Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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?
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.
*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?
The state judges whether or not the right was willfully given up by the perpetrator of a heinous crime.
Justice should be proportional, and rely on something intentional, especially in the most extreme consequences.
Incorrect, and flawed logic besides.Nope, if it was "willfully given up" they would ask for death.
well, newsflash. I don't think people are willingly murdered all the time. They get it forced upon them.What happens is the state decides if it will be forcefully removed from someone who is accused of having removed it from someone else.
Incorrect, and flawed logic besides.
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.
Who's innocent again?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?
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.Perhaps I should have stated that if they would have no issue with their death. How is the logic flawed?
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.
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.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.
I don't see why this is "obvious". It certainly isn't "obvious" to me.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
I don't think that life in prison (the alternative to capital punishment) can be considered, by any definition, "an easy ride".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.
It is a choice nonetheless, one that results in giving up that right.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.
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.Agreed. Though I do not think all murders should receive the death penalty.
Didn't say you were, though that would be a result.I am not advocating giving people an easy ride.
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.I am advocating keeping them in prison instead of killing them.
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.If they are in prison and you find out they are innocent you can let them go.
Try impossible for all but God. Commit to the answer, please.It is kind of hard to unkill someone.
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).I don't see the pursuit of justice being worth the life of an innocent person.
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).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.
.... Good idea.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?
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.Does one "give up" the "right to free speech" by committing perjury?
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.Why is it just the "right to life" that is "given up" when one takes that right from another?
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.I don't think that life in prison (the alternative to capital punishment) can be considered, by any definition, "an easy ride".
You were the one bringing up the idea that lives and the takings of life are not all equal.a life was taken. They are equal, so why not treat them equally?
I feel that the only right given up by being convicted of a crime is the "right to freedom".It is a choice nonetheless, one that results in giving up that right.
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.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?
See, I don't think that rights exist separate from society. I guess I'm a "social contract" sort of person.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.
AgreedIt is a choice nonetheless, one that results in giving up that right.
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?
Didn't say you were, though that would be a result.
YesEver 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.
Families, law students, a cop who might be convinced of their innocence. The same way people get exonerated today.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.
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 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?