Beastt said:
Can you provide something of substance to support this claim?
Perhaps the quote is "overworked", as you say, because many people see a lot of wisdom in its message. And until you can provide some support for your claim concerning motive, perhaps it would be best to refrain from referring to it as a "fact".
Again, I think you need to provide some statistical support for your claim that the majority of homicides are unprovoked.
I think it would be more correct to back up and have you substantiate your claim that it is. I will say that in the years I have known my father, who has worked as a criminal defense lawyer, an ADA, and a DA, I have yet to hear of a case where a murder was commited because someone else was first killed. It is rare, and if you think not, then feel free to show me I am wrong.
Beastt said:
You seem to be ignoring the fact that it stops the cycle one step further into the violence than is necessary. And it also tells people that vindictive retribution is acceptable.
Necessary in whose eyes? Yours? Why? This goes back to the very first post I made that you have as yet failed to address. How do we decide what is and is not a proper punishment?
Beastt said:
The cycle could just as well be ended through life in prison and with the blood of one less person on the hands of society. You can't make a very credible argument against violence when the answer you propose is additional violence.
I can't make it to you, but then again you are not the end all of public policy, nor for that matter am I. Still, if you are the one insisting the death penalty is wrong, is it asking that much for you to explain how and why?
Beastt said:
We're talking about human lives here, not a basketball game. You can't "even the score" by continuing the killing.
Can't you? If it makes it easier for the relatives and friends of the victime, then perhaps it does. Or perhaps that's not even the point. Perhaps it is just unfair to let someone get away with such a thing without a punishment that fits the crime.
Beastt said:
Using that logic do you feel it would be appropriate to assault those convicted of assault? Would you be in favor of having them restrained while the victim of their assault then assaulted them? What about sexual assault? Where does it end?
I am not opposed either to more direct punishment nor what we have today. I have to say though that dragging the entire legal code into this discussion seems pretty red-herring-esque to me.
Beastt said:
If you're not in favor, then apparently you don't believe what you're saying about a persons right to vengeance or societies lack of right to restrict that vengeance to avoid futher violence.
Unfounded assertion following red herring. I might as well repeat that as yet you have in no way established how it is you claim moral superiority for your viewpoint, while simultaneously piling on responsibility after responsibility for ME to explain things to YOU.
I do not accept your assertion that I am responsible for all this. Rather, if you are going to judge all people who believe in the death penalty as immoral or unethical, you need to establish that yourself.
Beastt said:
The problem revolves around the fact that careers are made or broken on the basis of conviction of those accused of capital crimes. Once the public hears that someone has been charged with a homicide, few want to consider the possibility that they may be innocent. Once charged in such a case, a fair trial is beyond the reach of the accused. Nothing you or I can do will change that. But we could at least stop killing innocents at a rate of at least 1 in 20. When you consider how few investigations continue beyond the point of execution, there is good reason to believe that the actual number of executed innocents is much higher. When you recognize that the system is malfunctioning to that degree, is it not prudent to at least place limitations on the damage?
I think I said it above, but to repeat, if I thought the system would take advantage of such a moritorium to fix things, I would be for it. As it is, it looks more like just one more step towards a system where authorities exercise direct control over people vs. listening to what people want and making a society of, by and for the people.
Beastt said:
Who here said anything about banning the punishment of crime?
No one, least of all me. I said specifically a punishment that matches the crime.
Beastt said:
Again, no one is suggesting that we just let murderers go. I find your need for a "matching punishment" indicative of an inability to seek revenge. Seeking revenge will bring you hatred, anger, violence and an escalation of each of those factors. But it will never put an end to the cycle. A criminal commits a murder and is convicted. The family wants revenge and revenge is granted through the death penalty. Do you really think it ends there? Do you not realize that there are family members of the convicted who will now seek their own revenge?
Fact is, families of murderers tend to want to appologize to the victim's families when they are presented with good evidence that their relative did indeed commit the murder. Even if they are angry, few seem to take matters into their own hands. You are inventing a problem here that does not exist.
Beastt said:
I'm not sure how there can be any question. Certainly the lesser of two evils is the one which allows someone who may have been convicted wrongfully to continue to live. Perhaps in time their case can be over-turned. This is supposed to be the function of the appeals system but it obviously fails when we later find that 5% of those executed were innocent. If they had not been executed, they could be attempting to rebuild their lives. But we've eliminated any potential to right the wrong done against them when we take their lives.
"Certainly the lesser of two evils is the one which allows someone who may have been convicted wrongfully to continue to live." Of course.... who could argue with that? Unfortunately, that is not both the evils. The other one is that a person who commited a murder, even one that was witnessed and on tape and iron clad, never pays for that crime to the degree that it impacted his or her victime. Understand, when people give over their rights to the government to take care of criminal justice, and the government then abuses that trust to victimize again those who suffer at the hands of criminals, indeed that casts the criminal and the victim as one and the same value to society, that government begins to lose its legitimacy in the eyes of those it victimizes and judges wrongly.
I have to repeat, there is a difference between the innocent and the guilty.
Beastt said:
Perhaps I missed the announcement placing you in charge of the forum. When multiple users are quite happy with the discussion as is, and then someone else pops in after nearly 100 posts and openly chastizes the entire active membership in the thread, perhaps they deserve a little of what they get. If you're unable to accept that, you now have the knowledge to avoid it in the future.
I didn't name a single name, but if the shoe fits...
I saw enough name calling and character assassination in this thread to warrant a comment on it. I have the right to comment on it. I think the political polarization that colors these sorts of discussions is counterproductive. You, for your part, merely started right out insulting me specifically and personally. Now you are desperately trying to change the subject or somehow shift the blame.
I didn't point a finger at you.
Beastt said:
I have no problem with you posting here. The problem is that you came into the thread like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Do you even start to comprehend the arrogance you displayed in your opening post here? My people skills are certainly lacking at times but it's nice to know that I'm far from the worst example. For that bit of knowledge, I suppose I owe you a word of thanks.
And there's the proof in the pudding right there. One more personal attack. I don't think I have seen a single post by anyone opposed to the death penalty yet that doesn't take a pot shot at me, or at the very least anyone in general who does not agree wholeheartedly that the death penalty is universally wrong.
I am not even entirely pro death penalty and I get this treatment. Heh...