As if taking another life will.
Don't try this on me. "Ooh, think of the victims".
An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.
Results 61 to 69 of 69
To what purpose? Keeping people alive who have already demonstrated a willingness to use violence against others? Keeping them locked up in an environment where abrupt and savage violence is routine?
So when they get out, they can do what they have gotten really good at? Only worse?
I simply cannot comprehend your rationale...in place of the very rare execution of an innocent person, you will substitute the common injury or death of many additional innocent people. And in the latter case, it's known for certain that they are innocent.
That just strikes me as crazy.
As to the quotations of Kahlil Gibran...perhaps we should put a copy of his book next to the hospital bed of each victim of violent crime. It will be a great comfort to them...if they regain consciousness long enough to read it.
The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
As if taking another life will.
Don't try this on me. "Ooh, think of the victims".
An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.
this is sort of an old topic for me to post on
as an expert in these matters of life and death and morality, as theya re phrased within the abortion debate, the death penalty and euthanasia, all arguments that work for one work for all of them
there really is no way to defend any of these practices as they all deal with killing people, legally, at various phases of that persons life and for various reasons
the death penalty is, to me, the most open and shut case of them all
morally repugnant and vile, reprehensible and sickening
there is no logical way that someone can defend this practice as it is phrased as being permissible under the law of any so called civilized nation
as such, only the least civilized of the industrialized world, which also happens to be the least socialist, the usa allows capital punishment to remain considered a suitable punishment for their criminals
it all comes down to dollars and sense, as well as the never ending protestant zeal for conducting lynches and witch hunts for sport and pleasure
the defense of capital punishment seems to be three pronged
deterant, protection and monetary
deterant is idiotic. people don't typically kill other people, which is the only capital offense in the usa, if they think they are going to be caught and or punished for it. the same applies to every other crime in the spectrum. to increase the punitive factor for being convicted of the crime ignores the essential premise that crimes aren't performed with the eventual consequence held under consideration. deterant, as a defence not just for capital punishment but for any crime is ridiculous.
protection is moronic. this defence actually translates more into revenge than anything. but for the sake of argument, lets assume that the modern prison system is so easy to subvert that one in every ten convicted murderers escape from maximum security installations. and lets say that one in every ten of those who escape go forth and commit another murder. keep in mind that I have yet to hear of a convicted murdereer who not only escapes from prison, but escapes and duplicates the very same crime they committed that found them in there in the first place. now what we have is a convict twice guilty of commiting the same crime at a ratio of one in a hundred. had ALL of those convicts who were convicted of first degree been executed, thats ONE extra murder for the ONE HUNDRED 'legal' murders it requires to save that life. and then when you take into account HOW these people are convicted, you must realize that a certain percentage of those one hundred convicts are actually innocent, and another percentage would have gotten off on lesser charges or found innocent had they been able to afford a better lawyer. all to save ONE so called innocent life, but who knows. that so called innocent might have themselves been a murderer, or about to murder or commit mass murder or invent some sort of weapon of mass destruction. the numbers DO NOT add up. protection as a defence is a ridiculous ploy that is typically used to generate fear, ussually during election time, in the cattle herd of america.
monetary is stupidified. lets look at this for half a second. placing a dollar sign on a human life. don't bother me with the details.
capital punishment is not condonable, ever, in a modern world with modern laws.
Please reinstate me to non-restricted staus. My mailbox is full and I cannot contact anyone for assistence.
Until my unjustifiable restriction is lifted, I, HAZARD, founder of the GUERRILLA POSTERS and the most widely read poet of this century, can be found at this website.
http://b4.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&...ser=seditionary
THIS IS THE NEW SITE
People sure do like that quote a lot...I must have seen its sorry ass dragged out in a dozen threads or more over the last 15 months.
Literally, it's nonsense...there are many people who have injured no one and thus would retain their vision.
But we're "not supposed" to take the "sayings of the wise" literally, are we?
We're supposed to genuflect or bow or murmur softly "that's so true".
I mean, how dare a "miserable sinner" like myself challenge the quip of a "holy man"?
It's easier than it looks, folks.
The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
Hazard's "argument" that the death penalty does not save innocent lives is based on numbers that he gracefully plucked from his rectal orifice.
Anyone is free to make up numbers to "prove" anything they want.
Anyone who is not a fool is equally free to reject them.
I have to chuckle when anyone tries this gambit...the idea that anyone would attempt to pass themselves off as "expert" on such "subjects".
It's like claiming to be Senior City Planning Adviser for "the New Jerusalem".
The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
those numbers were as conservative as I could conjure up, whether or not you are questioning which orifice they appeared from
in reality, as I pointed out, NOBODY escapes from maximum a security penitentiary
if I wanted to play hardball, I would have said ONE in a THOUSAND escape and ONE in TEN THOUSAND escapees recommit. which would mean that ONE MILLION people have to be executed in order to save the life of one so called innocent. now these numbers aren't quite as tilted in your favour as my previous set, but are far more accurate in terms of reality.
I say expert in the same way that I say genius, in reference to myself. not that I'm neither of these. i AM BOTH.
Please reinstate me to non-restricted staus. My mailbox is full and I cannot contact anyone for assistence.
Until my unjustifiable restriction is lifted, I, HAZARD, founder of the GUERRILLA POSTERS and the most widely read poet of this century, can be found at this website.
http://b4.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&...ser=seditionary
THIS IS THE NEW SITE
Redstar, more and more, you're just starting to sound like a rambling grumpy old man.
I'll try this from another perspective:
1) The government has no right to exist. It is here by violence, by force. No one volunteered to delegate power to it, though they may have chosen to some extent who to delegate it to.
2) Since it has no right to exist, we must accept this fact at least for now, and try to limit its actions. Why? Because it is a beast that should be killed, but we only have the power to tie it down for now. How? By limiting its actions to those that are socially beneficial, and taking power away from it wherever we can. Never give the government more power than is absolutely necessary for the good of the people. For now.
3) State sanctioned murder is the clearest case of government power we can go without. Government power that can easily be abused, that can become a nightmare for anyone who becomes the victim of a faceless bureaucracy. It is also permanent, meaning that even if the government's crimes are exposed, there is no way to undo their actions. If they abuse this power that no one should have, even if they are thrown out in a people's revolution, nothing can be done to bring those people back.
4) Not only is it a dangerous power, but it is one that corrupts society in general. State sanctioned murder in its more accepted form, war, has been the downfall of several major Democracies and will continue to be a cancer that must be caught and eliminated quickly to save any progressive society. The judicial murder you propose we accept has a more subtle effect on society. The proliferation of murder. You can continue to ignore me when I raise this point, but societies that murder their own citizens have higher crime rates, not lower.
That is why I do not support judicial slaughter. Even in a post revolutionary society.
Perhaps...but that seems to me to be preferable to declaring myself a "genius" and an "expert".
I really have no difficulties with your general line of argument as it relates to present-day society. It is "reformist" in spirit, of course...but I've never been against reformists trying their best to introduce whatever reforms they think might be helpful. If you think that abolition of the death penalty serves to reduce the power of government under class society and want to fight for that...go right ahead.
Under capitalism, whether one is executed after 3-5 years of psychological torture or is tortured daily for 30 or 40 or 50 years in a hell-hole prison is a "choice" that is pretty meaningless. Immediate suicide would be preferable, in my view, to either of those "alternatives".
The humane alternative that would exist in communist society, in my view, would escape both of those horrors. If you got caught and convicted of serious violence against another human being, then within a few months, you'd be fertilizer.
And that's it. No prisons. No long periods of false hopes and dreaded expectations. A quick trial, a quicker review, and you're history.
(Trials would be held, I think, in the communities where the crime took place and might involve juries of as many as 500 citizens...as the Athenians once did it. Alternatively, neighboring communities could have a "swap" agreement...they try all of your cases and you try all of theirs, so as to avoid community bias.)
Contrary to your inferences, I do not think that such a procedure would lead to any "increase" in "government power" or anything like that. We're not talking about "political crimes" or "bad thoughts" here.
This is about individuals who have shown the willingness to inflict severe violence on innocent people...should they get the chance to do it again?
You say yes; I say no.
The Redstar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas
Listen to the worm of doubt for it speaks truth.
The Redstar2000 Papers
Also see this NEW SITE:@nti-dialectics
Well, you're right, it is better than calling yourself a genius and an expert
I like what you're saying in terms of judgement and juries. However, I'd say there's the danger of mob mentality if they had the right to kill.
Plus, the death penalty would likely be even more of a rot to the community because of how close the community is. It's not somebody you don't know, someone killed by a judge, it's someone you've all lived with for a long time, who you all decided to kill.
However, I do see how it can be dangerous to keep someone like that around when there's such a small community. However, if they're going to deal with people who attempt to hoard resources, or people who assault, they're going to have to be able to hold people who may become a danger to the community. So murderers won't be that different.
They will all be held in much more humane prison grounds. Pretty much neighbourhoods that are fenced in. With grass, houses, etc.
I don't see what's wrong with that, and they could also have psychiatrists visiting constantly. Psychiatrists who could decide if and when to let them out. If they showed signs of changing their behaviour, caring for the community more, they could be let out and reintegrated.
As for those that were talking about dumping them on an island, that's how Australia was created, it ended up turning into a racist, violent, right-wing society. I'd say we wanna avoid that now :P
