The death penalty.

[LegionnaireX]

I find it amusing that so many conservatives who otherwise are distrustful of government find no problem in the state having the right to kill you.

I could further the argument and ask what gives the state the right to take away your freedom? What gives the government the right to take your money?

The government exists to protect the people and such protection comes at the cost of freedom. However, the cost of that freedom is negligible compared to the benefits of law and order. The death penalty is just the most extreme punishment available for use at the discretion of authority, as it as been sense the beginning of time.

And in a democracy, the government is the people, don't forget that. You are the one that grants the authority for capital punishment.

[Enemy of the State]

I could further the argument and ask what gives the state the right to take away your freedom? What gives the government the right to take your money?

Indeed, what does?

The government exists to protect the people and such protection comes at the cost of freedom. However, the cost of that freedom is negligible compared to the benefits of law and order. The death penalty is just the most extreme punishment available for use at the discretion of authority, as it as been sense the beginning of time.

I'm simply wondering why the conservatives who think that the same government that supposedly wants to form death panels to kill granny in the healthcare system has no qualms with them deciding on who gets to live or die in the judicial system. Government can very well abuse that power.

And in a democracy, the government is the people, don't forget that. You are the one that grants the authority for capital punishment.

I have certainly not given any authority to let anyone kill another person. I don't believe that is even in my power to give. I do not own anyone else's life but my own.

[Denny Crane!]

Indeed, what does?



I'm simply wondering why the conservatives who think that the same government that supposedly wants to form death panels to kill granny in the healthcare system has no qualms with them deciding on who gets to live or die in the judicial system. Government can very well abuse that power.



I have certainly not given any authority to let anyone kill another person. I don't believe that is even in my power to give. I do not own anyone else's life but my own.

That is a good point they are terrified of government deciding who gets a drug say but are quite happy to let a panel decide to execute mentally retarded people or suspected criminals in a system that has proven to be racist in parts and hopelessly biased and political in other parts.

Conservatives in the USA are crazy...

[Claudius Gothicus]

I could further the argument and ask what gives the state the right to take away your freedom? What gives the government the right to take your money?

The existence of your ''liberties'' and your ''money'' depends on the prerogatives of the State.

The government exists to protect the people and such protection comes at the cost of freedom.

You can't play the freedom game if there's none setting up the rules. The existence of power hierarchies makes freedom possible, it's important to differentiate that from an anarchistic state where the first thing to go away are your freedoms.

[LegionnaireX]

That is a good point they are terrified of government deciding who gets a drug say but are quite happy to let a panel decide to execute mentally retarded people or suspected criminals in a system that has proven to be racist in parts and hopelessly biased and political in other parts.

Conservatives in the USA are crazy...

By panel do you mean trial by jury? The monolithic "State" doesn't convict people of crimes, the people do that. The death penalty is one of the options of punishment reserved for the most heinous crimes and in the modern world of DNA evidence it is difficult to sentence someone to death unless there is no shadow of doubt.

You can't play the freedom game if there's none setting up the rules. The existence of power hierarchies makes freedom possible, it's important to differentiate that from an anarchistic state where the first thing to go away are your freedoms.

Yes, and that is precisely my point.

Indeed, what does?

As Claudius has pointed out, one's freedoms are not protected without the state. In return for these freedoms you are obliged to obey the law. If you break the law then the state is no longer obliged to protect your freedoms. What you have is a contract with the state and society in general which is breached by criminal activity.

[Enemy of the State]

As Claudius has pointed out, one's freedoms are not protected without the state. In return for these freedoms you are obliged to obey the law. If you break the law then the state is no longer obliged to protect your freedoms. What you have is a contract with the state and society in general which is breached by criminal activity.

That didn't actually answer my question. Fine, the state supposedly protects our liberties(By infringing on them apparently). What gave them the right to do that?

[Primo]

That didn't actually answer my question. Fine, the state supposedly protects our liberties(By infringing on them apparently). What gave them the right to do that?

If we go after the sense of democracy, the people did. However, that doesn´t explain all non-democracys.

[Enemy of the State]

If we go after the sense of democracy, the people did. However, that doesn´t explain all non-democracys.

I'd like to meet this "people" and ask how come he has the right to make decisions on my behalf.

[Primo]

I'd like to meet this "people" and ask how come he has the right to make decisions on my behalf.

Yeah, me too.

[Treize]

No as there is the risk of killing innocent people involved. Even though I'd love to make an exception for people who commit high treason.

Death penatly should be applied in wartime only against deserters and collaborators.

[mattgoby]

in extreme cases ie joseph fritzel

[Col. Tartleton]

Let's see: Courts designed to let you off with multiple appeals on heinous offenses. That should be good.

In the old days Petit Treason meant you could be summarily killed simply for screwing around with your bosses wife or daughter. I think the modern death penalty is quite reasonable. It's not perfect but it's damn good.

In nature animals kill each other over mates. If a human does so he's a psychopath... If we gas him or jail him it really doesn't matter.

[Ancient Aliens]

... If we gas him or jail him it really doesn't matter.

Exactly. Is jailing someone for life - in an environment where said person can receive physical, mental, and even sexual abuse - really less cruel than prematurely ending a life?

[Primo]

Exactly. Is jailing someone for life - in an environment where said person can receive physical, mental, and even sexual abuse - really less cruel than prematurely ending a life?

It isn´t less cruel, but a huge difference in the minds of people. To sentence someone to be the rest of his live in jail is way easier then to kill him off, even if the latter is probably the better.

[Ancient Aliens]

It isn´t less cruel, but a huge difference in the minds of people. To sentence someone to be the rest of his live in jail is way easier then to kill him off, even if the latter is probably the better.

And cheaper.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Exactly. Is jailing someone for life - in an environment where said person can receive physical, mental, and even sexual abuse - really less cruel than prematurely ending a life?

I think that it's more politically costly to risk killing someone who's innocent or simply have so many people on the death row than simply giving all of them a life in prison.

I don't really care about the ''cruelty'' of the penalty on this particular case.

[Vanoi]

And cheaper.

Sometimes. Execution is indeed expensive, but sometimes a prisoner who serves a life sentence can be even more expensive.

[Hilarion]

None

[Ancient Aliens]

I think that it's more politically costly to risk killing someone who's innocent or simply have so many people on the death row than simply giving all of them a life in prison.

I don't really care about the ''cruelty'' of the penalty on this particular case.

Which is why so few people get executed in the Western world: it's all about political image, rather than justice, or financial responsibility to the constituency.

Sometimes. Execution is indeed expensive, but sometimes a prisoner who serves a life sentence can be even more expensive.

I guess it ultimately depends on the estimated lifespan of the individual in question. Obviously, executing the elderly or those with a terminal illness is redundant.

[the Black Prince]

I don't think anyone should ever be executed by the state.

Firstly, the state wishes to send a message that killing is wrong... by killing someone. The hypocracy of it alone is reason enough not to go ahead with it.

Secondly. its proven that its of no greater deterrant than other sentences, such as life imprisonment.

But the main reason why I oppose it absolutely is the risk off executing an innocent person. If someone is locked up and is innocent, they can be released and compensated. But if someone is executed, its a little late.

Thirdly, we know that juries are more likely to find someone not guilty if they know that the sentence is or is likely to be death. Jury members quite rightly do not want to convict someone unless they can be absolutely certain of guilt, far beyond the standard criminal burden of proof, a standard very hard to reach.

Take, for example, the recent cases of shaken baby syndrome. Over 80 women were convicted of killing their babies on the basis of overwhelming medical evidence. Had they been executed instead of being sentence to life imprisonment, over 80 innocent people would be dead before the medical evidence was subsequently proved to be flawed. There are numerous other cases and numerous other examples of miscarriage.

State endorsed executions are just simply, plain wrong.