The death penalty is justified

  • Thread starter Thread starter RomanCrusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hastrman said:
Um…any man who kills a comrade within a military force, should die. That she is also the mother of his child means he *really *must die.

Civilians can be imprisoned, but the bond between comrades is too sacred to allow it to be violated–and, pragmatically, it renders a military force unable to function if it can be violated. To function, warriors need to be able to trust each other with their lives.

It is, in other words, absolutely necessary to protect that society, the Marine Corps.

Ditto the cop. Police and soldiers (Marines are soldiers, in the generic sense of the term) are trusted with the power of life and death, and therefore are especially accountable when they act against the sanctity of life. That’s why even Europeans have the death penalty in their military law.

Still never got a response to the question of what the anti-CP people do if one of their lifers–“rendered harmless,” remember–kills somebody in prison. Sentence them to life again?
Click to expand...
Oh–you were answering my second post…ha! 😊 Sorry–my husband thinks like you do on that. So eye for an eye, then? He killed her, etc…and should die now, too? But, my question is…there are many cases of people who kill in similiar (premeditated?) manners and they don’t get the DP? I don’t understand the rationale behind it I guess. Would we want to see justice like this? Yes, from an emotional viewpoint yes, I can see why the mother of such a victim would want to see this type of punishment…but will that bring back the victim? If anything, the DP has not deterred crime…crime is escalating…especially violent crime against women and children.😦
 
even though I’m not familiar with any of the laws and specifics, i must disagree and say it is not justified. Would really want to be the person to end another’s chances at accepting God? Though yes, they should be punished, they should not be killed. We are taught to be graceful. (Not as thorough as the above posts, just my 2 cents)😃
 
pnewton said:
That has not practically worked well. Pelican Bay attempted that sort of extreme incarceration and ended up with one of the deadliest gangs ever, ran from solitary.
Click to expand...
:eek: really? wow…that’s interesting.
 
whatevergirl said:
If a person’s life is threatened…such as a cop let’s say, then shooting that person is the only option left.* Self defense is not capital punishment. Capital punishment is not self defense*. Comparing the two is like comparing an apple with an orange. It’s (the DP) been around since the dawn of time, and if it is so effective–why is violent crime on the rise? It’s not effective–even if you look at it in a logical sense…it’s not effective. Violence will always beget more violence–always. That can never be good for society.
Click to expand...
You need to understand the psychology or philosophy behind the organized use of force–that is, the military or the police. Police go to work every day with the knowledge that they may have to kill someone. And the society gives them that power, that duty, and the discretion of how to use it, with the implicit understanding that they will be accountable if they misuse it.

And capital punishment is, in fact, a society’s self-defense.

Similarly, in the military, a group of combatants needs to know that they can rely on each other in life or death situation. They, too, are given the power to kill and the discretion of when to use it. There is a similar implicit understanding to that of the police, plus the further understanding that acts that undermine esprit de corps put all their comrades lives in danger, just as surely as an armed enemy.

“Violence will always lead to more violence”…Perhaps, but even in the absence of violence, there is a perrennial human recourse to violence to solve problems.

On the other hand, the assurance that violence will *not *be used…you might want to ask the UN Peacekeepers in Rwanda (800,000-1,000,000 dead) and Yugoslavia (thousands, possibly 10,000s, killed and tortured and raped) how well that works out.
 
Hastrman said:
You need to understand the psychology or philosophy behind the organized use of force–that is, the military or the police. Police go to work every day with the knowledge that they may have to kill someone. And the society gives them that power, that duty, and the discretion of how to use it, with the implicit understanding that they will be accountable if they misuse it.

And capital punishment is, in fact, a society’s self-defense.

Similarly, in the military, a group of combatants needs to know that they can rely on each other in life or death situation. They, too, are given the power to kill and the discretion of when to use it. There is a similar implicit understanding to that of the police, plus the further understanding that acts that undermine esprit de corps put all their comrades lives in danger, just as surely as an armed enemy.

“Violence will always lead to more violence”…Perhaps, but even in the absence of violence, there is a perrennial human recourse to violence to solve problems.

On the other hand, the assurance that violence will *not *be used…you might want to ask the UN Peacekeepers in Rwanda (800,000-1,000,000 dead) and Yugoslavia (thousands, possibly 10,000s, killed and tortured and raped) how well that works out.
Click to expand...
I’m not really trying to convince anyone here of it. I personally don’t believe in it.
 
pnewton said:
That has not practically worked well. Pelican Bay attempted that sort of extreme incarceration and ended up with one of the deadliest gangs ever, ran from solitary.
Click to expand...
I understood that something like that happened before but that it was due largely to bribing of prison guards to get info from gang leaders to the outside world. At any rate, such leaders couldn’t physically murder anyone themselves.

I suppose another solution would be to have all the murder threats walk around in an area in straitjackets and muzzles 🙂
 
whatevergirl said:
I’m not really trying to convince anyone here of it. I personally don’t believe in it.
Click to expand...
:ehh: If you’re not trying to convince anyone of your position, why are you commenting at all?

And it seems like your opinion on this issue is not assailable by, or based on, facts or reasoning, but only feelings. And feelings are nothing to base a system of government on. It’s just as bad to spare someone’s life because you feel like it, as it is to kill them because you happen to be angry.
 
Hastrman said:
:ehh: If you’re not trying to convince anyone of your position, why are you commenting at all?

And it seems like your opinion on this issue is not assailable by, or based on, facts or reasoning, but only feelings. And feelings are nothing to base a system of government on. It’s just as bad to spare someone’s life because you feel like it, as it is to kill them because you happen to be angry.
Click to expand...
Oh, do I need to convince people on here of my position, otherwise I shouldn’t post? Truth is…we all have opinions. You do not have the right or wrong answer–it’s your opinion, as well.
 
whatevergirl said:
Oh, do I need to convince people on here of my position, otherwise I shouldn’t post? Truth is…we all have opinions. You do not have the right or wrong answer–it’s your opinion, as well.
Click to expand...
Oh, really? So you think one can’t have the right or wrong answer about a matter of life and death? You think we can “agree to disagree” about whether some of us have the right to kill others of us?

How about segregation? Should we agree to disagree about Whites Only lunch counters? Or genocide? Should we agree to disagree whether Jews are Lives Unworthy of Life, or the handicapped are Useless Eaters?

These are not areas of opinion. These are very, very important questions that affect how a society is run–and, ultimately, if it has a right to exist.
 
I agree with whatevergirl and I think she’s might be trying to take a charitable way of disagreeing.
 
Hastrman said:
Oh, really? So you think one can’t have the right or wrong answer about a matter of life and death? You think we can “agree to disagree” about whether some of us have the right to kill others of us?

How about segregation? Should we agree to disagree about Whites Only lunch counters? Or genocide? Should we agree to disagree whether Jews are Lives Unworthy of Life, or the handicapped are Useless Eaters?

These are not areas of opinion. These are very, very important questions that affect how a society is run–and, ultimately, if it has a right to exist.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why you are putting words in my mouth. I never said any of that. I don’t personally believe in the DP, so you put words in my mouth that have really nothing to do with the subject. I’m sorry I disagree with you about the death penalty…but, I don’t believe the reasons for it.
 
Hastrman said:
Oh, really? So you think one can’t have the right or wrong answer about a matter of life and death? You think we can “agree to disagree” about whether some of us have the right to kill others of us?

How about segregation? Should we agree to disagree about Whites Only lunch counters? Or genocide? Should we agree to disagree whether Jews are Lives Unworthy of Life, or the handicapped are Useless Eaters?

These are not areas of opinion. These are very, very important questions that affect how a society is run–and, ultimately, if it has a right to exist.
Click to expand...
Segregation is wrong.

Second question, same answer as first, segregation is wrong.

Genocide is wrong.

Jews have every right to exist.

Handicapped people have every right to exist.

The death penalty is wrong.
 
wow said:
Segregation is wrong.

Second question, same answer as first, segregation is wrong.

Genocide is wrong.

Jews have every right to exist.

Handicapped people have every right to exist.

The death penalty is wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was thinking those very things…but still not sure why Hastrman posted them? It is a common thing to change the subject maybe when someone feels the other person is making sense…hee hee:eek: 😃
 
wow said:
Segregation is wrong.

Second question, same answer as first, segregation is wrong.

Genocide is wrong.

Jews have every right to exist.

Handicapped people have every right to exist.

The death penalty is wrong.
Click to expand...
You at least acknowledge the concept of truth (though I don’t think you have it on that last point–and neither does the Pope:D ); whatevergirl didn’t seem to.
 
Hastrman said:
You at least acknowledge the concept of truth (though I don’t think you have it on that last point–and neither does the Pope:D ); whatevergirl didn’t seem to.
Click to expand...
Your points have nothing to do with the subject. I agree with wow’s post…not sure why I should believe in the death penalty. Do people cease to have intrinsic value because they have made horrific mistakes in their lives, such as murder or rape?

A flipside to this however–and I have heard this argument from my husband–(and it’s convincing to a point) is suppose any of us were around when someone was being attacked? Would we not defend another person’s life, if we had the capacity and chance to? So, my dh’s thoughts are…this is delaying that defense of the innocent. The innocent person’s life is gone…so, the death penalty acts in a sense as a form of ‘delayed’ self defense for the public. It’s convincing, but I still would not sleep well at night – possible ever-- if I knew I was part of a jury, who sent a man to his death…even if he commited a heinous crime.
 
whatevergirl said:
Yes, I was thinking those very things…but still not sure why Hastrman posted them? It is a common thing to change the subject maybe when someone feels the other person is making sense…hee hee:eek: 😃
Click to expand...
Making sense? You denied the possibility of truth in the matter of the death penalty, or at least of our finding that truth in this debate. You denied, in other words, the very possibility of “making sense.”

Or did you know that that’s what “it’s just your opinion” means? If it means anything, it means that.

And I didn’t “change the subject”; those were rhetorical questions. Tell me, did you pass 9th grade English? Because I’m fairly sure anyone who did would know that. Neither did I “put words in your mouth”; I was saying that it is as legitimate to try to convince people on this question as on those. Again, as any literate person would know.

I was asking, “If the death penalty is just opinion, why aren’t those other matters? I’m sure you don’t say those are just opinion.”

Obviously.

I cannot think of any excuse not to understand such an obvious, basic, simple thing.
 
whatevergirl said:
It’s convincing, but I still would not sleep well at night – possible ever-- if I knew I was part of a jury, who sent a man to his death…even if he commited a heinous crime.
Click to expand...
In other words, reduced to its pure logical content, “I am too squeamish to do what might well be my moral duty to the public and the common good.”

Very admirable. Oh well, at least you admit it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top