|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| The death penalty |
| For |
|
25% |
[ 10 ] |
| Against |
|
67% |
[ 27 ] |
| Don't care |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Don't know |
|
7% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 40 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
"If killing someone is wrong, then killing someone is wrong."-George Carlin
Who said killing is wrong? Besides a once-great comedian, that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:28 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Who said killing is wrong? Besides a once-great comedian, that is. |
Do I need to answer that?
Or are you deriding him for being a comedian?
Who should we listen to? A politician?
Who said killing is right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Who said killing is wrong? Besides a once-great comedian, that is. |
The question is, why do you think that killing someone is right? Because it's "punishment" or because it's state sponsored? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Who said killing is wrong? Besides a once-great comedian, that is. |
The question is, why do you think that killing someone is right? Because it's "punishment" or because it's state sponsored? |
I'm not saying killing is right. I'm saying that sometimes it is permissible. As in self-defense or in wartime. What I object to is murder or manslaughter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:31 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Oh, OK. I see.
Pardon me for that indiscretion.
I forgot.
Thou shalt not manslaughter.
Thou shalt not murder in the 2nd or the First, but the 3rd is permissible if he's comin' at you with a pitchfork.
Silly comedian.
Excellent point.
We give the condemned a machete before we line him up before the firing squad. At the call of CHARGE he gets to cut down as many riflemen as he can before they blow him away.
Self-defense. Fair and square. Time to wash the hands.
I'd never thought of that. Grotto had a point too. Were I to face capital punishment, rather than being lethally injected or electrocuted, I'd far prefer it if someone just snuck up behind me and brained me with a toilet lid, a la Daumer.
To his defense, I believe Carlin said something to the effect that if people were being killed by the government in an orchestrated, civilized setting, then we weren't actually civilized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't read all four pages of this thread, so if I am repeating everybody then I apologize.
The death penalty is an inappropriate tool of public policy for the following reasons:
1) It is impossible to be 100% certain 100% of the time, in regards to a persons guilt. This means that if you have the death penalty in your nation, eventually, you will kill an innocent. It is a certainty.
2) Two wrongs don't make a right.
3) Killing neither punishes (in a meaningful way) or rehabilitates the criminal. I suppose you could argue that it protects society as the killed will certainly never kill again, but so would keeping the thug in jail.
4) Two wrongs don't make a right.
5) The state does not have the authority, in my mind, to take the life of her citizens. The role of the state is the protection of her citizens, and that negates killing some of them.
That's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
I think that the Pro-lifers being Pro-DP and the Pro-choicers being anti-DP are the same.
I can see both sides, yet I don't agree with either of them. Pro-choice/anti-DP people feel that a woman's right to choose supercedes the life of the baby in her womb. They also feel that the DP is barbaric and antiquated, or that innocent people could be executed by mistake. Fact is that if the woman did nothing, that life would come to fruition. The woman has to actually kill the fetus inside of her. That is no different than killing a legitimate murderer, in my opinion. |
That's the crux of the problem: in your opinion. The point was made very well above that there is a huge difference between the death penalty and abortion. A criminal is universally considered to be a life. A fetus is not. Thus, it is a philosophical issue, not a legal , ethical or moral one. You cannot legislate philosophy!!!
When does life begin?? The moment there is a universally accepted answer to that question you can begin legislating abortion to your heart's content.
You are failing to accept the other side's right to an opinion. Problem is, in legal issues intent is key. If I kill with full knowledge I am ending a person's life, I have committed murder. If I remove what I consider to be a growth, but not a person, it's not much different from having a wart removed. (Don't go flaming me, I am just trying to be as clear as possible.) How can you prosecute someone for that??
On to the death penalty.
When I was religious, this was a cut-and-dried issue: God gives and takes life; God determines the punishment for our sins. It's eye-for-an-eye, and Jesus ended that a loooong time ago. Where's "turn the other cheek" in the equation? No death penalty. To claim to be religious, well, Christian, and support the death penalty cannot but be hypocrisy. God decides.
I am no longer religious, but still don't support the death penalty. One, the killing of innocents. Makes me think of sacrificial rites or something. This I also thought when religious, so all the more reason not to support it. Two, is it any less barbaric than hanging people back in the Old West? Nope. Three, why? What's the point? There are other options. This brings us to the argument FOR. Cost.
Keeping inmates alive is very expensive. We essentially pay each and every one about 45k a year. That's what each costs. (Who says we don't have effective welfare?) I think a penal colony is just fine for the serious scumbags among us. Rapists, murderers, pedophiles, junk bond kings, this Jack Abramoff and his co-horts...
If you saw "Escape fom NY", you've seen the perfect answer to serious crime. Low-cost, the criminal remains almost completely in control of their life, and they make the choice with their actions. Build a wall, provide the bare minimum of stuff required for survival and basic (not necessarily good) health, and let them live out their days in peace or perpetual war. Their choice.
For lesser crimes, every imate should be working in the community somehow - with a strong eye on security of course. This sitting watching TV, lifting weights, etc., is for the birds. We've got a million trash collectors, toilet scrubbers, etc., sitting doing nothing. Total B.S. I've never understood how we got to the point that an inmate should expect a comfortable existence. Abuse? No. Degradation? No. But comfort and a free ride? HELL no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Inevitably, unavoidably, innocent people will be killed. |
You could say the same about a number of things. We allow people to drive cars, and inevitably, unavoidably, innocent people, many of them children, will be killed. Yet we accept this risk that comes with allowing people to drive around in what are, effectively, lethal weapons. |
This is the same as saying don't ever go outside because lightning kills, so going outside is to be always avoide and may, damnit! be unethical and immoral!! You can't equate the societal choice to slaughter people with the societal need to move about. Well, you can, but then I have to laugh at you.
Now, if you said smoking or alcohol use.... which are truly choices... we could discuss those. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| 5) The state does not have the authority, in my mind, to take the life of her citizens. The role of the state is the protection of her citizens, and that negates killing some of them. |
I'm a little miffed at myself for never thinking of that. *sigh* It's so sad to be confronted with your own limitations...
I hate you.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| 3) Killing neither punishes (in a meaningful way) or rehabilitates the criminal. I suppose you could argue that it protects society as the killed will certainly never kill again, but so would keeping the thug in jail. |
The same could be said for prison. How many inmates are sent to prison and when they get out just re-offend? The fact of the matter is: you can ensure that only guilty people are executed if: You only execute those who are in jail for their 3'rd peice of hardtime, only execute those when the evidence is overwhelming...you could probably thin out the prison populations by 30-40%
Jailing someone for the rest of their lives is what I consider cruel and unusual punishment. They cease to be of any value to society and nothing more than a burden on the taxpayer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
| Jailing someone for the rest of their lives is what I consider cruel and unusual punishment. They cease to be of any value to society and nothing more than a burden on the taxpayer. |
What do you think of the E f NY idea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFNY would be an interesting social experiment.
Would it be a dog eat dog world?
Would they break down into racially segregated gangs each feeding off the other?
Would they be forced to learn how to cooperate in order to survive?
Would they founder and die?
Do you actually think that an EFNY type prison would actually be the death penalty or the alternitive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Who said killing is right? |
U.S. jurisprudence recognizes "justifiable homicide."
So "killing" is not a yes/no either/or black/white issue, at least not in the California Penal Code.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/187-199.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Oh, OK. I see.
Pardon me for that indiscretion.
I forgot.
Thou shalt not manslaughter.
Thou shalt not murder in the 2nd or the First, but the 3rd is permissible if he's comin' at you with a pitchfork.
Silly comedian.
Excellent point.
We give the condemned a machete before we line him up before the firing squad. At the call of CHARGE he gets to cut down as many riflemen as he can before they blow him away.
Self-defense. Fair and square. Time to wash the hands.
I'd never thought of that. Grotto had a point too. Were I to face capital punishment, rather than being lethally injected or electrocuted, I'd far prefer it if someone just snuck up behind me and brained me with a toilet lid, a la Daumer.
To his defense, I believe Carlin said something to the effect that if people were being killed by the government in an orchestrated, civilized setting, then we weren't actually civilized. |
It's an important point. I've seen Carlin rant live against the hypocracy of the Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill,' in an Old Testament full of righteous killing. But it was quite obvious that Carlin never earned enough respect for the Bible to study Hebrew. He would know the translation was bad.
Again, I'm being a stickler not only because George Carlin is a pompous know-it-all-asshole, but also because its relevent to the discussion. All killing isn't wrong, as Gopher states. When I saw words like barbaric and uncivilized being thrown out there (and let us pause to reflect on the relativistic hypocracy of such statements, I would never expect to hear such condemnations of the Aztecs, for that would be 'ethnocentric'), I decided to bring up the distinction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
I think that the Pro-lifers being Pro-DP and the Pro-choicers being anti-DP are the same.
I can see both sides, yet I don't agree with either of them. Pro-choice/anti-DP people feel that a woman's right to choose supercedes the life of the baby in her womb. They also feel that the DP is barbaric and antiquated, or that innocent people could be executed by mistake. Fact is that if the woman did nothing, that life would come to fruition. The woman has to actually kill the fetus inside of her. That is no different than killing a legitimate murderer, in my opinion. |
That's the crux of the problem: in your opinion. The point was made very well above that there is a huge difference between the death penalty and abortion. A criminal is universally considered to be a life. A fetus is not. Thus, it is a philosophical issue, not a legal , ethical or moral one. You cannot legislate philosophy!!!
When does life begin?? The moment there is a universally accepted answer to that question you can begin legislating abortion to your heart's content.
You are failing to accept the other side's right to an opinion. Problem is, in legal issues intent is key. If I kill with full knowledge I am ending a person's life, I have committed murder. If I remove what I consider to be a growth, but not a person, it's not much different from having a wart removed. (Don't go flaming me, I am just trying to be as clear as possible.) How can you prosecute someone for that?? |
Are you sniffing glue again?
I said that it was my opinion, and I was not trying to justify either the opinion that you quoted or the one you purposefully omitted. I was stating both arguments and saying why I had that opinion. I was not "failing to accept the other side's opinion." I wasn't accepting either side of what I was talking about, which was people who are anti-DP being pro-choice and people who are pro-DP being pro-life.
I support the death penalty and I support a woman's right to choose, and just because you don't think that a fetus is a life doesn't mean that others don't.
I am willing to bet that you are pro-choice/anti-DP. Which IN MY OPINION makes you the exact same as the other side.
I particularly like this statement:
| Quote: |
| You cannot legislate philosophy!!! |
Isn't that what you are trying to do? I don't think Roe v. Wade should or will ever be overturned. However, your philosophy isn't everyone's philosophy now, is it?
| Quote: |
| You are failing to accept the other side's right to an opinion. |
Am I? Really? Because I thought that that entire post, of which you only quoted half, was entirely about me accepting others' opinions! I'll quote myself so that the entire post can be seen. I'll enven boldface the important clues for you.
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
I think that the Pro-lifers being Pro-DP and the Pro-choicers being anti-DP are the same.
I can see both sides, yet I don't agree with either of them. Pro-choice/anti-DP people feel that a woman's right to choose supercedes the life of the baby in her womb. They also feel that the DP is barbaric and antiquated, or that innocent people could be executed by mistake. Fact is that if the woman did nothing, that life would come to fruition. The woman has to actually kill the fetus inside of her. That is no different than killing a legitimate murderer, in my opinion. (I say "legitimate" in the "Seven cops, you, your mother, his mother, DNA, videotape, and the Pope all watched the murder so there's no doubt of his guilt" sense.)
Here's what the pro-life/pro-DP people think... They think that the fetus is a life. Not only that, but that life is innocent in the eyes of God. (I only use that because most pro-lifers base their feelings on their religion.) The criminal that is executed is guilty and has commited a horrible crime against society. However, I guess they miss the whole "Vengeance is mine" part of the Bible. Therefore, they see the loss of the innocent life as bad, but the death of the guilty man as good.
Therefore, in my opinion, they are the same. |
See, Isn't it a little more clear now? can you fully grasp that I was simply stating both sides of the argument? Can you? Can you?
| Quote: |
| The point was made very well above that there is a huge difference between the death penalty and abortion. |
Wrong. It was attempted to be made. Asserted, at best. Just becasue it is your opinion that they are different doesn't mean that they are. You know what your problem is, EFLTrainer?
| Quote: |
| You are failing to accept the other side's right to an opinion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
