Why have so many american problem with abortion of small americans...but no Problem

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

What's the difference when vengance is just your sub-concious encouraging you to remove a potential threat from society?

Or does justice have a different definition?

*sigh*
You seem to think there is no such thing as an unbiased, outside view of a situation, which enables a judgment call to be made after sufficient evidence and testimony have been provided.
I weep for America's judicial system.
Justice does not have a different definition. So which one are you using that justice and vengeance (perhaps I should have said revenge) are synonyms?

 

[fated]

What's the difference when vengance is just your sub-concious encouraging you to remove a potential threat from society?

Or does justice have a different definition?

Justice should be proportional, and rely on something intentional, especially in the most extreme consequences.

 

[Belk]

Life is a right, but a society must have justice and protect itself, so, at some point the right to life is given up as a matter of reason.

Then the right is given by the state. Otherwise it would not have the authority to remove it.

 

[fated]

Then the right is given by the state. Otherwise it would not have the authority to remove it.

The state judges whether or not the right was willfully given up by the perpetrator of a heinous crime.

 

[Belk]

*sigh*
You seem to think there is no such thing as an unbiased, outside view of a situation, which enables a judgment call to be made after sufficient evidence and testimony have been provided.
I weep for America's judicial system.
Justice does not have a different definition. So which one are you using that justice and vengeance (perhaps I should have said revenge) are synonyms?

But is death justice? Especially given the fact there have been so many exoneration's from death row. Is the pursuit of justice worth the death of an innocent man? Especially if we have other options?

 

[Belk]

The state judges whether or not the right was willfully given up by the perpetrator of a heinous crime.

Nope, if it was "willfully given up" they would ask for death. What happens is the state decides if it will be forcefully removed from someone who is accused of having removed it from someone else.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

Justice should be proportional, and rely on something intentional, especially in the most extreme consequences.

EXAMPLE: You killed ten people. Your life is now forfeit.
I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

Nope, if it was "willfully given up" they would ask for death.

Incorrect, and flawed logic besides.

What happens is the state decides if it will be forcefully removed from someone who is accused of having removed it from someone else.

well, newsflash. I don't think people are willingly murdered all the time. They get it forced upon them.
So it's quite proportional when you think about it that way.

 

[Belk]

Incorrect, and flawed logic besides.

Perhaps I should have stated that if they would have no issue with their death. How is the logic flawed?

well, newsflash. I don't think people are willingly murdered all the time. They get it forced upon them.
So it's quite proportional when you think about it that way.

Oh, I have no argument with the proportionality. My issue lies in the possibility of executing someone innocent. If I felt like we could come up with a flawless system I would have no issue with execution.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

But is death justice? Especially given the fact there have been so many exoneration's from death row. Is the pursuit of justice worth the death of an innocent man? Especially if we have other options?

Who's innocent again?
I was referring to murderers in my example. Murderers are not innocent.
That's why I also stated "when provided sufficient evidence and testimony". If the facts contradict so much it is deduced that the current defendant is actually not guilty, then boom.
This is why I weep for the judicial system.
You seem to have missed the mark completely.
And death can be justice. And what other options?
Send them to prison so they can become even worse criminals?
Release them on society so that they have the ability to murder again?

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

Perhaps I should have stated that if they would have no issue with their death. How is the logic flawed?

You can willfully give something up, like right to life, without asking for death. When you murder someone, you give up your right to live, IMO, as you just violated that same right of another human being.

Oh, I have no argument with the proportionality. My issue lies in the possibility of executing someone innocent. If I felt like we could come up with a flawless system I would have no issue with execution.

There are flaws in any system. Innocent people have been sentenced to prison before. But that doesn't mean we should let the people who really are guilty to get an easy ride.

 

[WatersMoon110]

If rights are subject to the whim of the majority, our system devolves into a situation cyclical oppression of minorities; Of destruction of the past majority. Thus, it makes sense, then, to assume that certain rights must exist outside of the government jurisdiction.

Um...our government is the one who makes sure to protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority. I don't see why it makes sense to assume that rights exist somehow separate from the government.

The obvious first one is the right to life. Settling a lawsuit against the right to life, especially in the case of one who has done nothing wrong, is just such an imprudent decision.

I don't see why this is "obvious". It certainly isn't "obvious" to me.

And I don't know if you are fairly quoting me. One's right to life is is waived by an individual committing a grave offense to society, for which the society can then determine how to defend itself.

So you are saying that even though the legal system declares that everyone must be treats as "innocent until proven guilty" a murder defendant has already "lost" their "right to life"? When does it go away? What about people who are wrongly acquitted, do they still have their right to life?

Simply existing, as the rest of us have, in a mother's womb, clearly brings no guilt demanding death, otherwise we would all be guilty of such a grave offense.

I feel that pregnant women, by making the choice to carry a pregnancy to term, have given permission to the unborn human they carry to continue to use their body. Without that permission, I do feel it is within a pregnant woman's right to demand immediate removal of an unborn human so that it is no longer using her body against her will.

Unfortunately, the only immediate ways to remove an non-viable unborn human result in the death of that unborn human. Until there is an alternative, however, I feel it is unethical to take a way a pregnant woman's right to control her own body by making elective abortion illegal.

 

[Belk]

You can willfully give something up, like right to life, without asking for death.

True, I should have phrased it better. However I do not think killing someone is the same as willingly giving up your right to life.

When you murder someone, you give up your right to live, IMO, as you just violated that same right of another human being.

Agreed. Though I do not think all murders should receive the death penalty.

There are flaws in any system. Innocent people have been sentenced to prison before. But that doesn't mean we should let the people who really are guilty to get an easy ride.

I am not advocating giving people an easy ride. I am advocating keeping them in prison instead of killing them. If they are in prison and you find out they are innocent you can let them go. It is kind of hard to unkill someone. I don't see the pursuit of justice being worth the life of an innocent person.

 

[WatersMoon110]

You can willfully give something up, like right to life, without asking for death. When you murder someone, you give up your right to live, IMO, as you just violated that same right of another human being.

You aren't making a case, you are just stating that it is your opinion that killing another human (or being found guilty of doing so by jury trial) is "willingly giving up the right to life". But stating such doesn't make it so.

Let's consider other crimes, if one "gives up" the "right to life" by killing another human, then does one "give up" the "right to own property" by stealing? Does one "give up" the "right to free speech" by committing perjury?

Why is it just the "right to life" that is "given up" when one takes that right from another?

There are flaws in any system. Innocent people have been sentenced to prison before. But that doesn't mean we should let the people who really are guilty to get an easy ride.

I don't think that life in prison (the alternative to capital punishment) can be considered, by any definition, "an easy ride".

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

True, I should have phrased it better. However I do not think killing someone is the same as willingly giving up your right to life.

It is a choice nonetheless, one that results in giving up that right.

Agreed. Though I do not think all murders should receive the death penalty.

That's like saying that all sin is not the same black spot to God. Don't know your religion, but think of it from those shoes, and you'll see why it seems ridiculous.
Murder is murder. How heinous it was doesn't matter; a life was taken. They are equal, so why not treat them equally?

I am not advocating giving people an easy ride.

Didn't say you were, though that would be a result.

I am advocating keeping them in prison instead of killing them.

Ever think maybe people are worse off for going to prison? I personally like the comedy movie "Let's Go To Prison", wherein it does say some things that are quite true. In the beginning anyway.
Based off of a book btw.

If they are in prison and you find out they are innocent you can let them go.

True. But who would bother investigating if they are really innocent or not when everyone thinks them guilty? They would be stuck there for life.

It is kind of hard to unkill someone.

Try impossible for all but God. Commit to the answer, please. Yes, I'm being silly, don't take that too seriously... except for the God part of course.

I don't see the pursuit of justice being worth the life of an innocent person.

I do. Unfair? Yes. But I would rather save hundreds, if not thousands of lives, than just one innocent for every 9 murderers that are rereleased upon society (not really statistics, possibly exaggeration).

It sucks. But I wouldn't change it even if I were framed for a murder and found guilty.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

You aren't making a case, you are just stating that it is your opinion that killing another human (or being found guilty of doing so by jury trial) is "willingly giving up the right to life". But stating such doesn't make it so.

Did I say it wasn't my opinion? I apologize if I did so. But don't automatically assume I'm biased (that's a precaution, someone else seems to think so in another thread for a complete misunderstanding, not saying you think that).

Let's consider other crimes, if one "gives up" the "right to life" by killing another human, then does one "give up" the "right to own property" by stealing?

.... Good idea.

Does one "give up" the "right to free speech" by committing perjury?

That's a right given by the constitution. I'm talking about the rights ALL people have independant of government (though government exists to protect those rights, or should anyway) in a perfect world. Unfortunately, "If Men were Angels, there would be no need for Government". I think that was Alexander Hamilton.

Why is it just the "right to life" that is "given up" when one takes that right from another?

Because the right was taken from the person? I thought we were about being proportional in punishment here. It's not unreasonable to have justice carried out with one life for another. Though it can easily be caught up in the desire for revenge. It's a dangerous path to tread, I'm sure.
If people were perfect there wouldn't be discussions like this. Murder would probably not be a word in the dictionary even.

I don't think that life in prison (the alternative to capital punishment) can be considered, by any definition, "an easy ride".

I never said it was. But some people don't get life, then they get probation, then they go out into the real world again. And many offend a second time. That's what I refer to.
And I know about prison, my father is a prison guard. I think he doesn't tell us most of the things that go on in there, and I don't want to really know, but I know enough from what he does tell me that prison is a kind of hell on this earth.

 

[quatona]

a life was taken. They are equal, so why not treat them equally?

You were the one bringing up the idea that lives and the takings of life are not all equal.

 

[WatersMoon110]

It is a choice nonetheless, one that results in giving up that right.

I feel that the only right given up by being convicted of a crime is the "right to freedom".

That's like saying that all sin is not the same black spot to God. Don't know your religion, but think of it from those shoes, and you'll see why it seems ridiculous.
Murder is murder. How heinous it was doesn't matter; a life was taken. They are equal, so why not treat them equally?

Because murderers are not equal. Most human killings are crimes of passion, they are done as a reaction to something horrible happening. People who kill in the spur of the moment are usually not likely to kill again. They usually serve a long jail/prison sentence and are released. They really don't pose a threat to others.

Some murderers are clinically insane (I personally feel that one has to be somewhat crazy to even think of killing another person). They are delusional and sometimes can be treated with medication. Such people are usually court ordered into State or Private mental health institutions, and I believe that many of them live out their lives there.

Some murderers commit hate crimes. They are motivated by the hatred of a given group of people, and act out upon individuals they consider members of that group. They almost always pose a threat to the other members of that group. Such people are often given life in prison.

And some murderers kill for other reasons, money, power, pleasure. They have numerous reasons. Really, every case needs to be considered separately, and punished as seen fit by a jury. That is, after all, why we have trial by jury. Because every case is different and needs to be carefully considered by itself.

 

[WatersMoon110]

That's a right given by the constitution. I'm talking about the rights ALL people have independant of government (though government exists to protect those rights, or should anyway) in a perfect world. Unfortunately, "If Men were Angels, there would be no need for Government". I think that was Alexander Hamilton.

See, I don't think that rights exist separate from society. I guess I'm a "social contract" sort of person.

Life, Liberty, and Property, aren't they? The rights that supposedly everyone is born with?

Natural Rights are such a huge issue, that I think we should probably start another thread just to discuss it.

 

[Belk]

It is a choice nonetheless, one that results in giving up that right.

Agreed

That's like saying that all sin is not the same black spot to God. Don't know your religion, but think of it from those shoes, and you'll see why it seems ridiculous.
Murder is murder. How heinous it was doesn't matter; a life was taken. They are equal, so why not treat them equally?

Should someone who accidentally shot someone be killed? How about a drunk driver? You are correct, though, that there should be consistency. The question is where do you draw the line?

(Agnostic BTW)

Didn't say you were, though that would be a result.

Not to my mind

Ever think maybe people are worse off for going to prison?

Yes

I personally like the comedy movie "Let's Go To Prison", wherein it does say some things that are quite true. In the beginning anyway.
Based off of a book btw.

Interesting, added to my netflix queue.

True. But who would bother investigating if they are really innocent or not when everyone thinks them guilty? They would be stuck there for life.

Families, law students, a cop who might be convinced of their innocence. The same way people get exonerated today.

Try impossible for all but God. Commit to the answer, please. Yes, I'm being silly, don't take that too seriously... except for the God part of course.

My answer had tongue firmly implanted in cheek, I assure you.

I do. Unfair? Yes. But I would rather save hundreds, if not thousands of lives, than just one innocent for every 9 murderers that are rereleased upon society (not really statistics, possibly exaggeration).


It sucks. But I wouldn't change it even if I were framed for a murder and found guilty.

Huh. well that kind of shoots my argument that relies on the fundamental injustice state sanctioned killing of an innocent all to heck. Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.