@PtldPlatypus should you handle this one? I'd also have you look up Troy Davis while you're taking the latter position... 3rdly It's been ruled unconstitutional by the lower courts and based upon you thinking it's constitutional let's me know you have no clue about it. You just want to take revenge on those you think should pay for their crimes with death.
Rather than saying that our right to life exists because we have laws, I would say instead that the primary purpose of laws is to help protect people's natural rights, including the right to life (along with liberty and property).
Uhhhhhhhhhhh, methinks you should do some reading and educate yourself. By the way, lol at LOWER courts. Lower courts can rule that Dviss1 gets to choose who lives or dies. That means absolutely nothing. Don't know if Troy Davis killed anyone or not. Does not change how I feel about child rapist/killers getting tortured to death.
Cavemen had a natural right to clock a chick in the head with a club and drag her home. Without some form of government I can do anything I want. How many millions of kids were killed by people like this guy before modern society tried to stop it?
You have an interesting definition of a natural right. Pretty difficult for us to have a conversation if we vary so widely on the meaning of essential terms.
You don't have a right to property. That's John Locke and predates the constitution. Thomas Jefferson changed it to the pursuit of happiness.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. There's a reason why it hasn't gone to the SCOTUS.... YET. It's being deemed unconstitutional state by state.
Okay so 17 confirmed dead in this school shooting. You guys want this 18 year old to get the death penalty or no?
This thread just goes to show how far we as a society have to go. You cannot fight violence with more violence. As doing so makes it a virus that will forever spread to whomever witnesses it. I do not want to see this 18 year old put to death, no. He should face consequences, but death penalty is not one of those.
I vote yes.....you kill 17 people...you should die...I was in Viet Nam at 18....if I killed 17 innocent people...I'd die...it wouldn't be a conversation..
We are not taking about whether the death penalty is and effective deterrent to homicide. We are speaking specifically about using it to deter predator Pedophiles harming children. An especially heinous crime! From you linked article; "The case for capital punishment is sometimes based on arguments that the death penalty is the only appropriate response to especially heinous crimes;" I think deterrence depends on the the person being deterred, probably their ability to be deterred or not from committing a particular heinous crime. If the death penalty in this case is not done in sanitary secrecy from the public it may indeed have a larger impact, but in any case, if one predatory Pedophile is deterred then we win and it is worth the effort and the uncomfortableness. "Conclusion and Recommendation The committee concludes that research to date is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, these studies should not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide. Claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate or has no effect on it should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment."
Do I want him to die? Yes. Do I think the government should be deciding who should die? No. Until such time as we can actually be certain that the one being convicted is positively the perpetrator then the govt. should be limited to their punishments to what could be overturned. Most likely this fucker did it and certainly doesn't deserve any sympathy, assistance or freedom. But I'm not actually concerned about him so long as he never has a chance to do it again. I'm concerned with the government losing more moral ground. It's one thing to use drones in an attack and to have "collateral damage" killing innocents unintentionally, but for the government to kill people with forethought and purpose and then to later have it turn out those people were innocent, that's not the role I want my government to take. In war we kill with forethought, but that's supposed to be in a dire circumstance where we don't have a more just alternative that has the same outcome. In the courts, we have the ability to never let the convict see the light of day and to never threaten the lives of innocents again. Of course I want him gored, stoned, hung, put on a pike, but that's because I'm an emotional individual. The government should pass laws so as to avoid the hasty emotional decisions an individual makes. That being said, if he does get the death penalty, I won't protest. I'll just hope we got the right one.
You shoulda just personally insulted me in your normal vernacular. And QUOTE me when you say my name.
How many innocent civilians have we drone bombed to death in the last year? But we draw the line at a pedophile rapist? It’s confusing to be alive. We trust the government with peoples lives every day, and every day they fail us. And I thought conservatives were against government death panels. When they get final say in who lives and dies, we might not like the outcome eventually.
Actually I might call him and enemy combatant and grill him in Getmo for awhile to see if there isn't more to this than him just being a nut job or a disgruntled hispanic. If the latter then what's up with this?
