortion)?

Cuase this sounds like they're common rhetoric, with the inability to see the difference between an execution of an innoncent and the execution of the guilty.

Originally posted by "kdkaboom":

Ultimately, I feel that he is not innocent. But, he is also no longer guilty.


Please tell that to the family of the victims. If we choose a system that a) refuses to execute murderers & rapists b) releases them back into society. Rest assured the result will be murders.

Because if I have a 7 yr old girl who is raped and murdered and the judge releases him after 6 months. Rest assured I will kill both the rapist and the judge. And I bet you, they'll give me the death penalty. Go figure....

I find it also disturbing that so many are up in arms about the killing of a 1,000 guilty men in America. But, raise so little fuss about the hundeds of thousands of innoncents being killed in Sudan.

Lastly, regarding Hookie...if he truly had his change from Christ. And since many of us toss that as our model. Should he not have gone down, like Christ, silent before the shearers. He should have expressed his desire to live but understanding to die.

Message edited by author 2005-12-13 10:27:41.
12/13/2005 10:48:46 AM · #53
Perhaps we should also hold state officials accountable for executing innocent people in capital cases.
12/13/2005 11:16:53 AM · #54
Originally posted by "Olyuzi":

Perhaps we should also hold state officials accountable for executing innocent people in capital cases.


The purpose of the state is to maintain order and safety of society, and execute judgment. The purpose of an official is to officiate such. The official, is not acting in individuality but merely officiating for the state.

The official does not have the right to pronounce a death sentance only the state. Hence, a judge can't simply go out and say "I want my neighbor dead." He does not have the authority too. He merely has the authority to officiate the state's authority.

And as such, we all are bound to adhere to the state's authority and/or suffer the consequences of not adhering. Perhaps you desire to abolish the state, and government, in it's entirety? Is this your point? Or are you just stating rhetoric without a supporting rationale?

In truth, what we need is legislation (alterations of our state) to ensure such does not occur.

I personally, have stated I have issues with the availability of our death penalty. And my belief it should only be used in cases of absolute evidence or in which the individual has pleaded guilty.

Likewise, I have stated I have issues with our so-called "life sentence". Both need to be addressed together.

If you try to abolish the death penalty but do not reform the sentence of "life imprisonment" than you are just going to create more harm and injustice.

"Life Imprisonment" should equate to a "Death Sentence - Suspended".

12/13/2005 11:36:07 AM · #55
The point is not whether the state has the authority to enforce capital punishment. Nobody is arguing that. The point is whether those who feel such a punishment is beyond the moral authority of humanity should speak out against their governments.

I'm afraid that when you take a global perspective, those for captial punishment are outnumbered by those who are against it. The US is in an extreme position, globally speaking, and that is always difficult to justify philosophically.

Up until last year, we were one of seven countries which allowed the execution of minors (one of only 3 after 1990). Want to know who was on that list?

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, Pakistan, China, United States.

Does that sound like a list you want to be a part of?

Finally, if the purpose of the state is to maintain order, does it follow that capital punishment is a requisite to maintain that order? If the answer is "no", then what is your point? If the answer is "yes" then you need to explain how all other first world countries manage to do it without using such means.

Personally, I'm against abortion, for strong gun control, and against capital punishment. Try to find a political party which represents me...
12/13/2005 12:03:26 PM · #56
He's gone.
12/13/2005 12:41:52 PM · #57
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Personally, I'm against abortion, for strong gun control, and against capital punishment. Try to find a political party which represents me...


Dr., we are miles apart. I believe in personal choice and responsibility. I believe in a woman's right to choose. Not that it is correct to have an abortion, nor sanctioned by god, only her right to make that choice, then face her god regarding that choice. I believe in a person's right to be armed. Not that it is a requirement to be armed, that those who choose not to be, must be, but rather that those who choose to be, can be. I believe in a state or country's right to have capital punishment. Not that they must have, nor that they can't have, only that it is their choice and the choice of their populace.

Your positions are to me, akin to one who believes that they know more than me, are more compassionate than me, are better informed than me, are more capable of decisions than me, and thus should decide for me what is good for me. My position, on the other hand, states that you may choose for yourself what is good for you and I may do likewise.
12/13/2005 12:52:33 PM · #58
Well, he's gone now. Eyewitness account here.

Robt.
12/13/2005 12:57:08 PM · #59
Originally posted by Flash:

Your positions are to me, akin to one who believes that they know more than me, are more compassionate than me, are better informed than me, are more capable of decisions than me, and thus should decide for me what is good for me. My position, on the other hand, states that you may choose for yourself what is good for you and I may do likewise.


Hmm, that's an interesting take. I actually don't think its very easy or practical to dictate morality. On the other hand, while it's easy to write "you choose, I choose, and we'll all be happy", the practicality is much harder. Is the mob always correct? Perhaps I just have a very poor view of human nature. My abortion and capital punishment views can be linked to my view of Justice (see above post). My gun control view is linked to pure pragmatics and that, once again, the US seems to be in an extreme position globally. Moderation is usually the golden rule.
12/13/2005 01:07:05 PM · #60
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

[quote=Flash] Your positions are to me, akin to one who believes that they know more than me, are more compassionate than me, are better informed than me, are more capable of decisions than me, and thus should decide for me what is good for me. My position, on the other hand, states that you may choose for yourself what is good for you and I may do likewise.


Is it me or has the whole notion of "free will" been outlawd by the religious community? I thought this was the foundation. If I'm not mistaken, it was how the US was started to begin with. Government telling them how to live and worship. It's coming full circle.
12/13/2005 01:15:29 PM · #61
"The point is not whether the state has the authority to enforce capital punishment. Nobody is arguing that. The point is whether those who feel such a punishment is beyond the moral authority of humanity should speak out against their governments."

ROTFL...

Really, or are you merely looking at the Western World?

China seems to support capital punishment. 1 in 4 people on the planet are Chinese (not Asian). As such, did you include China?

Up until last year, we were one of seven countries which allowed the execution of minors (one of only 3 after 1990). Want to know who was on that list?

[[[ Minors, let's define minors. In fact, some countries may determine a minor as anyone under 20. We put M-16's in the hands of 18 yr olds. And even younger enlistees as well.

So do I have an issue with trying a 16 yr old gang-banger who's popped off 2-3 people as an adult. Nope...nadda. I believe a 16 yr old should be competent enough by that age to know "murder is bad".

Often is the case, most who are tried as such are actually over the age of adulthood during the trial. The crime was committed earlier but it's seldom death of a minor.
]]]

Originally posted by "DrAchoo":


Finally, if the purpose of the state is to maintain order, does it follow that capital punishment is a requisite to maintain that order? If the answer is "no", then what is your point? If the answer is "yes" then you need to explain how all other first world countries manage to do it without using such means.


First off, do I believe it is necessary. Only when other aspects of the system repeatedly fail.

So if we want to look at the other first world nations. Well, we can look at France and their few weeks of riots. Second, we can see some of the effects in Australia, which also banned most guns. And now they have a major increase in the murder rate in rural areas.

Or we can also look at the court/judicial system and see if they are releasing convicts with life sentences after only 10yrs for good behavior and early parole.

As I have stated, I have set measurements of performance for which I would support the abolishment of the death penalty. But until those are implemented and the safety and assurance of the good and decent citizen is ensured by those measures, I will not support the abolishment of the death penalty.

When men who have pleaded guilty to murder are released simply because their lawyers make an argument that our prisons are too full. And the people of the citizenry are put in harms way because of such. Then I support the death penalty.

In fact, I support "murder" (in self-defense).
12/13/2005 01:31:41 PM · #62
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

once again, the US seems to be in an extreme position globally.


Being in the minority does not make one wrong, it only makes them in the minority.

Columbus had a minority view of a "round" world. Abolishonists had a minority view that slavery should be outlawed. Rosa Parks had a minority view that "blacks" should be equal. And those fighting the Revolution had a minority view that religious persecution and taxation without representation was unjust.

Being in the minority as the US is on many world opinions (like Kyoto) does not make them wrong (or right). It only makes them "in the minority".
12/13/2005 02:03:16 PM · #63
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

once again, the US seems to be in an extreme position globally.


Being in the minority does not make one wrong, it only makes them in the minority.

Columbus had a minority view of a "round" world. Abolishonists had a minority view that slavery should be outlawed. Rosa Parks had a minority view that "blacks" should be equal. And those fighting the Revolution had a minority view that religious persecution and taxation without representation was unjust.

Being in the minority as the US is on many world opinions (like Kyoto) does not make them wrong (or right). It only makes them "in the minority".


I'm not as concerned with being in the "minority" as being "extreme". The two may go together, but the latter worries me more. Our "line in the sand" with guns is far from most other industrialized nations. The passionate arugments in this country are whether we should have the right to assault rifles. I'm not sure any other industrialized country would even consider that a rational argument at all.

Saj. If you are taking China as your Human Rights buddy, then we don't have a lot of common ground. Even though China represents 25% of the population, 25% is still a minority and thus my point is still valid. It is also worth saying that China isn't a democracy and so there could potentially be only a few hundred Chinese who believe in capital punishment (yes, that's hyperbole, but you get the point)...

As far as minors go, how does saying some coutries consider minors to be 20 help you? It would mean that those countries have an even stricter view against executing juveniles. Saudi Arabia and Nigeria deny that the executed criminals in question (one for each country) were minors at all. In 1994 Yemen prohibited the practice. In 1999 the DRC declared a moratorium on all executions. Pakistan has commuted the sentence on 100 juveniles and has denounced the practice. This leaves your pal China, and Iran. Luckily it's a moot point because we finally found reason and agreed it was "cruel and unusual" last year.
12/13/2005 02:08:59 PM · #64
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm not as concerned with being in the "minority" as being "extreme".


I believe I understand your distinction and perhaps minority was a poor choice of words for me to use. I do believe that you would agree that Columbus' view of a "round" world was "extreme" and that the Revolutionist's views were equally extreme. Again, just because one's views are "extreme" does not make them wrong (or right). It only makes them extreme.
12/13/2005 02:28:08 PM · #65
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm not as concerned with being in the "minority" as being "extreme".


I believe I understand your distinction and perhaps minority was a poor choice of words for me to use. I do believe that you would agree that Columbus' view of a "round" world was "extreme" and that the Revolutionist's views were equally extreme. Again, just because one's views are "extreme" does not make them wrong (or right). It only makes them extreme.


Yes, your point is taken. It just makes me cautious. I'm guessing there have been a lot more "extreme" ideas that have been wrong than ones that have been right. Columbus is a bad example because that is the realm of science (eminently provable), the revolution isn't a bad example though.
12/13/2005 02:29:50 PM · #66
I don't really like the use of religion or "The majority of other first world countries" or even writings of some obscure human rights activists to determine what we in this country do.

We, in this country, determine what we, in this country do. If that means we seem extreme compared to other "Civilized, first world nations" or if those of some personal conviction are uncomfortable with that..Well...that is just gonna have to be the way it is.

What I find most curious...when this whole discussion of capital punishment comes up..very few posts talk about the victims. Its always about society or the criminal.

I have a plan. The victims families were the ones wronged...let's let them figure out what they would do.

All I can say..If I was in that 7-Eleven that day ....or I was the family of the guy he shot..with a shotgun..point blank in the back as he lay on the floor.....I would have made it a point to serve justice up that day any way I could manage.
12/13/2005 02:33:18 PM · #67
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

once again, the US seems to be in an extreme position globally.


Being in the minority does not make one wrong, it only makes them in the minority.

Columbus had a minority view of a "round" world. Abolishonists had a minority view that slavery should be outlawed. Rosa Parks had a minority view that "blacks" should be equal. And those fighting the Revolution had a minority view that religious persecution and taxation without representation was unjust.

Being in the minority as the US is on many world opinions (like Kyoto) does not make them wrong (or right). It only makes them "in the minority".


Originally posted by "Flash":

Columbus had a minority view of a "round" world.


Just to fix some misguided historical recollection. It was not so much that they thought the world was flat. It was actually fairly well known to be round. The Greeks proved it so millenia before. And it was well known to most sailors of tall ships. Hence, the reason the would have someone climb up the mast to see over the horizon.

The issue was that most believed the world to be much larger than Columbus. And that there'd be no way for his ship to make it across a 12,000 mile ocean.

And you know what? they were right! And Columbus was dreadfully wrong. Had there not been an entirely unknown continent in the way Columbus would have died at see just as predicted.

- Saj

Other than that, I agree with the argument as presented. ;)
12/13/2005 03:11:24 PM · #68
It seems to me that the argument depends a little on what purpose you think that the justice system serves: protection for the public, punishment for the wrongdoer, a detterrent, and/or vengeance for the wronged. In practice, it is usually implemented with all four purposes to a greater or lesser degree.

Execution is fundamentally punishment and vengeance, as it serves no useful protective role or deterrent over life imprisonment. It is a gut reaction, not a rational one.

To address a couple of points, the punishment is not reversable and should therefore be the subject of the utmost scrutiny before being applied. This means that it is costly - moreso than life imprisonment. Even so, no matter how damning the evidence, no conviction is 100% safe, and innocent people will be convicted and killed. Reducing the cost is simply to increase the number of innocent people killed.

It is quite scary that people are justifying executions by reference to Christianity: examples of similar behaviour in other countries justified by other religions is often decried, often by the same people.

The contrast with abortion is not entirely valid. The relationship between mother and foetus is very different to that between criminal and society. The liberal (nb English liberal - not US liberal or in any way socialist) view is generally to have higher regard for the easily overlooked rights of the mother and the prisoner than the unthinking foetus or unthinking society. I do not find an inconsistency in the protection of rights for both. This accords with my view.

(the bigger inconsistency is that I would fight for the rights of the mother and the prisoner without really believing in the concept of "rights"...!)

Message edited by author 2005-12-13 15:12:33.
12/13/2005 03:12:47 PM · #69
Our "line in the sand" with guns is far from most other industrialized nations. The passionate arugments in this country are whether we should have the right to assault rifles. I'm not sure any other industrialized country would even consider that a rational argument at all.

[ Au contraire, when assault rifle is used not just for assault rifles (which are commonly understood to be military grade weapons) but for any mere automatic hunting rifle and even semi-automatic weapons. Then I believe one is greatly mis representing the issue.

Secondly, modern Europe has a long history of anti-weapons. It stems from an even longer history of anti-weapons in which Lords endeavored to prevent arms being in the hands of commoners.

But the NAZI rise to power was facilitated in part by the restriction of weapons. This prevented any means for the commoners to defend themselves.

Lastly, 99.9% of Americans are ignorant about weapon accessibility and the usefulness of such laws. Where as I am not. Is it because I am smarter. Nope...just pure luck of the draw.

In high school, I knew a student who was a runner for gun dealers. When the Brady Bill was passed I asked him what affect it had on their business. At first he said none. Than corrected himself, that they actually expect to see increased profits.

So I asked him, how difficult would it be to get a gun? He asked what type. I just said something basic like a .357 pistol. His response to me was "A 9mm or .357 will take me a day or two. A fully automatic Uzi, or AK-47 about a week. If you wanted heavy ordinance; machine gun, grenade launcher or mortar it will take a couple of months because my sources will want to do a background check on you.

I realized, NONE of these laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They merely remove the citizen's ability to defend themselves. Leaving them soley reliant on the hands of police officers. Considering the last 3 times I called 911, I never got a response. That does not seem like a reasonable defense to entrust my family too.

Originally posted by "DrAchoo":

Saj. If you are taking China as your Human Rights buddy, then we don't have a lot of common ground.


Of course not, I was just pointing out that such statistical claims are useless when not quantitated.

Originally posted by "DrAchoo":

Even though China represents 25% of the population, 25% is still a minority and thus my point is still valid.


Sure, but then you have to add in several other nations in Asia, S. America, and N. America. Now you start to lose that "minority" and reach a balance of divided "parity".

Originally posted by "DrAchoo":

As far as minors go, how does saying some coutries consider minors to be 20 help you?


The fact of what defines a minor, is at question. Sure we say 18 for the U.S. Do we? We say 21 for alcohol. And 16 to carry an M-16 with mom & daddy's permission.

So what constitutes a minor? Under Jewish law it was understood comprehension of the Law around age 12/13.

Furthermore, can you provide me a name of a minor who was execute as a minor? See, I don't believe you're talking about the execution of minors but rather the execution of adults who committed heinious crimes as minors. As most of the convictions were in cases of 16+ and I don't think there has been a death penalty case that's made it from trial to death in under 2 yrs.

Lastly, I will put forth that you entire statistics are off.

The United States has a land mass near equivalent to that of all of Europe. In fact, we have 50 independent states. And it appears we've dismissed all 2nd and 3rd world nations as uncivilized. That essentially brings the comparison to North America, Europe, and the pacific nations of Japan/Australia, plus a few exceptions.

The U.S. is near equivalent in land mass, and has half the population.

AREA:
6,934,812 Europe (minus Russia)
9,161,923 USA

PEOPLE:
667,391,933 Europe (minus Russia)
295,734,134 USA

(oh correction, I just read Japan still has the death penalty so move them over to the other side)

The EU has declared no death penalty, so much of Europe is following that, especially nations which desire to be members of the EU. So likewise, let's reduce all of the EU members to a single body on the side of opposing the death penalty. As the U.S. is 50 individual states. If you don't recognize that realize in the United States, the issue of capital punishment is largely left up to the individual states.

But regardless, althought the majority currently leans toward "No Death Penalty" this is not as drawn a comparison as you like to make it of a few nations and the rest of the world opposing. It's still fairly divided.

"In 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Roper v. Simmons that the death penalty cannot be applied to persons who were under age 18 at the time of commission of the crime. That decision resulted in 72 convicted murderers being taken off death row."

And as stated, the U.S. has not in recent times executed any minors. Convicted. But part of that is our extremely drawn out appeals process.

Lastly, I find it very hard to believe that Europe hasn't executed any minors. I imagine they like wise have had 30 million or more (aborted/executed) minors.

Some good info here:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
12/13/2005 03:21:49 PM · #70
Originally posted by theSaj:

But the NAZI rise to power was facilitated in part by the restriction of weapons. This prevented any means for the commoners to defend themselves.


They were voted in to power.

Originally posted by theSaj:

Furthermore, can you provide me a name of a minor who was execute as a minor? See, I don't believe you're talking about the execution of minors but rather the execution of adults who committed heinious crimes as minors. As most of the convictions were in cases of 16+ and I don't think there has been a death penalty case that's made it from trial to death in under 2 yrs.


I think that the point is that it is fairly barbaric to kill people for crimes comitted at a time when they were not mentally mature - mental maturity tends to arrive at around 20-21 years, and most legal systems recognise sufficient mental maturity for full culpability at around 16-18. Killing people who commit crimes at a younger age is killing people who may not have been sufficiently developed to fully understand their crime. That is why it is barbaric.

Originally posted by theSaj:

But regardless, althought the majority currently leans toward "No Death Penalty" this is not as drawn a comparison as you like to make it of a few nations and the rest of the world opposing. It's still fairly divided.


I believe that in most of the world, people favour the death penalty (there is a 60% majority in favour if it in the UK: "hanging is too good for them..."). It is a popular, visceral, gut reaction. Most governments operate on a more rational basis and do not permit the matter to be open to "democratic" debate.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I imagine they like wise have had 30 million or more (aborted/executed) minors.


Abortion is a separate issue.

12/13/2005 03:23:20 PM · #71
I guess some people have a problem with vengeance.

I don't

A very good point is that we should be certain that people executed are guilty of their crimes. But this constant hand wringing about "It makes us a bad country if we are vengeful" is fascinating.

Crimes of passion or where death is a result of escalating circumstances will not be deterred with a death penalty. And I think it is fair to say that many murders anywhere in the world are a result of human passions and not calculations of "Reward and Risk".

However, this does not make a good argument..to me..against the death penalty because...you guessed it..I don't have a problem with vengeance and death as a punishment.

BTW..I believe in Jesus and that there might be a big God somewhere...but I live in a world of humans that often act like animals and somebody has got to keep the dogs at bay.
12/13/2005 03:28:10 PM · #72
Originally posted by hokie:

BTW..I believe in Jesus and that there might be a big God somewhere...but I live in a world of humans that often act like animals and somebody has got to keep the dogs at bay.


I like to think that we can do slightly better than act on our instinctive gut reactions, and can forge a better place for ourselves by doing so.
12/13/2005 03:38:28 PM · #73
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I like to think that we can do slightly better than act on our instinctive gut reactions, and can forge a better place for ourselves by doing so.


Agreed. Never hurts to try to become something better. I would hope that at some point in the future we will look back at capitol punishment in the same way we now look back at slavery.

Aim high.
12/13/2005 03:41:02 PM · #74
Originally posted by legalbeagle:


I like to think that we can do slightly better than act on our instinctive gut reactions, and can forge a better place for ourselves by doing so.


I can understand that. My question is..in the face of the here and now..what are you gonna do for the people who are at the mercy of the animals?

I dare say the majority of the people here on this site have lives 99% of the rest of the world only dreams of. It's wonderful to have higher aspirations..we should all aspire for greater civility...Talk to a crip or this new "Gang 13" that is the next big gang in the Americas's about civility etc, etc...if you survive the "discussion" let me know how it turns out.
12/13/2005 03:44:31 PM · #75
Originally posted by theSaj:



... modern Europe has a long history of anti-weapons. It stems from an even longer history of anti-weapons in which Lords endeavored to prevent arms being in the hands of commoners.

The EU has declared no death penalty, so much of Europe is following that, especially nations which desire to be members of the EU.


Saj, while I dont agree with many of your points, your thoughts are well thought out and well articulated. Nice to see us all engaging in healthy exchange of ideas in a rational and positive manner. That's what freedom is all about.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 12:38:10 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 12:38:10 AM EDT.